Argument51（12月作文高强组——好好学习，天天作文）

一月一号UID: 2148376

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: 412         TIME: 0:50:46          DATE: 2006-12-3

In the argument above, according to a recent study, the author validates the hypothesis that secondary infection detains patients’ recover, and makes recommendation that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.  The study is conducted on two separated patients groups with different medicine and doctors, in which patients' recuperation time is recorded and compared between two groups. Though the study seems scientific and professional, a careful scrutiny would reveal how groundless this conclusion is.

The threshold problem of this argument is that the author fails to establish a cause and result relationship between the study and the hypothesis. If the author wants to convince us this hypothesis that secondary infections may inhibit patients' healing after severe muscle restrain, the study with nothing to do the secondary infection would be of no avail. From study above, neither of these two groups of patients had suffered secondary infections. Thus the assertion that the hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of the study is groundless.

Besides, even if the study is useful, the study itself is questionable. The author does not provide any information of the patients taking part in the study.  It is likely that the first group's symptoms are less severe than the second group and certainly as a result, patients in the first group would recover quicker. Furthermore, the two groups are treated by two different doctors. As we know, doctors play fatal roles in treatment procedure. Consequently, we can not exclude the possibility that it is the difference of two doctors results the different recuperation time of two groups. The doctor that specializes in sports medicine may possibly perform more professional than a general physician.

Last, even the author provides evidences that patients and doctors in two groups are extremely similar; we still can not conclude the effecting of antibiotic in the treatment arbitrarily because of the lack of impact of sugar in the treatment. Though sugar seems so ordinary in our daily life and has no medical effect, we can hardly deduce that it would not have some influences on patients with muscle strain.

In sum, the argument is not evident as it stands at the first glace. The arbitrary conclusion, unestablished causality relationship between the study and hypothesis and the inconvincible study make this argument illogical and unpersuasive. In treatment it may be misleading, for it may result in that people overlook other effective treatment and the negative effect of antibiotics.

唉...写了一半觉得后面都在说那个study，感觉说得特别少，结果写出来就这么少的字。很对不起帮我改的同学∶（

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

In the argument above, according to a recent study, the author validates the hypothesis that secondary infection detains patients’ recover, and makes recommendation that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.  The study is conducted on two separated patients groups with different medicine and doctors, in which patients' recuperation time is recorded and compared between two groups.感觉这句话有些多余, 有必要把STUDY的内容重复一遍么? Though the study seems scientific and professional, a careful scrutiny would reveal how groundless this conclusion is.

The threshold problem of this argument is that the author fails to establish a cause and result relationship between the study and the hypothesis. If the author wants to convince us this hypothesis that secondary infections may inhibit patients' healing after severe muscle restrain, the study with nothing to do the secondary infection 真的这样么? 一般而言二次感染都是由于细菌造成的, 而抗生素则可以消灭这些细菌(当年没抗生素的时候靠的是铁钳子烧红了消毒), 因此这两组是否都有二次感染是不知道的, 而不是肯定没有, 因此说with nothing to do也是太绝对了. would be of no avail. From study above, neither of these two groups of patients had suffered secondary infections. Thus the assertion that the hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of the study is groundless.
建议换个弱一点的攻击方式: 作者并有没有确定学习中这些病人都受到了二次感染, 很可能他们本身的康复速度就不一样--当然这个要进一步论证就要跟别的攻击点杂糅了。这是这道题思路的事情, 我等下再说.

Besides, even if the study is useful既然useful了为什么还quesitonable? 这里无法使用让步假设吧? 想想看为什么不能用, 结尾总结的时候我再揭晓答案 = =+, the study itself is questionable. The author does not provide any information of the patients taking parts in the study.  It is likely 说很可能就让自己不利了,可能就行了,没迹象表明是"很可能"吧,而可能只是提出一种存在的可能性作为反证, 不用论证的 that the first group's symptoms are less severe than the second group and certainly as a result, patients in the first group would recover quicker. Furthermore, the two groups are treated by two different doctors. As we know, doctors play fatal roles in treatment procedure. Consequently, we can not exclude the possibility that it is the difference of two doctors results the different recuperation time of two groups. The doctor that specializes in sports medicine may possibly perform more professional than a general physician.

Last, even the author provides evidences that patients and doctors in two groups are extremely similar; we still can not conclude the effecting of antibiotic in the treatment arbitrarily because of the lack of impact of sugar in the treatment. Though sugar seems so ordinary in our daily life and has no medical effect, we can hardly deduce that it would not have some influences on patients with muscle strain.

In sum, the argument is not evident as it stands at the first glace. The arbitrary conclusion, unestablished causality relationship between the study and hypothesis and the inconvincible study make this argument illogical and unpersuasive. In treatment it may be misleading, for it may result in that people overlook other effective treatment and the negative effect of antibiotics.

