argument51【1106G】gelivable小组 第2次作业

315556264UID: 2726000

"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."




In this article, the author claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this assertion, the author points out that doctors suspects that secondary infections may have harmful influence on healing from severe muscle, and this hypothesis has now been proved by results of a study of two groups of patients. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, I find it lends little credible support to this argument.

First of all, the doctor in two groups is difference, so it is entirely possible that the difference healing effect were result from the doctors rather than the using of antibiotics. It is entirely possible that Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, have more experience than Dr. Alton, a general physician. Thus, without clear evidence that the treatments, apart from antibiotics, of two groups are same, I cannot accept the author's assertion that the using of antibiotics is the key factor of healing.

Secondly, even if the treatments taken to two groups are same, there is no information that the extent of muscle strain of two groups of patients is similarity. Perhaps the level of patients second group is more severe than the first group. In short, since the author fails to ruling out this and other possible explanation, the author cannot draw any conclusion that the healing effect of first group is significantly reduced.

Thirdly, even if the healing condition of the first group is better than the second group, it is not suffice indicate that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics since there is no more information about the amount of patients of two groups. It is entirely possible that two groups of patients are not representative. Moreover, when considering there are many people don't suitable for taking antibiotics, the author's conclusion is to extremely and hasty.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolstering this argument, the author must give more credible evidence that the treatment taken by the patients of two groups is are same, and the author also must give more information about the amount of patients of two groups. To better assess this argument, I also need to know whether the antibiotics recommended by doctors is suitable for every patients.

鑫鑫小宁UID: 2795099

In this article, the author claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this assertion, the author points out that doctors suspects that secondary infections may have harmful influence on healing from severe muscle, and this hypothesis has now been proved by results of a study of two groups of patients. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, I find it lends little credible support to this argument.

First of all, the doctor in two groups is difference, so it is entirely possible that the difference healing effect were result from the doctors rather than the using of antibiotics. It is entirely possible that Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, have more experience than Dr. Alton, a general physician. Thus, without clear evidence that the treatments, apart from antibiotics, of two groups are same, I cannot accept the author's assertion that the using of antibiotics is the key factor of healing.

Secondly, even if the treatments taken to two groups are same, there is no information that the extent of muscle strain of two groups of patients is similarity. Perhaps the level of patients second group is more severe than the first group. In short, since the author fails to ruling out this and other possible explanation, the author cannot draw any conclusion that the healing effect of first group is significantly reduced.

Thirdly, even if the healing condition of the first group is better than the second group, it is not suffice indicate that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics since there is no more information about the amount of patients of two groups. It is entirely possible that two groups of patients are not representative. Moreover, when considering there are many people don't suitable for taking antibiotics, the author's conclusion is to extremely and hasty.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolstering this argument, the author must give more credible evidence that the treatment taken by the patients of two groups is are same, and the author also must give more information about the amount of patients of two groups. To better assess this argument, I also need to know whether the antibiotics recommended by doctors is suitable for every patients.

点评：如果说的严格点，第二第三段其实都是在讲同一个谬误：实验本身的不合理性。不管医生之间可能差异，还是病人的样本选择上的差异，都是实验不合理的一个方面。第四段的话，又说之所以不能让所有病人都使用抗生素是因为之前实验中没有说选择的样本的数量。这根本就不是同一个层次上的谬误。实验不合理的一个理由是样本数量的未知，然而即使实验合理也不能说所有病人就应该使用抗生素。所以说，其实全文都在讨论同一个谬误：实验本身的不合理。而没有讨论其他的谬误，比如即使实验合理，但是仍然不能证明所有病人都应使用抗生素作为辅助治疗，比如有些病人对抗生素过敏等等。而且开头段也有问题，你说作者指出二次感染会推迟病人的康复，所以所有病人都应该使用抗生素作为辅助治疗。但即使二次感染会推迟病人的康复是（文中说，这个假设由一个实验证实的，但这个实验的不合理性你也分析过了），但二次感染和肌肉损伤的关系是完全未知的！所以其实你本文的主旨在逻辑上也是有很大的问题的。

究其原因，是因为你没有把这个报道中所有的谬误之间的关系搞清楚。文中有两个观点。首先，二次感染会推迟病人康复。还有个是所有病人都应该使用抗生素作为辅助治疗。作者所支撑这两个观点的证据就是文中所提的实验。最根本的错误是实验本身的不合理。再向外一个层次的错误，即使实验合理，由于实验结果和二次感染没关系，所以不能证明题中假设。还有一个同层次却和这个谬误相互独立的谬误（你就是把这两个相互独立的谬误联系起来了）就是所有病人都应用抗生素作为辅助治疗。这个谬误之前也解释过了。就这么多

315556264UID: 2726000

2# 鑫鑫小宁

鑫鑫分析的很清晰~我的逻辑好乱啊~~这可这么办呀~~