argument51 第一次批得这么酣畅淋漓……

starshaneUID: 2616355

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The 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."
WORDS: 367
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/3/29 0:25:30

材料的逻辑：二次感染妨碍严重肌肉损伤病人康复，服用抗生素预防二次感染，所以要服用抗生素。

In this newsletter the author asserted that a study has consolidated the hypothesis that secondary infections may hinder recovery process of severe muscle strain. According to the study results, the author suggested that antibiotics should be taken to prevent secondary infections, thus reduce the recuperation. However, I found this deduction barely holds water.

首先，研究对照组人员的构成
1，是不是严重肌肉损伤的，题目中说是针对“severe muscle”，如果不是的话整个研究都没用了
2，原本的身体状况，年龄等会影响康复

In the first place, the author did not mention that the classification of people in the study is fair or not. The original hypothesis suggests that secondary infections influence the healing process of "severe" muscle strain, but the author provided no information for the actual muscle strain condition. Perhaps some of the patients selected for this study are just slightly injured, or one group of patients is of better condition than the other. Moreover, the author mentioned nothing about the physical condition and average age of each group that can also influence the recuperation process. It is possible that patients in one group are generally older than the other group, or they are in poor health, thus the natural recovery power of their body is actually weaker than normal people. If the patients are divided into two groups disproportionally, the experiment itself lost any reliability. To convince me that the study has a scientific foothold, the author should provide more information about the conditions of the patients.

其次对实验的操作，
1，
有没有二次感染，如果都没有发生二次感染的话，自然对康复没有影响
2，
有的话，第一组真的抑制了二次感染而第二组没有吗

Even if the patients are of almost physical condition and are severely injured, the process of the study is still full of flaws. First and the most important, it is not clear that all patients are exposed to environment that could cause secondary infections. Maybe they stayed in clean rooms all day long that no secondary infections ever occur, thus the antibiotics are totally useless, and the assumption that secondary infections reduce recuperation time is totally groundless. Secondly, even all patients are affected by secondary inflections, there is no suggestion that patients in the first group actually took those antibiotics and healed while the control group suffered from secondary inflections. In short, the author failed to demonstrate any correlation between secondary infection and the recuperation time in the experiment.

影响结论其他因素：
1，
通常预期的康复时间，这个准不准
2，
PLACEBO和心理暗示的作用

Furthermore, the result of the study is dubious. Even they did take antibiotics, other elements can also influence the recuperation time. Maybe the expected recuperation time used in the study is longer than the normal level, thus 40 percent quicker is not a big deal. The roles of doctor and placebo are also important. Maybe patients in the first group have more faith in their doctor than the second group because he specialized in sports injury, thus give themselves optimistic psychiatric suggestion which help speed up recuperation. As for the placebo, it is also possible that some elements in the sugar pills can slow down recuperation. Without ruling out those possibilities, the author cannot give a convincing deduction.

退一万步，抗生素能防止二次感染而使患者更快恢复，推荐所有病人用抗生素也不对。

Last but not the least, even if antibiotics really work to fight secondary infection and help recuperation despite all the flaws in the experiment, it is still doubtful that all muscle strain patients should take antibiotics. After all, antibiotics are not absolutely safe for people, and its side effect on muscle strain patients is still unclear since the result of the study is just preliminary. Maybe some are allergic to antibiotics. Therefore the author’s final conclusion of is rather dangerous.


In sum, the experiment seems poorly designed and lacks a lot of information to prove that secondary infection does slow down recuperation. To persuade me that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infection, the author should provide evidence that the two groups are of similar physical condition, and one group is free from secondary infection while the other is not. Meanwhile other elements that could affect recuperation time should be wiped out.

好吧，修改完发现竟然700多字了……实在是这篇argu错得太离谱……
希望老师指出哪些论证可以不要……

明天的鞋子UID: 2639625

thus the antibiotics are totally useless
抗生素对于初次感染也是有作用的
并不是useless

番茄斗斗UID: 2720914

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have longsuspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healingquickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been provedby preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The firstgroup 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, onaverage, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in thesecond group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, weregiven sugar pills, although the patients believed they were takingantibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strainwould be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
WORDS: 367
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/3/29 0:25:30

材料的逻辑：二次感染妨碍严重肌肉损伤病人康复，服用抗生素预防二次感染，所以要服用抗生素。

In this newsletterthe author asserted that a study has consolidated the hypothesis thatsecondary infections may hinder recovery process of severe musclestrain. According to the study results, the author suggested thatantibiotics should be taken to prevent secondary infections, thusreduce the recuperation. However, I found this deduction barely holdswater.

