argument51 【米国有米】小组第三次作业

joochangUID: 2265219

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: 365                 DATE: 2006-12-2

提纲：
A.      作者由前提“医生们怀疑二次感染可能导致某些肌肉严重扭伤的患者恢复缓慢”直接得出结论“所有肌肉扭伤（不论严重与否）的病人（不是某些）应该使用抗生素”
B.      实验对照组（control）的两个医生背景不同
C.      并非所有病人都会发生二次感染

The argument above presents a relatively sound case for arguing that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer cites the data about two controls. However, careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal that it suffers from several fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.

First of all, it is assumed without justification that secondary infections may occur in all people who suffer from all kinds of muscle strain and these people should be well advised to take antibiotics. And the precondition of the argument is secondary infections just occur in some of people who suffer from severe muscle strain. The casual relationship between "all people" and "some people"; "severe muscle strain" and "all kinds of muscle strain" are unwarranted.

In addition, the arguer fails to take into account the difference between the doctor who specializes in sports medicine and the doctor who is a general physician. It is highly possible that the same course of action would lead to different result due to the difference between the doctors. For example, the doctor who specializes in sports medicine may teach his patients to maintain certain gesture to reduce the pain, but the doctor who is a general physician can do nothing about muscle strain. As a result, the data about the two controls is unconvincing. Therefore, the arguer cannot rely on the data to draw any confirm conclusion.

Finally, the arguer fails to consider that the possibility of occurring secondary infection. Perhaps not all people will suffer from secondary infection. It is possible that secondary infection hardly occur in patients in the first group, on the contrary, most of people in the second group may suffer from secondary infection. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer cannot confidently conclude that the data of two controls is effective.

In sum, the argument has several obvious fallacies which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should amend his or her conclusion according the precondition of the argument. Furthermore, to better evaluate the arguer's assertion, we need more information about the two controls.

[ 本帖最后由 joochang 于 2006-12-2 11:12 编辑 ]

chronicleUID: 2254484

提纲：
A.      作者由前提“医生们怀疑二次感染可能导致某些肌肉严重扭伤的患者恢复缓慢”直接得出结论“所有肌肉扭伤（不论严重与否）的病人（不是某些）应该使用抗生素”
B.      实验对照组（control）的两个医生背景不同
C.      并非所有病人都会发生二次感染

The argument above presents a relatively sound case for arguing that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer cites the data about two controls. However, careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal that it suffers from several fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.

First of all, it is assumed without justification that secondary infections may occur in all people who suffer from all kinds of muscle strain and these people should be well advised to take antibiotics. And the precondition of the argument is (要加that) secondary infections just occur in some of people who suffer from severe muscle strain. The casual relationship between "all people" and "some people"; "severe muscle strain" and "all kinds of muscle strain" are unwarranted (不太好理解).
这里可以把论者以偏概全的错误提炼出来，作为本段的TS。

In addition, the arguer fails to take into account the difference between the doctor who specializes in sports medicine and the doctor who is a general physician. It is highly possible that the same course of action would lead to different result due to the difference between the doctors (concerning the two doctors' specialization). For example, the doctor who specializes in sports medicine (变换一下会好些，如the former,a sports medicine specialist) may teach his patients to maintain certain gesture to reduce the pain (还要回到论点上来，从而减少了恢复时间), but the doctor who is a general physician (while the latter, just a general physician,) can do nothing about muscle strain. As a result (衔接不太连贯, Consequently, what's discussed above indicates that), the data about the two controls is unconvincing. Therefore, the arguer cannot rely on the data to draw any confirm conclusion.

Finally, the arguer fails to consider that the possibility of occurring secondary infection. Perhaps not all people will suffer from secondary infection. It is possible that secondary infection hardly occur in patients in the first group, on the contrary, most of people in the second group may suffer from secondary infection. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer cannot confidently conclude that the data of two controls is effective (to make his recommendation credible).
感觉没有脱离第一段的论述，论点有些相近。

In sum, the argument has several obvious fallacies which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should amend his or her conclusion according the precondition of the argument. Furthermore, to better evaluate the arguer's assertion, we need more information about the two controls.
可以为论者提出一些建议，比如感染在病人中发生的情况，抗生素确实能够起到作用等等。

本文语言流畅，用词准确。而在论证过程中各论点之间的关系不够明确。