草莓拌饭组 ARGUMENT接力帖

dairymanUID: 2683905

15# stupidsteve
我说怎么看不懂ss的，原来这里有个问题
作者是这么说的，在彗星带来水之前，地球是一只直形成过程中的。前面提到了space rocks。可以这么理解，在地球达到现在这个size的时候至少被x个space rocks撞击了，而第x-1个陨石撞击后的地球就是个临界点。在第x-1个撞了之后，地球还没那么大的质量，所以还没法把从地球挥发的水分固定住，形成大气。当第x个撞了以后，地球够质量了，那么此时再挥发的水就是形成大气层的水了。
作者其实是想把地球形成和形成大气层分成两个过程来说明。第一个过程，地球行程中，很热，质量还不够，所以形成不了大气层。所谓的之前地球的水包括这一阵子的，这个过程无论有没有彗星来撞击都无所谓，因为反正质量不够，根据作者的逻辑，即便有彗星来，所有水都米有了。
第二个过程，地球初具规模，已然可以形成大气层了。此时再出现彗星的撞击，那么根据作者所言，水就成为大气层唯一的水了。
彗星撞击了多少次，在这个size之前有没有撞击过，这个是没什么影响的，重要的是水的问题。
小眼皮理解有点问题，不是说这个size以后才有彗星，没准之前也有，但是也都挥发掉了，这个地方不要多说，重点找别的点。

stupidsteveUID: 2704849

16# dairyman 奶叔～～～你终于理解我了呀～～～


就是这个意思，顺便认为作者这个过程“临界”实在是太巧了，所以觉得不具备说服力--》（需要的条件太多，而没有什么证据）

奶叔真是 冰雪聪明呀～

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID: 2705887

16# dairyman

嗯，我今天下午思考了一下，作者有隐含的地球是如何形成的观点在里面。

提出这个临界点，如你所说，理解起来就容易了。

PS：不要忘了小手接力的A51题昂，我昨天想了想，不好画图。讨厌医学题目。。。

dairymanUID: 2683905

51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now 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 antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

我都忘了还有接力来着。话说每人每周至少接一次哦！别偷懒
小手说的对，开始别弄太难的，不然不好理解，还是先打好基础吧~（这话我是不是说过一次了……）
作者结论是什么：all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
来读题目~开始先说，医生们怀疑二次感染可能不利于severe muscle strain的快速恢复，然后说，这个假设现在被preliminary的结果来证实了。实验一共分为两个组：一个组由n治疗，是sports medicine专业的，经常用抗生素--意思是用来防止secondary infection的；第二个组是由a来治疗，是 general physician，只给安慰剂placebo，但是病人以为自己用的是抗生素。结果是：n组的病人好的快，a组病人好的速度没有改变，基本还是那样。

好了，作者的逻辑链是什么？
1.preliminary的实验结果就是正式的，多次反复的实验结果。所以结果可信---那显然不行，初步的结果是要反复验证的
2.两个组就够说明问题了了--被调查者数量不详，体质，病重病轻不详，调查类错误，不多说
3.医生都有，所以有可比性，正好有实验组，对照组---两个组的医生不一样啊，一个是专业的sports medicine，精于此道，另一个是general physician，基本不了解这种病的详细情况---其实属于对比组的失误，和2有点像，可以合并一下
4.实验证明了两点：第一，没用抗生素，病人好的不快，说明二次感染会使病人好的慢；第二，用了抗生素，病人好的快，所以用抗生素可以防止二次感染，从而让病人好的快。
（顺便提醒大家，务必要注意各种定语，这些定语很多是批驳的重点）
重点在那一条上面。大家可以看出来，开篇第一句话，作者先说了，有阻碍因素，这个假设在第二句话中被表述为：被proved了，那么作者的思路是，首先第一句话是正确的，实验证明了第一句话，接下来又说明实验证实作者的想法是正确的。大家就明白了，第一句话绝对是批驳重点。首先实验和第一句话基本上没什么关系。其二，其实实验也没法证明作者的想法，这是两个反驳的重要方向，一定别落下任何一个。

没用抗生素的比用抗生素的好的慢就说明抗生素起到作用了么？非也，医生不同，个人体质，病的程度不同，况且两个组的数量不确定，如果不够多那显然是不行的。所以抗生素是否起了作用还是未知数。
即便抗生素起作用了，能说明不用抗生素的就是因为二次感染了所以才好的慢么？那不行
抗生素起作用，是因为防止了二次感染才使得病好的快了么？那肯定是不一定的

