Argument51 rt860113--Hamming小组第三篇

rt860113UID: 2256886

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The followingappeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patientsin the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, weregiven sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics.Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, allpatients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to takeantibiotics as part of their treatment."
WORDS: 427          TIME: 0:42:45         DATE: 2006-12-7（欢迎拍砖 ）
提纲：
1．样本存在不可比较性。
2．研究的时间和数量的有限性。
3．忽视了人群的多样性和复杂性，以偏概全。

In this argument, the argument concludesthat all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised totake antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this claim, the arguerprovides the evidence that a group of patients who took antibiotics regularlythroughout their treatment had a shorter recuperation time than another groupof patients who were just given sugar pills. A careful examination of thisargument would reveal that how groundless the conclusion is.

The arguer fails to take into account somany factors that are crucial to the comparison. First, the two doctors wholead the two groups were different. One was a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, and the other was only a general doctor. No authentic evidence showsthat they would give the same medicine other than antibiotics or sugar pillswhen they met the same patients who had the same symptom. As we know, doctorsin different fields would have different background of knowledge andexperience, and people are always used to placing more reliance on the expertthan the general doctor. So it is probable that a patient would conform to theexpert’s advise seriously but not to the general doctor’s.

In addition, the argument did not mentionthat what kinds of patients who suffered from muscle strain constituted the twogroups respectively, how many patients they did study overall, and how longthey did research into it before they got the conclusion. If they just studiedseveral patients who cannot represent the muscle strain sufferer from theslight pain to the severe during a short time, the comparison would beunconvincing unless getting more information.

What's more, the arguer commits a fallacyof hasty generalization. Even assuming that the study could prove thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain, it does not follow that all patients who are diagnosed withmuscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of theirtreatment. For example, maybe some patients hadn’t had severe muscle strain,and some patients may have an allergy to antibiotics. Do they need to take itas part of their treatment just the same? Absolutely not.

To sum up, the conclusion lackscredibility because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what thearguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to providemore evidence concerning the comparability of the different doctors and theirdifferent patients. To better evaluate the argument, we would need to payattention to different patients of different symptoms.

hugo010311UID: 2237388

In this argument, the argument (arguer) concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that a group of patients who took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment had a shorter recuperation time than another group of patients who were just given sugar pills. A careful examination of this argument would reveal that how groundless the conclusion is. (First,)The arguer fails to take into account so many factors that are crucial to the comparison. The two doctors who lead the two groups were different. One was a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, and the other was only a general doctor. No authentic evidence shows that they would give the same medicine other than antibiotics or sugar pills when they met the same patients who had the same symptom. As we know, doctors in different fields would have different background of knowledge and experience, and people are always used to placing more reliance on the expert than the general doctor. So it is probable that a patient would conform to the expert’s advise seriously but not to the general doctor’s.In addition, the arguer did not mention that what kinds of patients who suffered from muscle strain constituted the two groups respectively, how many patients they did study overall, and how long they did research into it before they got the conclusion. If they just studied several patients who cannot represent the muscle strain sufferer from the slight pain to the severe during a short time, the comparison would be unconvincing unless getting more information. What's more, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even assuming that the study could prove that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, it does not follow that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment(s). For example, maybe some patients hadn’t had severe muscle strain, and some patients may have an allergy to antibiotics. Do they need to take it as part of their treatment just the same? Absolutely not. (绝对化词汇最好不要出现)To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the comparability of the different doctors and their different patients. To better evaluate the argument, we would need to pay attention to different patients of different symptoms.

不错，继续努力！！

[ 本帖最后由 hugo010311 于 2006-12-10 23:28 编辑 ]