Argument51，开始尝试摆脱模板，寻找不一样的写作感觉。有拍必回

figuechenUID: 2850619

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: 612         

根据昨天写的很模板的修改而来，今天看了一篇神帖以及神作若干，开始反省自己以前的Argument模式是不是错了。苦改之后贴在这里，希望大家能够就逻辑语言结构思想等各个方面提一些意见。

为方便大家修改，现将攻击点和与模板的异同写一下。

攻击点：
1. 研究结果不可靠。（没有控制变量，医生不同，两组病人的身体情况可能不同）
2. 错误的因果关系（未必是抗生素使治愈时间变短）
3. 结论的错误推广（未提及两组病人的代表性和普遍性，不能随意推广；同时病人身体状况不同，可能吃了抗生素有害处）

与模板的异同：
1. 由于是前模板文章修改而来，大致沿袭了经典的模板结构。
2. 不同之初在于开头的时候不再超简洁或者是寻找逻辑链，而是直接指出作者的错误的assumption。然后下文分段逐一展开。
3. 另外文章中间我将XDF的模板句清扫了一下，留下的句子基本上都还是比较舒服的，起码比较像人话。
4. 精简了结尾

    The suggestion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics in order to fasten their healing process is not persuasive. The author’s argument is merely based on a study and he assumes that: the result of the study is reliable; it was antibiotics that led to the disparity between healing times; the measure recommended is suitable for every patient. These erroneous assumptions will be fully analyzed as follows.
    Initially, the method adopted in the study is not reasonable and thereby the result of the study might not be reliable. Foremost, each group of patients has been treated by different doctors, which weakens the credibility of the study result. The author cannot ensure that efficacy of the two doctors would be the same on the same patient, and therefore he cannot eliminate the possibility that it was the professional abilities of doctors that resulted in the final discrepancy. Perhaps Dr. Newland was more experienced in treating patients in muscle injuries and it was his professional skills to shorten the healing time. In a more detailed way, maybe he diagnosed the situation of patients more accurately and treated in a more effective way than Dr. Alton did; or perhaps other indispensable medicine Dr. Newland offered his patients was better than that offered by Dr. Alton. Secondly, the physical conditions of patients in each group are unknown. Similarly, we cannot guarantee that it was antibiotics that actually work. Perhaps the physical conditions of patients in the second group were worse than that of patients in the first group; or perhaps the muscle strain of the patients in the latter group was less serious than that of patients in the former group. Either of the two likelihoods may cause the deviation of the recuperation time. In sum, it is far from enough to announce that the result of the study is trustworthy.
    Moreover, even if the measures taken by two doctors as well as the physical conditions of two groups of patients were similar, the author unfairly assumes that antibiotics were attributable to the reduced recuperation time in first group. Lacking data to prove the direct correlation between antibiotics and muscle strain, the author too hastily draws the conclusion that antibiotics contributed to the shorter recuperation time. There might be other factors that determine the healing time. For example, sugar pills may have posed negative effects on the treatment of muscle strain, bringing about a longer recuperation time for the second group. In short, the author has to provide more evidence to successfully establish this causal relationship.
    Finally, even if we admit that antibiotics are indeed the reason for reduced recuperation time for the second group, the author cannot confidently conclude that this measure should be recommended to all patients. First of all, the author fails to provide information about the patients in the study and thereby it remains a question whether those patients are representative to all the other patients. Perhaps those patients contain unique chemicals in the body which enable antibiotics to fasten the healing process in the study while all other patients might not. What's more, not all the patients should be treated with antibiotics since the mass use of antibiotics may bring about certain serious consequences. Perhaps some patients are allergic to antibiotics and thus antibiotics are not suitable for them; or perhaps large quantities of antibiotics will cause certain physical problems and should be avoided. After all, the author has to provide more proof to spread the conclusion to all the patients.
    In conclusion, there lies many flaws in the study and therefore the advice suggested by the author might not be effective to all the patients.

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

我没看过模板，不晓得长什么样~
但你的这篇文章和我的思路基本一样，先从研究的可信度下手，然后是其他的可能性，最后攻坚结论
开头也挺好，和下文对应

但是第2、3body的开头都用到了even if.第二段开头可不可以简洁些，和第二句话语义重复。比如直接说认为是抗生素导致的是不合理的。然后再展开说怎么不合理、还有哪些可能性