这里作者用了个手法，我先给大家讲个故事，大家听了就明白了。说当年施耐庵写水浒传的时候，写到官军开战舰来打水泊梁山，此时他想说明：1.梁山水泊大，2.战舰炮火猛。于是他是这么说的：水泊梁山那个大呀，火炮能打那么远，这一炮才刚刚打到水泊的中间----火炮那个威力猛啊，水泊那么大，这个炮弹都打到水泊中间了。
看懂没有？就是说了半天什么都没证明，纯是拿假想推证据，再拿这个推出来的证据证明假象是正确的。

我们得不出抗生素和二次感染的任何关系，那么作者的这个逻辑就可以否了。还有就是要否抗生素是否需要被如此广泛地运用。即便是从第一句来说抗生素对于severe的有作用，不一定对所有的都有用，因为这个作用机理本身即便不被我们否定，不说明所有肌肉拉伤都得用抗生素呀，这个其实可以当个让步来用。
over-------by 乃公，话说其实这个文章也不容易

dairymanUID: 2683905

忘了出题了：
argument 20此题经典，可以通篇让步。

dairymanUID: 2683905

自出自写了，唉……
Argument 20
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Balmer Island Gazette.
“The population of Balmer Island increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accident involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by each of the island’s six moped and bicycle rental companies from 50 per day to 30 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council is sure to attain the 50 percent reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year in the neighboring island of Torseau, when Torseau’s town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals.”

结论目的：to reduce the number of accident involving mopeds and pedestrians
结论方法：limit the number of mopeds rented by each of the island’s six moped and bicycle rental companies from 50 per day to 30 per day during the summer seasons
预期结果：the council is sure to attain the 50 percent reduction in moped accidents
有这个预期的原因：the same result was achieved last year in neighboring island of T

开始找问题了，这个是经典的错误，通篇是各种错误，大家可以试试通篇让步。
大体思路还是说，用上述方法无法得到预期的结果，也就是结论目的。
按文中顺序来逐一反驳吧：
错误暗含假设一：all the accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians are caused only by the mopeds
错误暗含假设二：all the moped and bicycle rental companies can rent more than 30 or even 50 per day
错误暗含假设三：only by limiting the rental number can island B reduce the number of accidents
错误暗含假设四：the island of T is similar to island B

开始反驳了：
1.        The accidents, which involve both mopeds and pedestrians, may not necessarily be caused by the mopeds riders. It is possible that the pedestrians should be responsible for the accidents because they illegally walk on the street or do not pay attention to the traffic rules. So the limit on the moped riders’ side can help little in improving the whole condition of the traffic accidents.
2.        Even though we admit that the mopeds are the troublemakers, to limit the rental number for each company from 50 to 30 per day still cannot solve problems dramatically. It is possible that the full rental number of the company is below or just around 30. If that is true, the limitation would no doubt have no effect on reducing the accident numbers—the number limit never affect the mopeds which is exactly rented.
3.        Given that the new rule can decrease the number in rental, people still have the freedom to ride a moped because the moped can be bought instead of rented. Moreover, most of the accidents involve mopeds can be caused by people who actually buy them instead of rent them. Those who rent a moped may be much more careful when riding because they have to pay compensation for the rental company if involved in accidents and thus help limit the possibility for accidents’ occurrence. If limitations for the mopeds are useful, then not only the rental mopeds, but also the house-owned moped should be taken into account.
4.        All the suggestions come from the appreciating results from the island of T. When island T executes the limitation, the moped accident numbers decrease in 50 percent. Maybe the limit fit T well, but island of B is different from T. So the rules in T may not work perfectly well in B. Just as the argumentation pointed out, in summer months, the population of B increases to 100,000, and that can be a trouble because when the streets get crowded, the possibility for the accidents to occur is surely higher. If the population of the T Island is much smaller than B, it is possible that the limitation for rental causes the moped in the streets much less and makes the street not so crowded. Accidents of course would decrease in this case. But if the limitation fails to make the streets less crowded --because there are originally too many people, the accident number could still remain at a high level.

基本上是这些了，通篇是可以让步的，因为这个作者的思路很典型的将错就错，每一步都错，虽然这样比较容易让我们知道作者错了，但是却增加了我们一个一个列出来错误的难度。这样看来，这个题是个好题，可以再写写看看。