关于argument51的一点看法

jalspeiUID: 154154

题目：

arguement51The 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“

我只分析一点，先看下raccoon的分析

前提：Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain
结论：Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment

分析：secondary infections may ——> 一个仅仅是may 的事情，居然推广到都会发生，显然错了
some——>all 一些病人 推广到 所有病人 显然也错了
severe muscle strain 和一般的 muscle strain 病人能同等对待么？只有严重肌肉损伤的人中才有某些人可能发生再次感染，没有说任何关于整个肌肉损伤病人的信息。

而我认为正确的逻辑关系是
结论1：Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment
结论2：Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.

其他都是论据，为什么这样说呢？

先看结论2的suspect,说明这是一个猜测，一个猜测可以作为前提么，前提是确定的东西，而本身就不确定，怎么证明其它东西呢。

再看 如果2是1的前提,2怎么推也推不到1！因为只有“吃药片恢复健康慢“是由于吃药片会发生2次感染 这个条件才能从2->1. 如果你想把这个算成一个逻辑错误也可以，不过最主要的陷阱是作者试图通过貌似合理的结论1（因为全篇都是在论证，虽然不正确）来让我们主动承认结论2，从而说明这个结论2的猜想是对的，这样写力度应该更大一点。

欢迎批评讨论 :)

不柯思毅UID: 2222922

支持楼主关于两个结论的假设。 我也对raccoon的分析持保留态度。
不知LZ对他ARGUMENT17的分析有没有异议。可讨论：）

pewcg8UID: 2143213

楼主理解歪了

pewcg8UID: 2143213

原来人家说的前提是指作者建立自己推理论证的前提,其实就是论据,这个Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.就是作者提供给你的论据.
楼主如果了解英文学术写作的习惯就知道线性的写作思路是绝对不可能把结论放在论据前面的,这和中国人的思维是不一样的.英文的学术文章:never put conclusion before evidence.所以你的结论2不成立

jalspeiUID: 154154

原帖由 pewcg8 于 2006-8-18 20:53 发表
原来人家说的前提是指作者建立自己推理论证的前提,其实就是论据,这个Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.就是作者 ...

可是这是一个有文题的文章,ets之所以这样组织，就是想把逻辑关系打乱. 关于“Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.“ ，它并不是文章证明的结论，而是一个强加的结论，文章根本地方没有证明，所以就无所谓它是放在前后了。

jalspeiUID: 154154

原帖由 不柯思毅 于 2006-8-18 20:43 发表
支持楼主关于两个结论的假设。 我也对raccoon的分析持保留态度。
不知LZ对他ARGUMENT17的分析有没有异议。可讨论：）

raccoon兄 argument17思路还是蛮精彩的，他所说的最重要的一点就是他因导致嘛。难道你更有新意？

cherry_mixUID: 2731553

Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. 我认为这个应该是arguer给出的前提吧，因为这样，所以才有必要让病人使用antibiotics，我想是这个意思。所以，我认为这个前提是可以攻击的，之后再对他的实验的有效性进行攻击