Argument51 第三次，速度加快了一些

weixchUID: 2104033

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."


正文：
The comment shown above asserts that secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and it recommends taking antibiotics as part of their treatment. To better support the viewpoint, a report of a study is mentioned in the material. The study shows that in contrast with the group of patient given sugar pills, the recuperation time of another group cured with antibiotics is 40 percent quicker. Close scrutiny of the evidence author submitted reveals that it lends to little credible support for what the comment asserts.

First of all, before the conclusion can be deduced out, the comment should assume that the severe muscle strain would certainly results in secondary infections. However, the author does not show us any proof about the relationship between muscle strain and secondary infections. Since the premise of deduction is missing, we could not decide that the antibiotics would help to cure muscle strain for its effect in handling secondary infections.

Moreover, as the evidence in material is concerned, it is not convincing as it stands.

Firstly, there is no detailed introduction of the samples in the comment. After browse of the report which author refers to, we cannot figure out any clues about the individuals who participated in the experiment. Without information about their age and gender, we can not rule out the possibility that the first group is composed of youth, while all samples in the other side are the older men. And, in this case, it would be not so surprising that the first group would recover faster.

Secondly, as the doctors of the two groups are mentioned, the document informs us that the groups were treated by different doctors. So, here we cannot make sure whether the fast recovering of the first group is due to the better treatment from a doctor good at sports medicine than a general physician.

Thirdly, with the information given in the study, we can only draw such a conclusion as the group taking antibiotics recovers faster than the other group given sugar pills. If the sugar pills can slow down the recuperation of patients, the assertion that antibiotics can help would become unreasonable. No less is the viewpoint true that secondary infections could bring troubles to patients with muscle strain since antibiotics which handle infections effectively could help the individuals recover faster.

In sum, the argument of the speaker is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should offer more evidence to prove that patients with severe muscle strain are easy to get secondary infections. To better support the conclusion, speaker needs to provide more detail introductions of the samples in experiment. Moreover, it is important to assure the same doctor involved in the treatment of the two groups, and rule out the possibility that sugar pills could affect the process of recuperation.

xbullfrogUID: 2180016

我觉得这片文章不错，各个主要和次要的逻辑错误分清楚了并且一一论述了，词句也很优美

在这篇题目的逻辑错误方面，我觉得还有一点应该写一下：即使整个实验结果是正确性的，（比如两组人员受伤情况，医生情况什么的都相同。。。。。。。。。。之类的），能够在这一次实验中证明那个suspected idea，那么这个实验有没有广泛的代表性呢？比如各个年龄阶段的人是否都包含了，还有一些人对抗生素免疫，或者过敏，也导致了这个实验无法真正证明那个suspected idea

其他我能做的只能找些小瑕疵了

The comment shown above asserts that secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and it recommends taking antibiotics as part of their treatment. To better support the viewpoint, a report of a study is mentioned in the material. The study shows that in contrast with the group of patient given sugar pills, the recuperation time of another group cured with antibiotics is 40 percent quicker. [是不是少个冠词a？]Close scrutiny of the evidence author submitted reveals that it lends to little credible support for what the comment asserts.[是不是应该说it lends little credible support to what the comment asserts?]

First of all, before the conclusion can be deduced out, the comment should assume that the severe muscle strain would certainly results[result] in secondary infections. However, the author does not show us any proof about the relationship between muscle strain and secondary infections. Since the premise of deduction is missing, we could not decide that the antibiotics would help to cure muscle strain for its effect in[在外文里面，这里用on的多一些啊] handling secondary infections.

Moreover, as the evidence in material is concerned[我觉得应该说as to the evidence concerned in the material或者说 so far as the evidence is concerned in the material,因为i下面又有一个和这样相同的句式], it is not convincing as it stands.

Firstly, there is no detailed introduction of the samples in the comment. After [这里加个a或者直接说browsing the report]browse of the report which author refers to, we cannot figure out any clues about the individuals who participated in the experiment. Without information about their age and gender, we can not rule out the possibility that the first group is composed of youth, while all samples in the other side are the older men. And, in this case, it would be not so surprising that the first group would recover faster.

Secondly, as the doctors of the two groups are mentioned, the document informs us that the groups were treated by different doctors. So, here we cannot make sure whether the fast recovering of the first group is due to the better treatment from a doctor good at sports medicine than a general physician.

Thirdly, with the information given in the study, we can only draw such a conclusion as the group taking antibiotics recovers faster than the other group given sugar pills. If the sugar pills can slow down the recuperation of patients, the assertion that antibiotics can help [help后面是不是少成分啊，或者这么说that antibiotics can make a positive effect]would become unreasonable. No less is the viewpoint true that secondary infections could bring troubles to patients with muscle strain since antibiotics which handle infections effectively could help the individuals recover faster.[这句话，我看得不是很懂，我要查证一下才能发表意见，或者LZ给我解释一下啊，谢谢]

In sum, the argument of the speaker is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should offer more evidence to prove that patients with severe muscle strain are easy to get secondary infections. To better support the conclusion, speaker needs to provide more detail[detailed] introductions of the samples in experiment. Moreover, it is important to assure the same doctor involved in the treatment of the two groups, and rule out the possibility that sugar pills could affect the process of recuperation.

[ 本帖最后由 xbullfrog 于 2006-11-18 21:01 编辑 ]

weixchUID: 2104033

No less is the viewpoint true that secondary infections could bring troubles to patients with muscle strain since antibiotics which handle infections effectively could help the individuals recover faster.
感觉自己写错了，No less is... true...应该是这个意思：更不用说...也是这样...
这里应该是用：let alone...指：...不是...就更别说....
感谢指正
No less 的出处：POOH工具箱艺术篇（一）
里的：
To produce plays, a director needs actors, costumes, a place to produce them, and an audience -- all of which come into being through the slow building up of expectations that plays are important enough to support with money and time. No less is this true of the creation of large paintings, or publishing novels.