argument51 【1106G】gelivable小组 第2次作业 NEW

MrTomUID: 2904037

前提A: Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain.

证据B ：The first group of patients ,all being treated for muscleinjuries by Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibioticsregularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average,40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group allbeing treated by Dr.Alton, a general physician , were given sugar pills ,although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperationtime was not significantly reduced .

结论C: Therefore, all patients who arediagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part oftheir treatment.

隐含条件D: 证据B证明前提A是合理的。
这些人都有二次感染的情况，都是严重肌肉损伤，两个医生的条件相同，治疗的其他部分完全相同。

隐含条件E：前提A证明结论C是合理的。
并非所有人都需要这种治疗，并非所有人都是严重肌肉损伤，并非所有人都会二次感染。

B+D -> A
A+E->C

提纲：
先攻击主关系：A+E -> C。即就算前提是正确的也不一定能推出结论。
再攻击从关系: B+D -> A。
即前提也不一定正确。





************************************************************************************
The advisor in thenewsletter suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strainshould take antibiotics as part of their treatment. He reasons that results ofa study has proved the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, theconclusion is based on two assumptions which the advisor provides no evidenceand the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.


First, even if thehypothesis is true, it is too hasty to draw the conclusion. The hypothesismentioned only those patients who are diagnosed with server muscle strain andalso get the secondary infections need the special treatment in the suggestion.The first assumption is the advisor presumes all patients who have musclestrain are badly injured and would get the secondary infections. But the factis not the case ,since some patients are just have small area and extent muscle  injuries , require them to receive thetreatment is unnecessary and a waste of money and time. Moreover, even if thosepatients whose injuries are server indeed, if they get no secondary infections.There is no need to ask them to take antibiotics.


Second, theadvisor supposes the hypothesis is fully demonstrated by the study. Yet thestudy is problematic to build the correlation between the treatment and reduceof the recuperation speed. The newsletter does not provide any informationabout these patients' injuries. Are their muscles all damaged badly? Do theyall get the secondary infections? Without answering these questions, theresults of the study are unconvincing. Even if they all suffer from servermuscle strain and all get secondary infections, it is still unclear if the twogroups received the same treatment except one took antibiotic while another didnot. They were more likely to be treated differently in other parts of thetreatment due to two different doctors which have their own specialties and thenewsletter fail to offer any evidence to refute this doubt. Thus there are manyother factors which will fundamentally affect the recuperation speed withoutconsideration by the study. So the results of the study are unpersuasive andcan not support the demonstration of the  hypothesis.


Finally, to offera more convincing and effective advice, the study should cover those parametersI mentioned before and the advisor should be more careful when draw his conclusion.

315556264UID: 2726000

1# MrTom
前提A: Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain.

证据B ：The first group of patients ,all being treated for muscleinjuries by Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibioticsregularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average,40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group allbeing treated by Dr.Alton, a general physician , were given sugar pills ,although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperationtime was not significantly reduced .

结论C: Therefore, all patients who arediagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part oftheir treatment.

隐含条件D: 证据B证明前提A是合理的。
这些人都有二次感染的情况，都是严重肌肉损伤，两个医生的条件相同，治疗的其他部分完全相同。

隐含条件E：前提A证明结论C是合理的。
并非所有人都需要这种治疗，并非所有人都是严重肌肉损伤，并非所有人都会二次感染。

B+D -> A
A+E->C

提纲：
先攻击主关系：A+E -> C。即就算前提是正确的也不一定能推出结论。
再攻击从关系: B+D -> A。
即前提也不一定正确。





************************************************************************************
The advisor in thenewsletter suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strainshould take antibiotics as part of their treatment. He reasons that results ofa study has proved the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, theconclusion is based on two assumptions which the advisor provides no evidenceand the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.


First, even if thehypothesis is true, it is too hasty to draw the conclusion. The hypothesismentioned only those patients who are diagnosed with server muscle strain andalso get the secondary infections need the special treatment in the suggestion.The first assumption is the advisor presumes all patients who have musclestrain are badly injured and would get the secondary infections. But the factis not the case ,since some patients are just have small area and extent muscle  injuries , require（requiring） them to receive thetreatment is unnecessary and a waste of money and time. Moreover, even if thosepatients’ （去掉 whose） injuries are server（serious） indeed, if they get no secondary infections，there is no need to ask them to take antibiotics.


Second, theadvisor supposes the hypothesis is fully demonstrated by the study. Yet thestudy is problematic to build the correlation between the treatment and （应该用the speed of recuperaton吧）reduce of the recuperation speed. The newsletter does not provide any informationabout these patients' injuries. Are their muscles all damaged badly? Do theyall get the secondary infections? Without answering these questions, theresults of the study are unconvincing. Even if they all suffer from servermuscle strain and all get secondary infections, it is still unclear if the twogroups received the same treatment except one took antibiotic while another didnot. They were more likely to be treated differently in other parts of thetreatment due to two different doctors which have their own specialties and thenewsletter fail to offer any evidence to refute this doubt. Thus there are manyother factors which will fundamentally affect the recuperation speed withoutconsideration by the study. So the results of the study are unpersuasive andcan not support the demonstration of the  hypothesis.


Finally, to offera more convincing and effective advice, the study should cover those parametersI mentioned before and the advisor should be more careful when draw his conclusion.（好简洁的结尾）

逻辑很清晰，没有没有北美范文模板的感觉呢~

kidsonxianUID: 3001754

别乱赞，也别瞎写~~~~都是出国的孩子了，要受点打击了~~！！努力啊~~~~



逻辑链：前提（包括严重和感染）+很多原因（包括医生、体质）-----治疗时间长短不同-----理论正确-----应用前提（包括严重和感染）-----应该对人运用此理论（吃antibiotic）；

注意红色部分是你的批判攻击对象；
我们要批的重点，是逻辑链的推导过程，即是------的部分；你第二段说，即使理论对了，病人未必严重，未必感染；但是我说，如果病人既严重，又感染呢，你怎么办？你又说，人的体质不同；我说，假如体质都相同呢，你怎办？你就说可以用药了吗？！？！但是，如果你能直接批判导，即使严重、感染这些都符合，但是还是不能用药，因为其中逻辑有误；为神马呢？？？因为很多用药因素需要考虑到，例如人体抗拒性，过敏，人的生活习惯，吸烟，喝酒；除了人，药物呢？药物用量呢？用时呢？药物效果呢？病菌对药物的抗拒呢？记住，不要批判原文提出来的那些所谓事实和数据，要批判推导过程，就是那些------；

用你的第三段作为例子，（转自己的贴，我也用同样例子回复了你的组员）具体如下：虽治疗时间短，但抗生素未必有效；（在严重和二次感染的前提）；抗生素有效，在于它杀菌的功效、用量、用时等，而身体机能的恢复，在于病人本身；两个时间加起来，才是治疗时间；所以，病人的体质、生活都是应该控制的因素，这些因素要得以控制；即使病人体质一样，治疗时间短，只能说明抗生素可能有效，至于是否真正有效，还要看用量、用时等；药物用多了就是毒物，这个道理比较简单，药物释放时间也会影响杀菌时间；所以说，单凭时间，不足以说明抗生素有效；

wendychuengUID: 2811319

哇 你的分析好强悍~~