首先，研究对照组人员的构成
1，是不是严重肌肉损伤的，题目中说是针对“severe muscle”，如果不是的话整个研究都没用了
2，原本的身体状况，年龄等会影响康复

In the first place,the author did not mention that the classification of people in thestudy is fair or not. The original hypothesis suggests that secondaryinfections influence the healing process of "severe" muscle strain, butthe author provided no information for the actual muscle straincondition. Perhaps some of the patients selected for this study arejust slightly injured, or one group of patients is of better conditionthan the other. Moreover, the author mentioned nothing about thephysical condition and average age of each group that can alsoinfluence the recuperation process. It is possible that patients in onegroup are generally older than the other group, or they are in poorhealth, thus the natural recovery power of their body is actuallyweaker than normal people. If the patients are divided into two groupsdisproportionally, the experiment itself lost any reliability. Toconvince me that the study has a scientific foothold, the author shouldprovide more information about the conditions of the patients.

其次对实验的操作，
1，
有没有二次感染，如果都没有发生二次感染的话，自然对康复没有影响
2，
有的话，第一组真的抑制了二次感染而第二组没有吗

Even if thepatients are of almost physical condition and are severely injured, theprocess of the study is still full of flaws. First and the mostimportant, it is not clear that all patients are exposed to environmentthat could cause secondary infections. Maybe they stayed in clean roomsall day long that no secondary infections ever occur, thus theantibiotics are totally useless, and the assumption that secondaryinfections reduce recuperation time is totally groundless. Secondly,even all patients are affected by secondary inflections, there is nosuggestion that patients in the first group actually took thoseantibiotics and healed while the control group suffered from secondaryinflections. In short, the author failed to demonstrate any correlationbetween secondary infection and the recuperation time in theexperiment. 这一段攻击的是antibotics是否有效？可是独立成段，很难看出攻击到了题目的哪一点，质疑antibiotics的效果的话，那就得给出为什么会出现这样模棱两可的结果，建议和B1合成一段，借调查人群的攻击点来推出antibiotics的无效

影响结论其他因素：
1，
通常预期的康复时间，这个准不准
2，
PLACEBO和心理暗示的作用

Furthermore, theresult of the study is dubious. Even they did take antibiotics, otherelements can also influence the recuperation time. Maybe the expectedrecuperation time used in the study is longer than the normal level（为什么expected time会有比normal level长的可能呢？我想不出为什么）,thus 40 percent quicker is not a big deal. The roles of doctor andplacebo are also important. Maybe patients in the first group have morefaith in their doctor than the second group because he specialized insports injury, thus give themselves optimistic psychiatric suggestionwhich help speed up recuperation. As for the placebo, it is alsopossible that some elements in the sugar pills can slow downrecuperation. Without ruling out those possibilities, the author cannotgive a convincing deduction.

退一万步，抗生素能防止二次感染而使患者更快恢复，推荐所有病人用抗生素也不对。

Last but not theleast, even if antibiotics really work to fight secondary infection andhelp recuperation despite all the flaws in the experiment, it is stilldoubtful that all muscle strain patients should take antibiotics. Afterall, antibiotics are not absolutely safe for people, and its sideeffect on muscle strain patients is still unclear since the result ofthe study is just preliminary. Maybe some are allergic to antibiotics.Therefore the author’s final conclusion of is rather dangerous.


