最后的战役 第一周作业 argument 51 by Alex

CrowleyUID: 2977353

51  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 antibiotics regularlythroughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percentquicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all beingtreated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although thepatients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation timewas not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed withmuscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of theirtreatment."





Credible and convictive as this argument seems to be on the surface, further reflection of author's ratiocination would reveal that it is unwarranted for the arguer to make the recommendation that all patients with muscle strain should be suggested to take antibiotic as part of treatment. Several critical fallacies that undermine this argument are cited below:

A threshold problem involves that the whole argument is based on gratuitous hypothesis that second infection always happens when one gets muscle strain. Nevertheless, no evidence has been offered to substantiate this hypothesis. For this matter, perhaps the second infection merely occurs a minority of patients instead of all patients. Consequently,lacking evidence which provide the direct relationship between second infection and muscle strain, it is rational to cast considerable doubt on the argumentand hence the study and analysis below in the argument are worthless as evidenceto draw the final conclusion.

Granted that the hypothesis described aboveis well substantiated, still the speaker unfairly assumes that antibiotic was the only contribution to the results of the experiment and overlooks other possibilities. Although this is entirely possible, no evidence has been demonstrated to bolster this assumption. Since detailed condition of the testsubjects were not given in the argument, it is very possible that two groups of subjects were totally different in age and health condition. Perhaps, one group consisted of elders whose recovery ability was relatively poor, whereas the other group was composed of youngsters. Which means the initial condition of the subjects might influence the results of the experiment. Moreover, one group of patients were treated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine,another group of patients treated by a general physician. In this case, it is quite possible that the group of patients under the charge of the Dr. Newlandmay get much more specialized and helpful suggestion which significantly reduce the recuperation time. It is also very possible that the sugar pills that one group took may bring about unpredictable effect on the recovery time of patients. Without excluding these and other alternative explanations, It isimpossible to draw any justifiable conclusion involved in this argument.

The last but not the least important, even assuming the hypothesis described above can be substantiated and the study results accurately illustrate the positive effect of antibiotic on shortening recuperation time, the author omits to take into account the possible negative effects of the proposal put forward at the end of the argument. Although the proposal can be adopted to reduce the time that patients suffered to the certain extent, however, sometimes the deleterious effects brought about by carrying the proposal cannot be neglected. To support an example, one need look no further than the allergic response caused by some antibiotics, such as penicillin. In some people, severe allergies to antibiotics may lead to life-threatening hypersensitive reactions. Therefore, if the patient is allergic to antibiotics,he should not be advised to take this kind of medicine. This scenario, if true,will make it pretty difficult to access to the merit of the recommendation.

To sum up, the conclusion drawn in this argument is well presented but misleading and invalid because the evidence provided does not lend strong support to the ratiocination. If the arguer can valid the assumption, substantiate the evidence and rule out the other unpredictable alternative explanation of the experiment results, the recommendation can be more logically acceptable.

liubo8813UID: 2770954

Credible and convictive as this argument seems to be on the surface, further reflection of author's ratiocination would reveal that it is unwarranted for the arguer to make the recommendation that all patients with muscle strain should be suggested to take antibiotic as part of treatment. Several critical fallacies that undermine this argument are cited below:

A threshold problem involves that the whole argument is based on gratuitous hypothesis that second infection always happens when one gets muscle strain. Nevertheless, no evidence has been offered to substantiate this hypothesis. For this matter, perhaps the second infection merely occurs（among）a minority of patients instead of all patients. Consequently, lacking evidence which provide the direct relationship between second infection and muscle strain, it is rational to cast considerable doubt on the argument and hence the study and analysis below in the argument are worthless as evidence to draw the final conclusion.

Granted that the hypothesis described above is well substantiated, still the speaker unfairly assumes that antibiotic was the only contribution to the results of the experiment and overlooks other possibilities. Although this is entirely possible, no evidence has been demonstrated to bolster this assumption. Since detailed condition of the test subjects were not given in the argument, it is very possible that two groups of subjects were totally different in age and health condition. Perhaps, one group consisted of elders whose recovery ability was relatively poor, whereas the other group was composed of youngsters. Which means（And）the initial condition of the subjects might influence the results of the experiment. Moreover, one group of patients were（was） treated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, another group of patients treated by a general physician. In this case, it is quite possible that the group of patients under the charge of the Dr. Newland may get much more specialized and helpful suggestion which significantly reduce the recuperation time. It is also very possible that the sugar pills that one group took may bring about unpredictable effect on the recovery time of patients. Without excluding these and other alternative explanations, It is impossible to draw any justifiable conclusion involved in this argument.

The last but not the least important, even assuming the hypothesis described above can be substantiated and the study results accurately illustrate the positive effect of antibiotic on shortening recuperation time, the author omits to take into account the possible negative effects of the proposal put forward at the end of the argument. Although the proposal can be adopted to reduce the time that patients suffered to the certain extent, however已经有ALTHOUGH，就不重复使用however了， sometimes the deleterious effects brought about by carrying the proposal cannot be neglected. To support an example（替换为the point）, one needs look no further than the allergic response caused by some antibiotics, such as penicillin. In some people, severe allergies to antibiotics may lead to life-threatening hypersensitive reactions. Therefore, if the patient is allergic to antibiotics, he should not be advised to take this kind of medicine. This scenario, if true, will make it pretty difficult to access to the merit of the recommendation.

To sum up, the conclusion drawn in this argument is well presented but misleading and invalid because the evidence provided does not lend strong support to the ratiocination. If the arguer can valid the assumption, substantiate the evidence and rule out the other unpredictable alternative explanation of the experiment results, the recommendation can be more logically acceptable.

写得好好哦~~ 散花~~