argument51 微观状态小组第四次作业 有逻辑上的疑惑欢迎讨论

aunknownUID: 2173661

这篇文章我觉得他是按前提（hypothesis)--》成立的证据(experiment)--》结论(spread hypothesis)我刚开始想的是先驳最主要的大前提和结论，最后说一下他的实验有问题。但后来发现这样写的不是很顺，所以又按照even if 的方式改写了一篇，希望和大家共同探讨一下那种更符合逻辑顺序。

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."


Outline:
        1. Secondary infections do not certainly occur after severe muscle strain.
        2. Concept confusion, such as "some patients" and "all patients" as well as "severe muscle strain", and side effect overlooked by the author
        3. The validation of the experiment like the respective of the patients in study and the disparity of two doctors

Before recommending all patients who are diagnosed with muscle stain to take antibiotics as auxiliary treatment, a complete examination to the evidence afforded by the author is needed. The author seem to have assumed the hypothesis that secondary infections will seriously influenced the treatment of patients who have muscle stain are true without considering some other factors which may have impaired the credibility of the assertion.

First of all, whether secondary infections will certainly occur after muscle stain is kept unknown since that the author provides no evidence to substantiate it. In fact, there are a myriad of dangerous factors that will occur after one gets the severe muscle strain. For instance, it is entirely likely that due to the dysfunction of body caused by severe muscle strain, the body's other organ gradually worsen and so prevent some patients from restoring fast. For that matter, the hypothesis of doctors is not meaningful in general and therefore cannot be used widely unless the author can afford some reliable facts to exclude other risk factors.


Moreover, the author seems to have confused some important concepts, which will make his or her recommendation untenable.  Can "some people" involved in the hypothesis represent "all patients"? Can "severe muscle strain" be equal with "muscle strain"? In fact, perhaps those who easily get secondary infections after severe muscle strain have certain special institution, which make them sensitive to antibiotics; conversely, the majority of patients who muscle strain do not. Moreover, the side effects also are not provided. It is entirely possible that the treatment of using antibiotics will have an unfavorable influence on the female in long term. Further, it probably seriously impacted the ability of the female to bear their children.

Finally, the reliability of the clinical experiment that two groups of patients are respectively treated by two doctors from different departments is open to doubt. On one hand, the author does not afford any information regarding the two groups of patients, such as ages, gender, health conditions, and so on, which seriously impact the accuracy of result of the treatment. For example, perhaps the group patients treated by Dr. Newland are young men and have stocky body and another group treated by Dr. Alton who are over 60 years old and so have bad health, and so the former apparently can recover more quickly than the latter. On the other hand, it is also quite possible that two doctors from different departments adopt distinct cures for their patients, which leads to the disparity of treatment. Furthermore, the doctor in sports possible adopted one kind of new radio therapy which extremely promotes the recovery of patients; but the physician did not. Consequently, the result of treatment is different.

From what has been discussed above, we can see clearly that due to some problematic evidence and reasoning, the suggestion given by the author that all patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics is unconvincing.

[ 本帖最后由 aunknown 于 2007-1-4 00:34 编辑 ]

aunknownUID: 2173661

这一篇是我根据证据--》前提--》结论 的顺序改的，觉得这样写好象逻辑上挺顺的。但又感觉好象有点问题，希望和大家共同探讨！

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."


Before recommending all patients who are diagnosed with muscle stain to take antibiotics as auxiliary treatment, a complete examination to the evidence afforded by the author is needed. The author seem to have been convinced the hypothesis that secondary infections will seriously influenced the treatment of patients who have muscle stain are true without considering some other factors which may have impaired the credibility of the assertion.


First of all, the reliability of the clinical experiment that two groups of patients are respectively treated by two doctors from different departments is open to doubt. On one hand, the author does not afford any information regarding the two groups of patients, such as ages, gender, health conditions, and so on, which seriously impact the accuracy of result of the treatment. For example, perhaps the group patients treated by Dr. Newland are young men and have stocky body and another group treated by Dr. Alton who are over 60 years old and so have bad health, and so the former apparently can recover more quickly than the latter. On the other hand, it is also quite possible that two doctors from different departments adopt distinct cures for their patients, which leads to the disparity of treatment. Furthermore, the doctor in sports possible adopted one kind of new radio therapy which extremely promotes the recovery of patients; but the physician did not. Consequently, the result of treatment is different.