In sum, theexperiment seems poorly designed and lacks a lot of information toprove that secondary infection does slow down recuperation. To persuademe that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics to preventsecondary infection, the author should provide evidence that the twogroups are of similar physical condition, and one group is free fromsecondary infection while the other is not. Meanwhile other elementsthat could affect recuperation time should be wiped out.

starshaneUID: 2616355

3# 番茄斗斗

Even if thepatients are of almost physical condition and are severely injured, theprocess of the study is still full of flaws. First and the mostimportant, it is not clear that all patients are exposed to environmentthat could cause secondary infections. Maybe they stayed in clean roomsall day long that no secondary infections ever occur, thus theantibiotics are totally useless, and the assumption that secondaryinfections reduce recuperation time is totally groundless. Secondly,even all patients are affected by secondary inflections, there is nosuggestion that patients in the first group actually took thoseantibiotics and healed while the control group suffered from secondaryinflections. In short, the author failed to demonstrate any correlationbetween secondary infection and the recuperation time in theexperiment. 这一段攻击的是antibotics是否有效？可是独立成段，很难看出攻击到了题目的哪一点，质疑antibiotics的效果的话，那就得给出为什么会出现这样模棱两可的结果，建议和B1合成一段，借调查人群的攻击点来推出antibiotics的无效

主要不是攻击antibiotics是否有效，是说有没有二次感染的问题，
因为题设是“二次感染影响康复”，根据控制变量法，应该是让控制组不得二次感染，而让实验组感染，但抗生素只是预防二次感染，这个报告没说明到底两组有没有二次感染发生，1，如果在完全无菌环境里大家都没感染，抗生素就无用了。
2, 哪怕控制组因为抗生素的预防作用没有得二次感染，实验组也不一定就因为没吃抗生素而二次感染了。
所以整个实验是用“抗生素”偷换了“二次感染”的概念

不知道中文讲清楚了没
THX VERY MUCH!~~~

zephyr.chanUID: 2725120

我觉得这篇Argument的题目就很诡异。

在我的理解中，ETS想要让我们理解到的逻辑链是：
-- 结论：所有muscle strain的病人都应吃抗生素。
-- 前提：开头那些，而且这些是"has now been proved..."
-- 前提存在的原因：实验的初步结果支持。

那么，照此思路，攻击方法就是：
-- 一级逻辑关系：即使前提存在，也不应该让所有病人吃抗生素(some patients, severe muscle strain)
-- 二级逻辑关系：前提不一定存在
| -- 两组病人的情况也许本来就不同，则其对比结果不能说明问题
| -- 文中没有提到他们属于severe muscle strain，不能支持hypothesis
| -- Newland是否提供了与Alton不同的、更加专业的治疗从而导致恢复变快未可知
| -- 平均值可能受到极端情况和特殊情况的影响而偏离群体实际情况，文章应该提供更全面的统计分析。


但是，这题的诡异就在于：
如果这个实验是成立的(by providing particulars)，则这个实验结果可以不通过那个hypothesis，而直接对大结论起到一定的支持作用（当然，”所有人都应该吃药“这个欠抽型结论还是照样无视的）。
换个角度想，如果把文章前两句话去掉，文章仍然可以存在，而且仍然是一篇typical的GRE Argument。

starshaneUID: 2616355

| -- 平均值可能受到极端情况和特殊情况的影响而偏离群体实际情况，文章应该提供更全面的统计分析。

你说的这几点，除了最后平均值和极值以外，相信不管怎么批，都会批到的
平均值和极值，个人认为太万能了，反而不是很好用……

其实ARGUMENT的点感觉大家都会cover，只是consequence不同，而这个consequence就是显示逻辑的关键
有的人喜欢从“假设有问题——推理有问题——结论太绝对”批
有人喜欢从“前提不成立——论据有问题——论点错”批

个人感觉北美范文的做法不错，就是不断指出speaker使用的假设，挨个批，
每段开头基本上都是“even if all the foregoing assumptions could be satisfied……”
感觉特有层次

具体到这篇上，我还是认为它根本的错误就是模糊了“二次感染”和“抗生素”，前提用的“二次感染”，结论用“抗生素”
按逻辑来是应该批“二次感染”和“抗生素”没有关系（实际上抗生素预防感染），这样结论就废了
就好比控制变量法，控制的变量不是结论中用到的变量，当然很荒谬

