拜读raccoon前辈的逻辑之后的处女作-A51求狠狠拍

Annie727UID: 2692107

对于英语，我简直就是个婴儿，对自己在这方面的信心为零，今天拜读raccoon前辈的https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... ;tid=412534&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtype%26typeid%3D100和https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... ;tid=416323&extra=page%3D1之后，很受启发，所以强迫自己，绞尽脑筋，利用网络和词典，花了两个小时，挤出来我的argument处女作。。敬请高人指导，猛拍。。

Arguement51 The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis hasnow been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients.The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibioticsregularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average,40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, allbeing treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills,although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their averagerecuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients whoare diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics aspart of their treatment“

In the newsletter, the author concludes that all patientswho are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibioticsas part of their treatment. The conclusion is based on such hypothesis thatdoctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patientsfrom healing quickly after severe muscle strain, which has been proved bypreliminary results of a study of two groups of patients.

First and foremost, there is an obvious logic error, takingapart for the whole. It is supposed that the hypothesis is reasonable andcorrect. In other words, the secondary infections may keep some patients fromhealing quickly after severe muscle strain and the antibiotics are effectivefor them. From the aforementioned hypothesis, we can see that the secondaryinfections just can keep “some” patients from healing quickly after “severe”muscle strain, not all the patients. Therefore, we cannot draw the conclusionthe antibiotics can be applied for “all” the patients. Maybe some of them arenot applicable to take this kind of medicine. Likewise, perhaps the antibioticsis just efficacious and necessary for the patients with severe muscle strain toreduce the recuperation time, and it is unfit and unnecessary for the generalpatients accordingly, let alone all the patients.

In the second place, the author makes an absurd mistake, takingthe probability as a truth (accomplished fact). Even if the foregoingassumption is convincing, that the secondary infections may keep “all” thepatients from healing quickly after muscle strain, it is just a possibility ofmay-keeping, not a certainty of must-keeping. From such likelihood, we are notconvinced by the doctors’ suspecting, to say nothing of well-advising all thepatients to taking antibiotics as part of their treatment. The conclusioncannot be deduced from the unsure presupposition.

Thirdly, suppose it, the presupposition is sufficient andstrong enough for the conclusion. Let us make an examination for the serial proofsthat bolster the supposition.In thefirst group of which the patients took the antibiotics regularly, therecuperation time was 40 percent quicker than typically expected, while in thesecond group of which the patients took the sugar pills as placebo instead ofthe antibiotics in fact, the recuperation time was not significantly reduced.While it seems to be appealing at first glance, the closer scrutiny and morecareful analysis tell us that it is inconvincible as it stands. The authordon’t consider the differences of the two groups, such as the gender, the age,the physical characteristic, the health condition and so forth. Consequently, theseevidences are not dependable and trusty, let alone the conclusion.

To reiterate, it is no doubt that the conclusion ispreposterous and nonsensical.