figuechenUID: 2850619

我没看过模板，不晓得长什么样~
但你的这篇文章和我的思路基本一样，先从研究的可信度下手，然后是其他的可能性，最后攻坚结论
开头也挺好，和下文对应

但是第2、3body的开头都用到了even if.第二段开头可不可以 ...
追梦小木耳 发表于 2010-7-29 21:10

这样攻击不是我的本意。我的本意是三个攻击点有两个让步

1. 研究方法不合理，研究应该控制变量，让除了抗生素以外的其它因素都相同，研究才有可信度。
    这个攻击点涉及两组病人的身体情况和不同的医生

2. 即使研究可信，仍然不能得到是抗生素导致的结论
    因果错误，因为变量无法控制彻底，所以总有其它因素导致了治愈时间的长短。

3. 研究的可推广性，没什么问题就略了

但我觉得1和2两点有部分重复。但是直接写成一点感觉又太多了

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

3# figuechen

嗯，我知道2、3是两个让步
但是开头都用那么长长的even if 开头就有点语言重复了。不如简洁一些，换个表述方式

figuechenUID: 2850619

3# figuechen  

嗯，我知道2、3是两个让步
但是开头都用那么长长的even if 开头就有点语言重复了。不如简洁一些，换个表述方式
追梦小木耳 发表于 2010-7-29 21:49

恩，确实，用代词指代掉一些东西会看上去舒服一些~Thanks for your advice~

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

对了，你的文章没有提开头的那个hypothesis，关于二次感染的

figuechenUID: 2850619

对了，你的文章没有提开头的那个hypothesis，关于二次感染的
追梦小木耳 发表于 2010-7-29 22:12

啊。。。。就是不是所有病人都会有二次感染？呃居然漏了。。。悲剧啊。。。唉还得重新补一段看来

julia0506UID: 2851447

楼主啊 昨天俺在鼎钧大厦抽到的argument 就是这一道啊 看来楼主功力已经很不错了  我主要攻击了 医生、病人、实验控制条件和推广  那个suger的问题 总觉得没什么必要 因为实验中确实需要一些来做对照的，比如如果不用这个的话，问题更大，病人会 因为得不到任何治疗，心理产生问题啊 这样就更不不利于病好了， 除了suger 不知道还能用什么代替好  就比如试剂两组实验中 我们常用生理盐水做空白对照

figuechenUID: 2850619

楼主啊 昨天俺在鼎钧大厦抽到的argument 就是这一道啊 看来楼主功力已经很不错了  我主要攻击了 医生、病人、实验控制条件和推广  那个suger的问题 总觉得没什么必要 因为实验中确实需要一些来做对照的，比如如果不用 ...
julia0506 发表于 2010-7-30 08:09

恩对，毕竟sugar的成分和效果是路人皆知的，这样攻击有点强词夺理的感觉了

crazyjooUID: 2805124

Before advising that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of treatment, the evidence cited in the argument should be examined from several other angles. The arguer assumes that secondary infection will necessarily happen after muscle strain and all patients including those who suffer from less severer muscle starin will gain similar benefits from antibotics.But there are several other reasons why one cannot assumes that recommended treatment can be applied to all patients with muscle strain.

Firstly, no evidence indicates that secondary infection will necessarily happen after muscle strain. However, arguer falsely assumes that secondary infection do happen after muscle strain. And it is this very assumption that make the following study meaningful. It is likely that secondary infection did not  happen in both group of the study because of the care and treatment from  doctors. Therefore, in absence of strong connection between muscle strain and secondary infection, the arguer cannot justifiably suggest antibiotics as part of treatment

Secondly, the treatment the arguer recommends may not benefit all patients including those  who got slight muscle strain. Considering these different levels of muscle strain, it is possible that antibiotics only affect those patients who suffer from severe muscle starin. Perhaps the machinaiton of antibiotics match  the physics patterns of sever muscle strain well but does not help the recuperation of slight muscle starin. Or perhaps antibiotics have chemcial reaction with some factors bred by severe muscle strain and the end product of such reaction finally facilitate the recuperaion of patients.

  Thirdly, to make a experiment accurate, it must be controlled. We do not know the age, general health conditon of these two groups of patients. Thus, it is possible that patients in the control group suffer severe muscle strain while patients in experiment group suffer slight muscle strain. It is also ture that different doctors will have different impacts on the recuperation time of patients.  In fact, this affecting factor is apparent given the fact that one doctor specializes in sports medicine whine another doctor is a general physician. Even the general conditions of these two groups of patients are exatcly the same. It still stands a good chance to think that Dr.Newland would cure the control group more effectively and efficiently than Dr.Alton did in spite of use of antibioitcs.

Finally, the arguer commits of a fallacy of overgeneralization. Even we accept the arguer's assumption we discuss above, we still have good reasons to doubt the practicality of the arguer's recommendation. A concrete treatment can not be put into market until it has been proven to be a legitimate one. However, a comprehensive and rational evaluation of a treatment needs tons of studies and experiments, not to mention these preliminary results of a study. Perhaps though the ''antibiotic'' treatment can greatly reduce the people's suffering with severe muscle strain, it might potentially has unexpected side effects, such as dizzy, headache, vulnerability to disease and so forth. Simply based on a single plausible experiment, the arguer can not, and should not hastily draw such a significant conclusion. Otherwise, all we see in the medicine store are poison rather than medicine.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer has to make sure that secondary infection do happen after muscle starin and the recommended treatmend can be applied to all patients with muscle starin. Moreover, the arguerment will be more convincing if we know how the experiement conduct and the possible side effect of antibiotics.