我的第二段就是试着这样写，大概大家都没看懂……

谢谢讨论！

zephyr.chanUID: 2725120

二次感染与抗生素那段，写的当然是很好的。
批法见仁见智，不一定有固定的方式。

我的意思的重点，其实是说这个文章诡异…如此而已…

kimi0428UID: 2592187

个人意见

作者引用了一个研究来证明假设“患者是因为二次感染导致了恢复速度的减慢”。
首先，研究的对象没有资料表明是否存在二次感染，如果没有的话，那么这个研究无法支持假设。

其次，即便两组患者均存在二次感染，然后作者想说明利用抗生素能阻止二次感染，因为第一组使用了抗生素第二组没有使用，其结果是第一组恢复速度快于第二种，这个结果其实想说明第一组的患者的二次感染被抗生素治愈了，而第二组没有。然而实验对象的身体状况，年龄，两个不同类型医生的医疗水平，这些因素导致了第一组患者的康复速度快于第二组，而非是抗生素的作用。另外，糖片可能会使恢复速度减慢（这点可以不去攻击）

最后，即便抗生素能治愈二次感染，但是未必所有的患者都被建议使用，可能存在副作用啊等等。。。

请大家看看这样攻击有没有问题，谢谢了！！~~~~

Eileen12361UID: 2775275

quote个人意见
作者引用了一个研究来证明假设“患者是因为二次感染导致了恢复速度的减慢”。
首先，研究的对象没有资料表明是否存在二次感染，如果没有的话，那么这个研究无法支持假设。
其次，即便两组患者均存在 ...
kimi0428 发表于 2010-4-10 22:51 /quote

嗯，觉得这样论证让人会比较舒服一些~
斑竹好像是考虑了两个变量两层实验：一，两组是否都有二次感染，从而论证假说，即二次感染是否影响康复；二，是否服用抗生素，来论证抗生素是否能加快康复。
这里面感觉作者只是提了二次感染影响康复的假说，并没有做第一个实验。而直接拿两组粗糙的病人对照做第二个实验，不管是抗生素怎么作用或的，反正一组病人服用抗生素后康复快，而根本不考虑二次感染的因素，因此提倡所有肌肉损伤的人都去服用抗生素。


如果分开论证：
B1,攻击"严重肌肉损伤后的二次感染影响康复的假说在这个实验中得到论证"。该调查其实并没做或者做了没提供信息，因此结论无从考察。

B2，攻击study，探求抗生素能否加快肌肉拉伤病人康复。常规论证，有没有做到控制变量（身体状况，sample是否有代表性，医生的差异等等），是否真的是抗生素的作用导致的。

B3，即便抗生素真能有效加快肌肉损伤病人康复，也是hasty generalization。就目前的preliminary study 能否就这样推广，其他考虑因素，side-effects，过敏患者，具体服用多少、服用哪种抗生素是最适当的，等等。。。



这样就不用混在两个结论里面纠结了。。。
不知这样论证可以么？

mseyjUID: 2730706

看了无数人的帖子，越看越觉得 迷糊。 因为此题中 二次感染和抗生素 的关系很绕啊。
      各位亲们 ，有啥好想法不？ 我这样写行吗？

     提纲：
      
      1、（论据）（调查）
    （1）未提供两组病人的资料：年龄、性别、生理状况。 年轻/弱
    （2）两医生的经验、水平也会影响康复。专业/综合
    （3）糖片也会有影响。
     
      2 、（假设也是结论）（二次感染和抗生素的关系)
    未证明这些病人是否发生了二次感染，或是他们容易二次感染。（假说未被证实）
    （1）如上所述，各种影响因素都会导致两组病人的康复时间不同，那么就不能说抗生素有效。如果
         连这一点都未证明，即抗生素无效，那么更无法说明是否发生了二次感染，影响康复。                                
    （2）即使抗生素有效，能缩短治愈时间。也不能就说二次感染发生了，而抗生素正是因为治愈了二
         次感染，而其作用的。有可能是 发生了一次感染 类似的。。。（这里不太会举他因了）

      3、（结论）
    hasty
    即使抗生素在此次实验中是有效的，也不能就推广到所有病人。毕竟，此次实验只是初步的。未分析
    是否有副作用等。不排除可能有些人会过敏等。

mseyjUID: 2730706

我觉得 那个医生的怀疑 是假说， 也是结论。
不知道 大家有没有注意到“proved"这个词，
本题的隐含意义， 下面的那个实验 也间接证明了，肌肉拉伤病人会二次感染。
因为抗生素有效，而抗生素又是用来治疗二次感染的， 所以有 第一组的病人 二次感染，然后服用抗生素有效， 然后所有其他病人都应服用抗生素。

starshaneUID: 2616355

8# kimi0428

个人意见

作者引用了一个研究来证明假设“患者是因为二次感染导致了恢复速度的减慢”。
首先，研究的对象没有资料表明是否存在二次感染，如果没有的话，那么这个研究无法支持假设。


你的基本逻辑跟我差不多啦……就是“实验没有保证有二次感染出现”