Granted that the result of the experiment is tenable and the suspect of doctors that "secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain" is true, there is no evidence to show that secondary infections will certainly occur after severe muscle stain. In fact, there are a myriad of dangerous factors that will occur after one suffers from severe muscle strain. For instance, it is entirely likely that due to the dysfunction of body after severe muscle strain, the body's other tissues and organs gradually worsen and so prevent some patients from restoring fast. For that matter, the hypothesis of doctors is not meaningful in general and therefore cannot be used widely unless the author can afford some reliable facts to exclude other risk factors.


Even if secondary infections must occur, the assertion that all patients with muscle strain should use antibiotics during treatment is not persuasive in that the author seems to have confused some important concepts. Can "some people" involved in the hypothesis represent "all patients"? Can "severe muscle strain" be equal with "muscle strain"? Obviously, they can not. In fact, perhaps those who easily get secondary infections after severe muscle strain have certain special constitution, which make them extremely sensitive to antibiotics; conversely, the majority of patients who muscle strain do not. In addition, the side effects also seem to be overlooked. It is entirely possible that the treatment of using antibiotics will have an unfavorable influence on the female in long term. Further, it probably seriously impacts the ability of the female to bear their children. Without taking the cases into consideration, It is too premature to adopt the hypothesis for the overall patient with muscle strain.

In summery, in order to undergird his or her suggestion, the author should further evaluate the validation and generality of the hypothesis; otherwise, it can not be convincing.


[ 本帖最后由 aunknown 于 2007-1-4 00:35 编辑 ]

rurubUID: 206296

On aunkonwn:
Before recommending all patients who are diagnosed with muscle stain to take antibiotics as auxiliary treatment, a complete examination to the evidence afforded by the author is needed. The author seem to have been convinced the hypothesis that secondary infections will seriously influenced the curement of patients who have muscle stain are true without considering some other factors which may have impaired the credibility of the assertion.
   First of all, the reliablity of the clinical experiment that two groups of patients are respecitively treated by two doctors from differert departments is open to doubt. On one hand, the author does not afford any information regarding the two groups of patients, such as ages, gender, health conditions, and so on, which seriously impact the accuracy of result of the curement. For example, if the group of patients by Dr. Newland are young men and have stocky body comparied with another group by Dr. Alton who are over 60 years old and so have bad health, then the former apparently can recover more quickly than the latter. On the other hand, it is also quite possible that two doctors from different departments adopt distinct cures for their patients, which leads to the diparity of treatment. Furthermore, the doctor in sports possible adopt （adopts） one kind of new radio therapy which extremely promote the recovery of patients; but the physician did not. Consequently, the result of treatment is differert.
Granted that the result of the experiment is tenable and the suspect of doctors that "secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain" is true, there is no evidence to show that secondary infections will certainly occur after severe muscle stain. In fact, there are a myriad of dangerous factors that will occur after one suffers from severe muscle strain. For instance, it is entirely likely that due to the disfunction of body after severe muscle strain, the body's other tissues and organs gradually worsen and so prevent some patients from restoring fast. For that matter, the hypothesis of doctors is not meanful in general and therefore cannot be used widely unless the author can afford some reliable facts to exclude other risk factors.
   Even if secondary infections must ocurr, the assertion that all patients with muscle strain should use antibiotics during treatment is not persuasive in that the author seem to have confused some important concepts. Can "some people" involved in the hypothesis represent "all patients"? Can "severe muscle strain" be equal with "muscle strain"? Obviously, they can not. In fact, perhaps those who easily get secondary infecions after severe muscle starin have certain special constitution, which make them extremely sentitive to antibiotics; conversely, the majority of patients who muscle strain do not. In addition, the side effects also seem to be overlooked. It is entirely possible that the treatment of using antibioctics will have an unfavorable influence on the female in long term. Further, it probably seriously impacts the ability of the female to bear their children. without taking the cases into consideration, It is too premature to adopt the hypothesis for the overall patient with muscle strain.
In summery, in order to undergird his or her suggestion, the author should further evaluate the validation and generality of the hypothesis; otherwise, it can not be convincing.

