10 悠凝雾月第一周作业 argument

autumnbillowUID: 2830144

51.The following appeared in a medicalnewsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they weretaking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced.Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be welladvised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."


In this argument, the author concludes thatpatients are kept from healing by secondary infections. To supports hisconclusion, the author points out that taking antibiotics will reduce therecuperation time by 40 percents. Further more, he also takes Dr. Newland’sexperiments as evidence. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to besomewhat persuasive, while a close examination will reveal how groundless itis. We do not have look very far to see the invalidity of this argument isproblematic for following reason.

First of all, the argument commits thelogical fallacy of “after taking antibiotics, the patients have 40 percentsquicker recovery”. In no case can the mere fact that the infection reduces therecuperation. Taking antibiotics can reduce the cure time can not be cited asevidence to support the assumption that there is a cause-effect relationshipbetween recuperation and secondary infection. Perhaps the antibiotic itself canenhance the recovery speed while the infection reduces the recovery. The authorobviously neglected the function of the antibiotic itself. And besides that,are the patients infected? It is not likely that every patient had aninfection. If it is not, how can the author suspect that the infection causesthe suppression? Other than that, the argument does not provide any informationabout the antibiotic which is taken by the patients of treatment group.Different antibiotic will lead to diverse results. Just as I mentioned above,probably the certain antibiotic can improve the recovery speed. Unless theauthor can demonstrate that every patient in the group is infected and excludethe possibility that the antibiotic can be helpful to recuperation, this assumptionin question can be accepted.

Second, the author does not provide enough informationabout the experiment. About the samples, the patients, we can not conclude thatwhether the patient suffered the severe muscle strain in the same level. The patientswho were distributed coincidently in the group which is recovered quicker arenot severely as the ones in other group. Even more, the author does not providethe situation of the patient. The age, the gender, the region in body sufferthe severe muscle strain are all great effects to the outcome. Therefore, thisargument in question should not to be adopted without sufficient informationthat can ruling out the possibility of individual difference.

Third, in the argument, we can not neglectthat the patients other group are taking sugar as substitution. It is not wiseto exclude the possibility that the sugar will elevate the load of recovery.

In conclusion, it is imprudent for thestatement that secondary infection is the main interference of recuperation onthe basis of the evidence presented, because the evidence neglects too muchpossibilities. The tiny difference may lead to distinct results. We shouldnever take the situations evenly. And I would judge the credibility until the arguerprovides concrete evidence to rule out all the possibilities.







169. The following appeared in a letterfrom a department chairperson to the president of Pierce University.

"Some studies conducted by BronstonCollege, which is also located in a small town, reveal that both male andfemale professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are alsoemployed in the same geographic area. Therefore, in the interest of attracting themost gifted teachers and researchers to our faculty and improving the morale ofour entire staff, we at Pierce University should offer employment to the spouseof each new faculty member we hire. Although we cannot expect all offers to beaccepted or to be viewed as an ideal job offer, the money invested in thiseffort will clearly be well spent because, if their spouses have a chance ofemployment, new professors will be more likely to accept our offers."

In this argument, the arguer brings astatement that the professors would be happier when their spouses are also employedby the same universities. The author brings the studies conducted by Bronston Collegein to supports. Besides, the author also suggests that by hiring their spouseto attract gifted teachers and researchers. At very first sight, the assertionis somewhat meaningful, while a further deliberation will bring the truth tothe light. The argument is problematic for following loopholes.


In the most of the situations, theprofessors’ spouses have their own careers. My first questioning target will bewhether their spouses would like to abandon their career while working in thecampus. If so, will they be comfortable to work at a total unfamiliar field. Inthe sight of universities, it is not a good idea. First of all, the campus willpay for the spouses’ work. If the spouses are not professional enough tofulfill the requirements, what will other workers complain about? It is notjustice for people. Secondly, the spouse will not happy if they would face anoccupation that is not their preference. That will also affect the professors’performance. The loss outweighs the gain.

Besides that, the argument presents a commitmentthat is logical misunderstanding of the choice and spouse. The universities whoconduct the studies are all located in a small town. The reason for theprofessors why they do not prefer to those universities is the location. Insmall town, we can predict a relatively laggard education and sanitation environment.They may take the children in to consideration. Hence the cause-effectrelationship is not reliable. Furthermore, the attraction for a professor isthe research environment and opportunities. The studies focus on arepresentation while the main reason for professor choosing.

Last but not least, the evidence that theauthor provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. The samplesin one university are rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. Unlessthe arguer can expand the samples from one university in a small town touniversities all over the nation, this assumption can not be accepted.

In conclusion, it is factors that theauthors neglect for professors choosing the workplace. The author magnifies theone reason for the choice. And the evidence is too weak to support the claimssufficiently. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should providemore substantial evidence concerning the reasons not only were provided, butalso other aspects about the reasons the professors choose their occupation.