看了下, 错误不多, 论证也还到位, 主要是思路的问题，因为前面分头说太麻烦我还是放到最后说吧.
诚如一一自己总结的: 都在说STUDY了, 其实你所有的攻击都是在一个逻辑层次上的, 而忽略了其它的问题.
这道题我改过的文章不下四篇了, 似乎大家都存在一个攻击点找不清楚的问题(我第一次写的时候也是), 那么还是好好分析下吧(似乎最近几个月的JJ里又出现了):

首先看下这道题的结论, 它是个研究->假设->建议的层次, 即
最近一次研究表明二次感染会减缓肌肉损伤的恢复速度
因为二次感染会减缓肌肉损伤的恢复速度, 所以所有患者都应该吃抗生素

这里隐藏了两个前提假设, 其中一个很明显, 但因为关系很混乱所以不好攻击, 即:所有的病人都是严重患者(severe patients). 正是基于这一个假设, 作者在研究中没说病人都是严重患者, 到了假设里是严重患者因为二次感染而减缓康复速度, 给了建议又变成所有患者都应该吃抗生素.

还一个假设, 即二次感染都是细菌引起的, 靠抗生素就可以解决他们. 所以在实验和建议中作者都提到了抗生素, 而假设中却没有.

用一个更直观的分析方法, 其实研究->假设->建议的过程是一个研究->隐藏假设->建议, 这个隐藏假设就是所有肌肉劳损患者都因为细菌发生二次感染而减缓了康复速度, 而不是题目中的那个 secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, 事实上这个假设已经被完全孤立了, 因为那个"严重患者"的假设很明显是错的.

虽然弄清了头绪, 但攻击的顺序还是让人头疼, 因为作者压根没提到隐藏假设啊, 因此从研究到假设可以单独攻击, 我目前感觉要攻击建议的可靠性就得连着研究和假设一起端了. 即:

首先攻击研究不可靠:
1, 样本情况不知道(不具备代表性, 人数, 性别, 年龄段, 病因)
2, 控制条件不知道(样本可能一组严重, 一组不严重), 甚至医生还是不同的
3, 实验手段不知道(是否双盲) 在这里提一下, 一一最后一点攻击不能用, 因为糖丸是对比实验中普遍采用的安慰剂,  它的作用已经被学术界评估过,不能作为攻击点

在进行这个攻击的时候, 就应该攻击研究不可靠了: 回答之前的问题, 为什么不能让步假设? 因为它们是同一个逻辑层次的问题. 实验不可靠就是证明不了假设, 它其中每个因素都会造成它与假设之间的联系错误而使它失去效用. "不可靠"这个词实在太大了. 那么怎么进行分层次呢? 我个人感觉唯一可以分的就是在这里的第一点和第二,三点之间. 先说实验不具备代表性(患者的人数, 性别, 年龄段,以及得病的种类), 然后让步即使实验有代表性, 它由于手段不对也不能证明假设. 这个只能算个小层次, 不过因为置疑样本代表性非常好写, 所以一般这种写法很受欢迎. 但写的时候一定要注意, 你是在置疑样本是否有代表性, 而不是样本是否有效, 因为这个已经涉及到之后的攻击内容了, 然后越界以后再进行让步假设, 等于把你后面的攻击点也让步掉了.

接下来说攻击建议的问题. 这篇阿狗不好写就在这里: 虽然错误很明显但是作者的逻辑实在太差了, 把三个东西翻来倒去的说, 谁跟谁的关系都没理清楚(看了160多道题目感觉就这道有这问题), 所以想攻击它自己的逻辑顺序也不好理.

既然这样, 我的想法就是把它全端了, 这样虽然会漏掉假设到建议之间的几个攻击点, 但是却会比较好写.
这样一来让步假设就是说, 病人确实在肌肉劳损的康复中都因为二次感染而延缓了康复速度
1, 假设中说严重的病情, 研究中的病人病情严重程度都不知道, 不能得出所有病人都应该用药的结论. (可靠性)
2, 是否所有病人都能用, 有的人对抗生素过敏,  有的人容易产生抗药性, 抗生素还可能有其它副作用. (可行性)

最后补充一点:
假设都在讨论"二次感染", 即secondary infection, 我查了下资料, 二次感染又名继发性感染, 即在一种病变之后由于生理状态变异而引发的病菌进一步入侵, 是相对于并发性感染而言的. 作者在讨论研究的时候前提假设肌肉损伤都是第一次感染, 而之后康复的过程中受到了继发性感染的影响--问题是实验根本不能说明这点, 用的药谁知道是作用于初次感染的病菌还是二次感染的病菌还是并发性感染的病菌的?

由于这个问题有点专业, 加上也不知道放到我所设想的攻击套路中的哪个位置比较好, 所以我个人不太推荐使用....

如果各位对A51有更好的见解, 欢迎也写出来.

一月一号UID: 2148376

前面看的有点晕~~，后来论证顺序确实比较好。
这个题我觉得就是因为他的逻辑错误太明显了，从这个总错误里面分小层次确实是不错的解决办法，不然太容易把自己绕进去了。
谢谢last同学:loveliness:

cyfmltUID: 2180593

嘿嘿~~这篇A我也写过~
1.攻击前提，二次感染一定会发生（主要）
2。论据也不能支持结论， 有关病人的details和两位医生的差异
3。攻击结论： 抗生素除了杀菌防感染可能会带来其他问题：耐药性，过敏问题

结论只攻击了angel提到的其中一点， 一定要两方面都写到吗?
btw 是攻击主要的好一些，还是从论据--前提--结论 的顺序好一些呢？