ARGU 51 -B1-嵩嵩@3.2

cousonUID: 2389644

好几天没些A, 手生了, 模板记得还不熟, 超时了呵呵,同志们快来拍

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: 419
TIME: 00:35:00
DATE: 2011/2/1 14:59:44

In this argument the author comes to the conclusion that muscle-strain patients should take antibiotics in order to recover fast. To justify the claim, the author illustrates preliminary results of a study of two group of patients that one group has taken antibiotics during the muscle-strain treatment and the other has not. Close scrutiny of this argument has revealed that it is unconvincing in several aspects.
First of all, the author fails to provide no information about samples of the study which this argument is based on. We can not find out what kind of muscle strain did these patients conflict. Thus, we may not know if they have encountered secondary infections. If these patients haven't encountered secondary infections, the whole study would be meaningless. In addition, We can not find out what kind of physical situations are these patients in. Thus we may not know if patients of first group have healthier physical situations on average so they could recover fast than expected. What's more, without demonstrations on patients' physical situations, we are allowed to doubt the accuracy of calculation of expected recovering time.
Secondly, even assuming that the patients are in extremely similar situations physical and secondary infections, more information on the whole treatment process is needed. Since two groups of patients are treated by different doctors, so differences treatment processes may exist. As a specialist of sports medicine, Dr. Newland may involve some professional former treatment to reduce inner bleeding in muscle and special post-exercise to help muscle recovering faster than expected, while a general doctor may not involve. There could be the possibility that it is not taking antibiotics but other treatment processes and help the first group of patients to recover fast than expected.
Last but not the least, even if antibiotics did help patients recover from secondary
fast, the author still has conflicted a flaw as the author hastily conclude that muscle strain should take antibiotics from such assumption. Not all patients who have a severe muscle strains surly have encountered secondary infections. Also not all patients who have a muscle strain surly are in a severe situation. Without solid reasoning, the conclusion that muscle strain patients should take antibiotics is not cogent.
In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the author should carry out experiments on how antibiotics effect on patients who has encountered secondary infections during the treatments of muscle strain. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of this argument until the author carry out such experiment s on people of different physical situations.

附上提纲
逻辑线
(背) sec-inf有碍sev-ms的恢复
2组study of ms: 快40%( D.N special, anti), 无reduce(D.A general, no-anti)
ms都应该用anti
                                                                          C ( ms ( ser-ms ( inf ( 其他因素anti ) ) ) )
提纲
1.(样品)两者人ms程度没有说
a)都是普通ms, 或者sev-ms但没有sec-inf, anti的作用没有意义
b)其次是本身身体情况没有, 预期康复时间的估计就不准确
2.(背景因素)两个医生的全部治疗
a)即使样品都sec-inf
b)医生不同治疗不同, 前期处理(sec-inf程度轻), 后期康复训练(sec-inf恢复快)都对实际康复时间有影响
3.(没有根据的类比)即使证明了sec-inf要服用了anti, 也不能 -> ms都要服用anti
a)不是所有ms都sev-ms
b)不是所有sev-ms都sec-if
潜在后果,厌恶治疗,滥用anti导致副作用.

kidsonxianUID: 3001754

1# couson

逻辑框架混乱，一下是我写的另一篇argu的评论，段落和你的不同，是复制过来的，但是犯了很多相似的、致命的错误，你自己看看吧！！！！！哪里不明白再问我吧~~~~~

文章逻辑链：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；


但是你也犯了16楼文章的错误；逻辑链如下：很多原因-----治疗时间不一-----抗生素未必有效；红线-----是你所写的，却遗漏了后边重要的部分；你说，医生不同，可能导致时间不一，但我说，医生是外部影响，药物是内部影响，当然是内部因素重要啦；我也可以说，可能用抗生素的医生是差的，用糖的医生更好，现在差医生的病人恢复更快，说明抗生素好；但是，如果你直接说，就算治疗时间段，但抗生素未必有效；我就只能问，为神马呢？

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；