我昨天看了一些 argu专项贴也是泪流满面。。于是写了这个。。
楼主他因分析的很好。。学习ing

may0234UID: 2850480

我非常想知道楼主写这篇用了多长时间，30分钟可以写这么多吗？而且总觉得LZ写的有点罗嗦呢（个人感觉）
还有就是，study的作用不就是用来证明antibiotic对muscle strain有效吗，所以你第一段说study不可信不就证明了antibiotic不是缩短康复时间的原因吗？

DonDonDonUID: 2779126

其实，我想请问一下这道题目的逻辑链lz认为是什么~~谢谢哈

may0234UID: 2850480

不过LZ的他因找的确实令人佩服
我昨天才看到一些argu专项贴，也是泪流满面呀，只是不知还剩十几天的我是否还能摆脱模板，而且本人的找他因的能力实在是……，下面这篇，还请LZ多多批评建议啊
The argument is questionable in some aspects in that the author unfairly incorporates some unsubstantiated assumptions about the study and antibiotics in the process of reasoning. Thus, the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics is open to doubt.

To begin with, the arguer does not state clearly the therapy used by the doctors of the two groups. He/she falsely assumes that the treatment provided by Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton is same apart from the difference that one gives the antibiotics to the patients and one does not. But there is no evidence to support this assumption. It is quite likely that the capability of Dr. Newland is better than Dr. Alton in treating muscle injuries because there is strong evidence that Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine. If this is the case, then the function of antibiotics cannot be demonstrated in this study and thus, the arguer cannot convincingly draw the conclusion.

Even if the antibiotic is effective in treating muscle injuries, the arguer still rests on an assumption that all patients suffering from muscle injuries have the possibility of getting secondary infections to reach his/her conclusion. No proof is there given in this argument to justify this assumption. In all likelihood, most of the patients of muscle injuries rarely catch secondary infections due to self-caution and helpful treatment. Without ruling out this possibility, the arguer's conclusion is weak at best.

Finally, the arguer fails to consider that antibiotics are not suitable for every patient. Common sense tells us that there are plenty of people who are allergic to antibiotics, so this medicine is rarely taken as a part of universal treatment. Thus, before the arguer proposes the recommendation, this case must be taken into account. Unfortunately, in this argument, the author does not account for this scenario when concluding that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics, so I still cannot be unconvinced by the arguer to accept the conclusion.

All in all, the recommendation proposed by the arguer is unpersuasive before more strong evidence is given. To better bolster the conclusion, the arguer must at the very least show that the treatment used by the two doctors is of equal function to the patients except for antibiotics. Moreover, I would retain my assessment on the soundness of this argument before the arguer could provide more information about whether all patients suffering from muscle injuries are affected by secondary infections and whether antibiotics are suitable for everyone to take.

figuechenUID: 2850619

Before advising that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of treatment, the evidence cited in the argument should be examined from several other angles. Th ...
crazyjoo 发表于 2010-7-30 10:39

大概看了一下，有如下问题：
1. P1虽然没有落入俗套，但也没有起到统领全文的作用。下面有几段的内容（比如False Clause的内容）没有在P1中得到体现。
2. P3有些拼写和语法错误，建议放入Word中自行检查一下。
3. 整个逻辑链有点混乱，并没有很好地整合起来。如果根据R的帖子的要求的话应该段落与段落之间也有联系，这个联系不仅仅体现在你找的错误上面，也应该在段落前后补上关联句，能够承上启下。比如让步之类
4. 他因分析不足，导致说了很多点，但每点似乎都没到位

总的来说写得还是不错的~就上面几个问题注意一下吧~祝共同进步

figuechenUID: 2850619

我非常想知道楼主写这篇用了多长时间，30分钟可以写这么多吗？而且总觉得LZ写的有点罗嗦呢（个人感觉）
还有就是，study的作用不就是用来证明antibiotic对muscle strain有效吗，所以你第一段说study不可信不就证明了 ...
may0234 发表于 2010-7-30 11:19

恩。。。我现在也发现了这个问题，可能是有些雷同了。我在考虑把头两段合并起来，说明研究不可信。然后让步说即使研究可信，也不能说是因为二次感染所致。然后再让步说未必能推广。这样似乎比较合理了。

这篇文章是30分钟内写好的，唉啰嗦的感觉可能是因为我语言不够简洁吧，尽量努力改。不过感觉Argument该啰嗦的地方还是要啰嗦，否则就不到位了。