Argument51【0706G－CRUSADE小组】第4次作业

rose_07UID：2276843

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: 405          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-21

outline
1. Not all the patients of severe muscle strain will have secondary infections.
2. Secondary infections may not keep all the patients of severe muscle strain from healing quickly.
3. A false analogy between the severe muscle strain and the muscle strain.
4. The study of two groups of patients suffers from several critical flaws.


The arguer recommends that all patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer cites a suspicion of doctors that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Moreover, the arguer also provides a study of patients to justify this suspicion. The argument is unconvincing owing to several critical logic flaws.

To begin with, there is no evidence that patients of severe muscle strain will definitely have secondary infections. Perhaps those infected secondly are the ones who are not carefully taken care of by nurses or doctors. Without ruling out other possibilities, it is unconvincing to assume that secondary infection is inevitable for all the patients after severe muscle strain.

Given that secondary infection is so common in patients that we must take it into consideration, the arguer also fails to provide any evidence that it keeps all the patients of several muscle strain from healing quickly, since even the doctors only suspect the delayed heal from some patients. It is entirely possible that some patients, who have secondary infections, recover as quickly as those without secondary infections. Perhaps, the slow heal may be caused by other factors, such as lack of nutrition or care. Considering these and other reasonable possibilities, it is dubious to attribute the slow heal only to secondary infections.

Even if secondary infections indeed preventing all the patients from healing quickly, the analogy between severe muscle strain and muscle strain is still dubious. The evidence is unavailable that the case of severe muscle strain is also applicable to that of ordinary muscle strain. Since the doctors suspect the affect of secondary infections only to the patients after severe muscle strain, the arguer unfairly aggrandizes the affect to all the muscle strain patients without any evidence, which makes his recommendation open to doubt.

Finally, the study to justify the doctors' hypothesis suffers from several flaws. First, the different background of the two doctors makes the results dubious. Secondly, there are inevitable differences among patients, which may have great impact on the results of the experiment.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing since the evidence and the assumption do not lend strong support to the arguer's recommendation. To strengthen his claim, the arguer needs to offer more evidence that being common in all patients of muscle strain, secondary infection is a great obstacle for them to recover quickly and that taking antibiotics is a useful way for their treatment.

第一次限时，到了最后五分钟看着时间真是胆战心惊啊，手都在抖>_<
字数还是少了一点，打字速度还是要练啊！！！

vanluckerUID：2267009

祝贺下~

vanluckerUID：2267009

The arguer recommends that all patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer cites a suspicion of doctors that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Moreover, the arguer also provides a study of patients to justify this suspicion. The argument is unconvincing owing to several critical logic flaws.

To begin with, there is no evidence that patients of severe muscle strain will definitely have secondary infections. Perhaps those infected secondly are （the ones who are省） not carefully taken care of by nurses or doctors. Without ruling out other possibilities, it is unconvincing to assume that secondary infection is inevitable for all the patients after severe muscle strain.
(这个假设说:二次感染可能是医生护士照顾不好造成的,没联系上TS,你这段TS是说severe muscle strain并不一定会二次感染,应该举例医生护士照顾不好,导致没有感染变有感染的可能性,而且这种可能性是可以避免的,之后再说排除掉这种情况才能说明等等…..)

Given that secondary infection is so common in patients that we must take it into consideration, the arguer also fails to provide any evidence that it keeps all the patients of several(severe) muscle strain from healing quickly, since even the doctors only suspect the delayed heal from some patients(since一句不太懂,是说:因为甚至医生都只是怀疑部分病人才会迟康复,是吗?). It is entirely possible that some patients, who have secondary infections, recover as quickly as those without secondary infections. Perhaps, the slow heal may be caused by other factors, such as lack of nutrition or care. Considering these and other reasonable possibilities, it is dubious to attribute the slow heal only to secondary infections.
(这段你是说不一定恢复慢是由于二次感染,我感觉这个论点按逻辑上安排应该在B1前:即:不一定恢复慢是由于二次感染---->就算是由于二次感染,但是并不是所有Severe muscle strain都会二次感染)

Even if secondary infections indeed preventing all the patients(who suffer from severe muscle strain) from healing quickly, the analogy between severe muscle strain and (ordinary / the entire…) muscle strain is still dubious. The evidence is unavailable that the case of severe muscle strain is also applicable to that of ordinary muscle strain. Since the doctors suspect the affect of secondary infections only to the patients after severe muscle strain, the arguer unfairly aggrandizes the affect to all the muscle strain patients without any evidence, which makes his recommendation open to doubt.
(没意见^_^)

Finally, the study to justify the doctors' hypothesis suffers from several flaws. First, the different background(什么背景要举例下) of the two doctors makes the results dubious. Secondly, there are inevitable differences(举例) among patients, which may have great impact on the results of the experiment.
应该是时间来不及了没举例子hehe~我觉得STUDY可以再多深入点,因为这个STUDY细节挺多的,比如第一组只是平均比原来快40% ,第二组用糖丸的效果,还有医生专长不同也可以说==,反而是人数,条件等泛滥论点可以略为提到.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing since the evidence and the assumption do not lend strong support to the arguer's recommendation. To strengthen his claim, the arguer needs to offer more evidence that being common in all patients of muscle strain, secondary infection is a great obstacle for them to recover quickly and that taking antibiotics is a useful way for their treatment.

总之,第一次限时而且还成功能有这样的水平真是很不错,赞~~
我的第一次限时成功什么时候来啊….遥遥无期-_-!!!

[ 本帖最后由 vanlucker 于 2007-2-22 21:43 编辑 ]