Argument51 【Persistence小组】第6次作业

iamstoicUID: 2294314

In this newsletter, the notion that antibiotics can help to reduce the average recuperation time of patients with muscle strain seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. However, this argument contains several facets that are so questionable that the author’s recommendation that “all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment” is unconvincing and need a further discussion.

In the first place, in evaluating the evidence of the study, one must consider its statistical reliability. Without knowing whether the patients sampled were representative of overall group of people with muscle strain rather than other diseases such as pneumonia, the author cannot persuade me of his conclusions based on that study. Additionally, we are not informed about the size and randomness of the sample in either group; the smaller and less random the sample, the less reliable the study’s conclusion.

In the second place, even if one accepts the studies’ results, the argument are still specious, since the author assumes that the correlation between the decrease of recuperation time and the usage of antibiotics amounts to the causal relationship: using antibiotics is the cause of patients’ more quick recuperation. However, the author fails to rule out other possible explanations for the decline of average recuperation time of patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, whether attributed to treatments given by doctors or patients themselves.

With regard to the treatments, given that patients are treated by two doctors, Dr Newland and Dr. Alton, who may specialize in different fields of medicine therefore provide different ways of treating their own patients, it is entirely possible that the experiment group of patients, treated by Dr. Newland, underwent a more effective treatment excluding antibiotics than the control group did. Consequently, it is the treatment rather than the antibiotics that reduce the average recuperation time.

With regard to the patients, presumed to be diagnosed with muscle strain by the same standard，the author fails to indicate whether the patients in different group were in the same stage of the diseases: muscle strain and/or the secondary infections. Perhaps patients in the experimental group had less severe muscle strain than the ones in the control group. Or perhaps the patients of the second group were subjected to more serious secondary infections than the patients in the first group, if any.

In the third place, even if one accepts the assumption that antibiotics will help patients with secondary infections after severe muscle strain to heal quickly, the author fails to disprove that muscle strain will recur more quickly after the usage of antibiotics; or perhaps the side effect of antibiotics are worse than the muscle strain itself in the long run.

Finally, another problem with the argument is that the author assumes that antibiotics, substances that kill microorganisms, can apply to all the patients who suffer from muscle strain, not caused by the microorganisms, without secondary infections based on the preliminary results of that study. Yet this might not be the case in that antibiotics will not have any effect on those without infectious diseases. Or perhaps the antibiotics will disturb the normal metabolism the patients without infectious diseases have and thus increase the recuperation time. Without taking into account these possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as a part of their treatment.     

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands in that any one of a myriad of other factors might explain the study’s result the author cited. To lend more support to his recommendation, the author should provide more evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship. It could be further improved by offering more reliable study as well as ruling out alternative explanations.

欣馨之火UID: 2183210

In this newsletter, the notion that antibiotics can help to reduce the average recuperation time of patients with muscle strain seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. However, this argument contains several facets （facet这个单词的意思有点儿费解）that are so questionable that the author’s recommendation that “all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment” is unconvincing and need a further discussion.In the first place, in evaluating the evidence of the study, one must consider its statistical reliability. Without knowing whether the patients sampled were representative of overall group of people with muscle strain rather than other diseases such as pneumonia, （这句本身没有问题，但是加了一个“pneumonia”稍显“无理”，使得自己的论证不力。你可以置疑它不能代表所有muscle strain病人（这也是合理被人置疑的地方），但你加一个pneumonia反而让人觉得你在强词夺理，如果研究的对象连基本的muscle strain都不是，整个argument都没有意义了。）the author cannot persuade me of his conclusions based on that study. Additionally, we are not informed about the size and randomness of the sample in either group; the smaller and less random the sample, the less reliable the study’s conclusion. In the second place, even if one accepts the studies’ results, the argument are still specious, since the author assumes that the correlation between the decrease of recuperation time and the usage of antibiotics amounts to the causal relationship: using antibiotics is the cause of patients’ more quick recuperation. However, the author fails to rule out other possible explanations for the decline of average recuperation time of patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, whether attributed to treatments given by doctors or patients themselves.With regard to the treatments, given that patients are treated by two doctors, Dr Newland and Dr. Alton, who may specialize in different fields of medicine therefore provide different ways of treating their own patients, it is entirely possible that the experiment group of patients, treated by Dr. Newland, underwent a more effective treatment excluding antibiotics than the control group did. Consequently, it is the treatment rather than the antibiotics that reduce the average recuperation time. With regard to the patients, presumed to be diagnosed with muscle strain by the same standard，the author fails to indicate whether the patients in different group were in the same stage of the diseases: muscle （这儿我的word有提示，它说要用Muscle）strain and/or the secondary infections. Perhaps patients in the experimental group （experimental group和control group应该是你们的专业名词吧（说实话，看到你文章之前，我真不知道“检验”居然用control，呵呵。）？对于非专业人士来说，它不一定了解具体含义，容易混淆你到底指哪个组。（当然，我们相对分析一下，应该还是能知道各自指的哪个组。）但是，如果是第一次看到你这个文章的非专业人士，可能会糊涂，这样会给人以文章论证模糊的印象。）had less severe muscle strain than the ones in the control group. Or perhaps the patients of the second group were subjected to more serious secondary infections than the patients in the first group, if any.In the third place, even if one accepts the assumption that antibiotics will help patients with secondary infections after severe muscle strain to heal quickly, the author fails to disprove that muscle strain will recur more quickly after the usage of antibiotics; or perhaps the side effect of antibiotics are worse than the muscle strain itself in the long run. Finally, another problem with the argument is that the author assumes that antibiotics, substances that kill microorganisms, （这个地方的定义也是基于你专业背景给出，虽然是没有错，但在argument中，这样用不见得合适。因为，首先，非专业人士不见得了解，其次，有时候，对文章提及的某些概念的置疑也是非专业人士在置疑一篇argument的时候很容易想到的。你这么明确的给出概念，对于普通人来说，反而给了别人置疑的地方，虽然，这种“置疑”没有道理。）can apply to all the patients who suffer from muscle strain, not caused by the microorganisms, without secondary infections based on the preliminary results of that study. Yet this might not be the case in that antibiotics will not have any effect on those without infectious diseases. Or perhaps the antibiotics will disturb the normal metabolism the patients without infectious diseases have and thus increase the recuperation time. Without taking into account these possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as a part of their treatment.In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands in that any one of a myriad of other factors might explain the study’s result the author cited. To lend more support to his recommendation, the author should provide more evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship. （正如你自己所有，“因果关系”这个是我们的分析，本身没有错，但是，你没有必要把它明确提出来。因为你的论证，一直就在攻击它这个，很明显的。而你明确的指出，这是“因果关系”错误，反而授人以柄。你直接说“作者应该提供更多证据来证明它们之间的关系”就好了，没必要把“因果”点出来。关于这个，前面也有，也是同样的建议。）It could be further improved by offering more reliable study as well as ruling out alternative explanations.

1.       首先，文章论证很详实，本身没有逻辑问题，也把作者的问题分析得很透彻。结构很好。这估计跟你的专业背景有关。所以，建议在考场遇到这类题目反而要学会取舍，否则，30分钟（这还假定你看题神速，思维敏捷，完全没有停顿的情况）很难写这么多字。
2.       可能也正是因为你很熟悉这个领域，整篇文章大概是一气呵成，洋洋洒洒。这样反而容易发挥过度。A不是I，一针见血指出作者错误，并极力是自己的论证无懈可击，这才是A思想性最好的体现。个人建议，仅供参考。
3.  语言上没什么说的，很不错。加油！