Argument51 hugo010311--Hamming组 我的第3篇

hugo010311UID: 2237388

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: 492          TIME: 48:34          DATE: 2006-12-6

提纲：
1。两组病人错误类比。
2。差异范围草率推广：对一组病人有效不等于所有病人都有效。
3。忽略其他方法能减少康复时间。

The author claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well suggested taking antibiotics as part of their treatment. It is true that the first group of patients took antibiotics regularly, whose recuperation time was quicker than those not. Nevertheless, this argument contains several logical problems which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the comparison between the two groups of patients is unfair, thus we can hardly evaluate the result of recuperation time from it. It is unfair to conclude that all patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment based on unknown information about both group of patients' condition and that they are treated by  doctors in different specialty. Perhaps the second group of patients hurt even more seriously than the first group. Moreover, perhaps the doctor in the first group who specializes in sports medicine is more professional in treating muscle strained patients than a general physician. Without showing that the two groups of patients are indeed comparable, the author cannot justify his assumption that it is antibiotics that greatly reduce the recuperation time of the first group of patients.  

In addition, even if antibiotics can do well in reducing the recover time of the first group of patients, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The recuperation time among patients who in the first group does not necessarily apply equally to all patients who suffer from muscle strain. It is quite possible that other patients do not follow this certain trends. For instance, perhaps the first group of patients enjoys a much higher level of immunity; or perhaps they hurt more slightly. Without taking into account such possibilities, the author can not justifiable conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well suggested taking antibiotics as part of their treatment.

At last, the author assumes that the proposed actions are both necessary and sufficient for muscle strain patients' treatment, yet the author has not provided any evidence to substantiate either assumption. In all likelihood patients' recuperation time is attributed not only to amounts of antibiotics they take but also of other treatment factors. Perhaps recuperation time can reduced by other means---such as improving treatment condition, and enhancing doctors' treat cal standard. In short, since the author has not ruled out all other possible scenarios that might also serve to the recuperation time, I simply cannot take the author's recommendation seriously.  

To sum up, based on a hasty generalization, the author fails to show the comparability between the two group of patients. In addition, the author ignores other possible scenarios that might serve to the recuperation time. To better this argument, the author should convince us that the two group s of patients is comparable and patients in the first group can be   representative of all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Moreover, the author should rule out all other possible scenarios that might serve to the recuperation time.

rt860113UID: 2256886

The author claims that all patients who arediagnosed with muscle strain would be well suggested taking antibiotics as partof their treatment. It is true that the first group of patients tookantibiotics regularly, whose recuperation time was quicker than those not.Nevertheless, this argument contains several logical problems which render itunconvincing.(对中心论题把握准确)

To begin with, the comparisonbetween the two groups of patients is unfair, thus(thus是副词，没有连接词的用法，可考虑换掉或者前用分号) we can hardly evaluate the result of recuperationtime from it. It is unfair（词语的重复性问题，是否可以考虑换一个词呢unconvincing） to conclude that all patients who suffer from musclestrain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment based on unknowninformation about both group of patients' conditionsand that they are treated by  doctors in different specialties. Perhaps the second group of patients hurt evenmore seriously than the first group. Moreover, perhaps the doctor in the firstgroup who specializes in sports medicine is more professional in treatingmuscle strained patients than a(the是不是更好一些) general physician（in the second group）. Without showing that the two groups of patients areindeed comparable, the author cannot justify his assumption that it isantibiotics that greatly reduce the recuperation time of the first group of patients(改成patients in the first group会不会更好一些，减少重复性). （论述的逻辑性还是不错的）

In addition, even ifantibiotics can do well in reducing the recover time of the first group ofpatients, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Therecuperation time among patients who in the first group does not necessarilyapply equally to all patients who suffer from muscle strain. It is quitepossible that other patients do not follow this certain trends. For instance, perhaps the first group of patients enjoysa much higher level of immunity; or perhaps they hurt more slightly.(不错举例反驳)Without taking into account suchpossibilities, the author can not justifiably conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be wellsuggested taking antibiotics as part of their treatment.

At last, the author assumes that the proposed actions are both necessary and sufficient for muscle strainpatients' treatment, yet the author has not provided any evidence tosubstantiate either assumption. In all likelihood patients' recuperation timeis attributed not only to amounts of antibiotics they take but also of othertreatment factors. Perhaps recuperation time can reduced by other means---suchas improving treatment condition, and enhancing doctors' treat cal standard. Inshort, since the author has not ruled out all other possible scenarios thatmight also serve to the recuperation time, I simply cannot take the author'srecommendation seriously.  

To sum up, based on a hasty generalization, the author fails to show the comparability between the two groups of patients. In addition, the author ignores other possible scenariosthat might serve to the recuperation time. To better evaluate this argument, the author should convince us that the two groups of patients iscomparable and patients in the first group can be representative of allthe patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Moreover, the author shouldrule out all other possible scenarios that might serve to the recuperationtime.(最后一段我认为前面的缺点总结可以一笔带过，或者换一些表达方式和词语，否则会和后面的建议部分有重复之嫌)

总体来说，这片文章写的还是很不错的，希望作者能够再接再厉，再注意一些细节上的把握将会使文章更加完美！:handshake

[ 本帖最后由 rt860113 于 2006-12-9 10:45 编辑 ]

hugo010311UID: 2237388

:D :handshake