其次，即便两组患者均存在二次感染，然后作者想说明利用抗生素能阻止二次感染，因为第一组使用了抗生素第二组没有使用，其结果是第一组恢复速度快于第二种，这个结果其实想说明第一组的患者的二次感染被抗生素治愈了，而第二组没有。
（这点不对，你这个逻辑刚好说明第一组没有二次感染，第二组有，如此二次感染就和恢复速度有关了，没有批驳原文）

然而实验对象的身体状况，年龄，两个不同类型医生的医疗水平，这些因素导致了第一组患者的康复速度快于第二组，而非是抗生素的作用。另外，糖片可能会使恢复速度减慢（这点可以不去攻击）

最后，即便抗生素能治愈二次感染，但是未必所有的患者都被建议使用，可能存在副作用啊等等。。。

请大家看看这样攻击有没有问题，谢谢了！！~~~~

starshaneUID: 2616355

11# mseyj

NONONONO， 根据ARGUMENT君子之辩的特点，本文的第一句话我们可以当作是驳不得的，就是“二次感染和恢复速度存在关系”

要驳的是“实验没有证明这个关系”，即从第二句话开始可以驳了

另外，proved 不是proven

fuyanjieUID: 2291879

大家帮我看看，我写的如何？

In the first place, without enough information, it is highly suspected that the survey is invalid. To begin with, the author needs to know: does the number of two groups of patients are big enough? Besides, the author should provide more information to prove that patients of two group are in the same condition including housing, environment and so on. Or else, it is quite likely that Group One are living in a good environment with clean house and fresh air while Group Two are living in a dirty environment. Without those information and facts, the result of this survey is  unconvincing.（攻击：survey的基本要点是否满足：比如sample size， selective procedure）

In the second place, even assuming that the result of this survey is valid, the author claims that the fact that Group One, who take antibiotics recover more quickly than Group Two who take only sugar pills indicates that secondary infection keep patients from healing after muscle strain. However, the author fails to take other equally vital factors into consideration. The author needs to know: does secondary infection really happen in those patients? Without facts to prove that, it is quite likely that in fact, secondary infection never happen in those patients. It is the other medicine but not antibiotics that help the patients. Even assuming that secondary infection happen in those patients, the author also needs to prove those so-called "antibiotics" can really prevent the secondary infection from hurting the patients. Without ruling out those factors, it is unreasonable to make such a conclusion. （攻击首先是否两个实验组是否存在二次感染，即使是存在感染，是否antibiotics能够消灭感染）

In the third place,  even if secondary infection keep patients from healing after severe muscle strain, however, the author means to misleading us to believe that conditions on both severe muscle strain and common muscle strain are the same. Actually, the author make a mistake that he or she has apply the conclusion to a new bigger extent of patients with muscle strain. It is quite possible that those with common muscle strain is very different from those with severe muscle train. And secondary may happen in those with severe muscle strain while will not happen in those with common muscle strain. Or, it is quite likely that the antibiotics may bring some other vice-production and not suitable to those with common muscle strain or even prevent them from healing. Consequently, it is unwarranted to expand the extent of the antibiotics' application. （无端扩大从severe 到common的都要用这种antibiotics）
10# mseyj

adcolorsUID: 2256933

我是这样看的 （基本跟楼主一致但表述略有差异）
文章的逻辑1。假设前提是严重的肌肉损伤会出现二次感染。2。经初步试验证明， 抗生素可以快速治愈严重肌肉损伤导致的二次感染。3。所以应当以抗生素疗法治疗所有的肌肉损伤病人。

首先需要驳的是这个关于严重肌肉损伤导致二次感染的假设是否得到充分论证。
试验的诸多瑕疵导致，即使假设成立，抗生素疗法的有效程度也值得怀疑。
急于推广这一未经充分证实疗法的不妥之处还在于需要考虑不同的病人个体对抗生素疗法的反应程度，以及是否有其他疗法可以对或将产生的二次感染有效。