本人觉得先攻击前提比较，可以assuming, assuming的往后写，比较顺。
文中描红的地方请再检查下。

[ 本帖最后由 rurub 于 2007-1-4 21:14 编辑 ]

aunknownUID: 2173661

不好意思刚写完就贴上去拉,拼写错误我已经改过拉,谢谢rurub批改

为了忘却的纪念UID: 2263082

Before recommending all patients who are diagnosed with muscle stain to take antibiotics as auxiliary treatment, a complete examination to the evidence afforded by the author is needed. The author seems（去掉吧，犹犹豫豫的） to have assumed the hypothesis(去掉好些吧，和assume重了) that secondary infections will seriously influence(d) the treatment of patients who have muscle stain are true without considering some other factors which may have impaired the credibility of the assertion.
开段观点明确。最后一句话好像有点太长了，读到后面，主语还要回头去找，估计考官没有这个耐心。：）不过，考官的记忆力估计比偶好。建议分成短句吧，而且，时态太多了，混在一起。比如改成 Without considering some other factors, the author assumes that secondary infections will seriously influence the treatment of patients with muscle strain, which may have impaired the credibility of the assertion.

First of all, whether secondary infections will certainly occur after muscle stain is kept unknown since that the author provides no evidence to substantiate it. In fact, there are a myriad of dangerous factors that will occur after one gets the severe muscle strain. For instance, it is entirely likely that due to the dysfunction of body caused by severe muscle strain, the body's other organ gradually worsen and so prevent some patients from restoring fast. For that matter, the hypothesis of doctors is not meaningful in general and therefore cannot be used widely unless the author can afford some reliable facts to exclude other risk factors.
lz的意思是说，在muscle strain后，不一定会发生二次感染，可能是有其它的疾病，导致了恢复的很慢。是在批arguer的前提“Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.”了。也看到了lz给我批的作文，在这里，有一点想讨论一下，其实单从arguer的结论来看，“all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment”，是有一个大前提的，就是说，（无论是恢复的快还是慢），所有的病人，都应该被建议使用antibiotics，（无论二次感染是否会发生）。这个大前提，实际上包括了lz批的，就是在文中给出的那个，小前提。文中给出的前提，实际上是加了一个限制的，引出了后面的study。个人觉得，在这种情况下，开段批大前提，然后第二段批study，其实study不成立，小前提就不成立了。个人的一个想法，我们可以讨论下。

Moreover, the author seems to have confused some important concepts, which will make his or her recommendation untenable.  Can "some people" involved in the hypothesis represent "all patients"? Can "severe muscle strain" be equal with "muscle strain"? In fact, perhaps those who easily get secondary infections after severe muscle strain have certain special institution, which make them sensitive to antibiotics; conversely, the majority of patients who muscle strain do not（要改一下）. Moreover, the side effects also are not provided. It is entirely possible that the treatment of using antibiotics will have an unfavorable influence on the female in long term. Further, it probably seriously impacted the ability of the female to bear their children（这句比较狠，^_^）.

Finally, the reliability of the clinical experiment that two groups of patients are respectively treated by two doctors from different departments is open to doubt. On the one hand, the author does not afford any information regarding the two groups of patients, such as ages, gender, health conditions, and so on, which seriously impact the accuracy of result of the treatment. For example, perhaps the group patients treated by Dr. Newland are young men and have stocky body and another group treated by Dr. Alton who are over 60 years old and so have bad health, and so the former apparently can recover more quickly than the latter. On the other hand, it is also quite possible that two doctors from different departments adopt distinct cures for their patients, which leads to the disparity of treatment. Furthermore, the doctor in sports possible adopted one kind of new radio therapy which extremely promotes the recovery of patients; but the physician did not. Consequently, the result of treatment is different.
批study，比较清楚，攻击的很深入。

From what has been discussed above, we can see clearly that due to some problematic evidence and reasoning, the suggestion given by the author that all patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics is unconvincing.
结尾简洁。
总的来讲，语言的运用比较流利，写的不错。
关于那个前提，我们可以讨论下哈。

aunknownUID: 2173661

我理解的好象正好和你相反, 既然整篇文章讨论的目标是 "secondary infections" ,应那理所当然它应作为大前提,而你所说的"恢复的快于慢"我觉得到是基于"secondary infections" 来说的. 我觉得作者实际上就是想把假说中的少数,可能情况放大,推广到普遍.(不知道对不对,希望和你继续讨论)
另外,你觉得我的第二种,让步的写法怎么样?