[同主题temp] ARGUMENT 51，高频，俺的ARGUMENT,处女作，情大家多拍拍 [复制链接]

jueduizhi
UID: 165517

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 253
注册时间: 2004-5-28
精华: 0
帖子: 0

楼主

发表于 2004-8-30 22:37:41 |只看该作者

ARGUMENT 51，高频，俺的ARGUMENT,处女作，情大家多拍拍

------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The argument is weakly supported and logically unsound. Before making the recommendation that all muscle strain patients should to take antibiotics as part of their treatment the arguer should think more about his or her argument, for there are several fallacies in the argument, as debunked below.

First, when citing the study to manifest that secondary infection keeps some patients from healing quickly, the arguer assumes that all the patients in the study do catch a secondary infection. However , nothing is provided in the argument to substantiate that .Thus, it is quite possible that the patients involving in the study don't have a secondary infection at all, then the antibiotics don't work on the infection at all and the difference between the two groups has nothing to with say secondary infection. If so, the result of  the study on which the arguer's contention rests would serve to accomplish nothing to the conclusion given in the argument.

Another threshold problem with the argument involves the design of the study itself. To make the study valid and scientifically convincing, the researchers should first balance the two groups in terms of study-targets' age, gender, physiologic condition and most important ,the degree of severity of their muscle strain. However , the argument does not show anything about those necessary matters. Therefore, there are great reasons  to believe that large disparities other than the different usage of antibiotics exist between the two groups  and just those disparities result in the difference showed in the result of the study, thus bearing no relationship to so-called secondary infection. Even if this is no true, the study is still problematic because the two doctors severing to the groups respectively are not comparable. One is specializes in sports medicine while another is only an physician. As we know, a specializes is surely more good at healing a specific muscle strain within his major than a physician ,and it is the better treatment of the specializes that makes his patients heal quicklier than another those of another group. Then , the arguer's assumption that it is the antibiotics that is responsible for the quicklier recuperation is severely untenable.

Even if the result of the study do be reliable, the author's recommendation remains questionable. First, the author asserts all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics for a quicker recuperation. But the arguer fails to take into account that some  patients' muscle strain is just very slight and can be healed very fast such as in one two days without taking antibiotics. In this case, does any taking of antibiotics deserve ?Of course not. Moreover, the possible side-effects must be considered before putting them into use which is neglected by the author.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing due to its poor support. To ameliorate it, the arguer must provide more information concerning the two groups in the study to ensure its scientific credibility .Moreover, two comparable doctors should be assigned and more investigation on  the antibiotics ' perspective side-effects should be taken.

为什么要登山？
  ？？？。。。。。
   。。。！！！因为
            ——山在那里