Arguemen51 0607GMYTH小组第二次作业

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

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: 519          TIME: 0:28:28          DATE: 2006-10-18

提纲：
1 实验表述不清，根本没说明第一组的恢复时间比第二组快
2 实验对照组的条件控制不公平，A医生不同 B实验组中样本的伤严重程度不知道
3 实验不能严格的对应首句的结论，抗生素不是唯一的防止传染的手段
4 首句结论得不出末句建议，前者只说了严重的肌肉劳损

  The author suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotic as part of their treatment, since he asserts that secondary infections can keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. To prove his assertion, the author cites an experiment taken by two doctors. However, the assertion suffers from several problems, including a vague express of the experiment, an unfair operation in the experiment and a wrong causal relation between the assertion and the suggestion.

  First of all, the statement about the first group's average recuperation time is 40 percent quicker than typically expected, but the second group's is stated as not significantly reduced. Such statements can not be compared since how long is expected for the first group is not given, so well as how the second group's time is not reduced. Even if the first group's average recuperation time  is shorter than the second group, separated data of the sample are not known. It is possible that there is only one people with strong ability to cover in the first group while others cost time as long as the second group.

  Assuming that the first group's separated recuperation times are quicker than those of the second group, the experiment is still not fair. Because the two teams observed in the experiment are not controlled to the total same condition except the pills. They are treated by separated doctors, who may cause different results besides the pills. The first group's doctor specializes in sports medicine, compared with the second group's doctor, who is general physician. It is entirely possible that these two doctors gave their patients different diet lists, and the sports medicine expert is more familiar with nutrition and gave a more effective one, resulting in a faster covering speed. Meanwhile, the muscle strain levels are not detailed, either. The second group may all be injured more seriously than the first group, which caused the time difference in the result.

  Even if the experiment proved taking antibiotic can make patients heal from muscle strain quicker, it still can not be used as an effective evidence for the assertion that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly from severe muscle strain. Because infections can be caused by many kinds of microbes, some of which may not be inhibited by antibiotic. The experiment can not exclude every unconsidered possible infections to the patients.

  Fundamentally, the most severe problem with the statement is that assertion mentioned in it claims that patients can heal from severe muscle strain quicker if they are not infected, while the suggestion is all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to antibiotics. Even if the assertion is true, it will be a hasty generalization to make such suggestion, while some patients may be very lightly injured and it is not necessary for the to  avoid infections.

  To sum, the author conclude a suggestion wrongly built on an assertion which is not well proved. To convince us on his statement, the author needs more evidence to illustrate that his suggestion will be useful.

小马家家UID: 2247022

Arguemen51 0607GMYTH小组第二次作业

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: 519          TIME: 0:28:28          DATE: 2006-10-18

提纲：
1 实验表述不清，根本没说明第一组的恢复时间比第二组快
2 实验对照组的条件控制不公平，A医生不同 B实验组中样本的伤严重程度不知道
3 实验不能严格的对应首句的结论，抗生素不是唯一的防止传染的手段
4 首句结论得不出末句建议，前者只说了严重的肌肉劳损

The author suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotic as part of their treatment, since he asserts that secondary infections can keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. To prove his assertion, the author cites an experiment taken by two doctors. However, the assertion suffers from several problems, including a vague express(expression) of the experiment, an unfair operation (where do you get this?)in the experiment and a wrong(?) causal relation between the assertion and the suggestion.(感觉逻辑错误这块没必要列举那么详细，而且用词　用词　有点偏）

First of all, the statement about the first group's average recuperation time is 40 percent quicker than typically expected, but the second group's is stated as not significantly reduced. Such statements can not be compared since how long is expected for the first group is not given, so (as)well as how the second group's time is not reduced. Even if the first group's average recuperation time  is shorter than the second group, separated data of the sample are not known. It is possible that there is only one people with strong ability to cover in the first group while others cost time as long as the second group. (这段你反驳了４０％的恢复速度，但反驳后的结果呢，难道只为了提出另一个可能因素)

Assuming (在金山没查出假设这个意思）that the first group's separated recuperation times are quicker than those of the second group, the experiment is still not fair（想问下实验有公平性吗）. Because the two teams observed in the experiment are not controlled to the total same condition except the pills. They are treated by separated doctors, who may cause different results besides the pills. The first group's doctor specializes in sports medicine, compared with the second group's doctor, who is general physician. It is entirely possible that these two doctors gave their patients different diet lists, and the sports medicine expert is more familiar with nutrition and gave a more effective one, resulting in a faster covering speed. Meanwhile, the muscle strain levels are not detailed, either. The second group may all be injured more seriously than the first group, which caused the time difference in the result.（从实验的准确和可信方面，又从doctors的背景　假设４０％正确，实验结果还不足以可信吧，比如doctor的背景影响）

Even if the experiment proved（proves感觉还有问题，句子自己修改下） taking antibiotic can make patients heal from muscle strain quicker, it still can not be used as an effective evidence for the assertion that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly from severe muscle strain. Because infections can be caused by many kinds of microbes, some of which may not be inhibited by antibiotic. The experiment can not exclude every unconsidered possible （未考虑到的可能？）infections to the patients.

Fundamentally, the most severe problem with the statement is that assertion mentioned in it claims that patients can heal from severe muscle strain quicker if they are not infected, while the suggestion is all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to antibiotics. Even if the assertion is true, it will be a hasty generalization to make such suggestion, while some patients may be very lightly injured and it is not necessary for the to  avoid infections.（从前提的哪个假设出发，应该是逻辑的重点）

To sum, the author conclude（＋s） a suggestion wrongly built on an assertion which is not well proved. To convince us on his（可以去掉） statement, the author needs more evidence to illustrate that his suggestion will be useful.

........................................................................................................
1 实验表述不清，根本（你咋知道呢？）没说明第一组的恢复时间比第二组快
2 实验对照组的条件控制不公平（啥叫不公平？），A医生不同 B实验组中样本的伤严重程度不知道
3 实验不能严格的对应首句的结论，抗生素不是唯一的防止传染的手段
4 首句结论（是个假设）得不出末句建议，前者只说了严重的肌肉劳损


................................................................................
前提：hypothesis：Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.
论据：实验结果
结论：arguer的建议
a.前提－＞结论，　b.论据－＞前提
a应该是主要逻辑错误　b只是没有充分证明

即使假设成立，也推不出结论
原因．．．
但是实验结果没有充分证明假设
原因．．．
............................................
有斑斑把这个题目分析了　你可以参考下他的　在精华区还能找到
........................................................................................
个人建议　可能有些失误没找出来　见量:)

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

感谢帮忙修改..辛苦辛苦:), 文章里有很多表达不当的地方, 主要还是我写得太少....另外写的时候没有思考清楚, 因为事先没看过题...

我记得对照实验的话应该是除了要研究的项目以外其它的条件都应该被控制在大体相当, 但题目中样本的状态没有详尽的说明, 医生也不一样, 另外理论上讲应该采用双盲实验. 我所说的不公平就是这个意思...可能用不公平是有点不妥当了, 不过限于个人水平也没找出比较好的表达方式.

另外有关这个提纲的顺序, 最后一段是最重要的反驳, 所以我用了个fundamentally,作者的逻辑顺序是 实验证明假设(没理清楚,给当成结论了),假设支持建议, 所以先证明实验不成立,然后让步,证明实验即使成立也证明不了假设,然后即使假设成立也得不出最后的建议

精华区的文章正在研究....我这上GTER的网速真是慢得离谱...开个页面要好几分钟

这篇过些个日子我改改再发上来好了..