Agument51 [Victors小组]第3次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

Argument51

提纲：

1The patients in experiment group and those in control group may be selected not randomly and the number may be not sufficient.

2Other relative factors maybe failed to be keep the same in experiment group and control group.

3The arguer commits a fallacy of overgeneralization.

字数500    3h
In the medical newsletter, the arguer proposes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. In order to support his proposal the arguer points out that Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer who took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment healed more quickly than those in control group. In fact, the proposal contains some crucial logical flaws.

First of all, the selection of experiment group should be reasonable. Unfortunately, the arguer provides no information about that. On one hand we can find no evidence of the number of the patients who took part in the experiment. Maybe, the number is too few, for example, every group only included 5 patients. In that case, a insufficiently large sample made the result of the experiment worthless. On the other hand, the arguer does not inform how these patients were selected. It is possible that the sick of the patients who took antibiotics regularly was not so severe as those in control group. Without providing the information of those two aspects, the result of the experiment , as the evidence of the hypothesis, is meaningless, which makes the proposal unconvincing.

Secondly, even if the selection of experiment group and control group is reasonable, the arguer fails to justify that antibiotics caused the group of patients who took it regularly to recover more quickly. In a successful experiment, except the factor which is researched, all factors should be same in experiment group and in control group, which were never brought to fruition. It is most likely that the patients in control suffered no secondary infections at all. In that case, obviously, antibiotics made no difference. Even if the patients in control did suffer secondary infections, it is still possible that other factors, rather than secondary infection plays a decisive role to render patients recover not so quickly as the patients taking antibiotics regularly. Either foregoing scenario, if true, would cause the result of the example make no sense as the evidence of the hypothesis .therefore, the result of the survey is worth doubting.

Last but not the least, assuming that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. It is open to doubt that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics. Simply, not every patient would suffer secondary infections after muscle strain, thus antibiotics is not necessary. Especially, if antibiotics gave some byproduct, it can bring danger to the patients. In that case, patients will not only fail to recuperate quickly but also suffered new sick. Unfortunately, the experiment failed to exclude this possibility, which make its result not tenable.

In sum, the arguer fails to prove us the information about the selection of experiment group and control group, besides, he does not inform the procedure of the experiment, what's more, the arguer commits a fallacy of overgeneralization. With so many logical flaws, the arguer can not make any valuable proposal.

jennetrjUID: 2275453

In the medical newsletter, the arguer proposes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. In order to support his proposal the arguer points out that Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer [cites that patients] who took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment healed more quickly than those in control group. In fact, the proposal contains some crucial logical flaws. [第一段的改写清楚，赞！]

First of all, the selection of experiment group should be reasonable. Unfortunately, the arguer provides no information about that. On one hand we [can] find no evidence of the number of the patients who took part in the experiment. Maybe, the number is too few[small], for example, every group only included 5 patients. In that case, a insufficiently large[an insufficient] sample [size]made [makes] the result of the experiment worthless. On the other hand, the arguer does not inform how these patients were selected. It is possible that the sick [severity]of the patients who took antibiotics regularly was not so severe [much]as those [that of the patients]in control group. Without providing the information of those two aspects, the result of the experiment [前面的分词短语的主语与这里的主语不一致], as the evidence of the hypothesis, is meaningless, which makes the proposal unconvincing.
Secondly, even if the selection of experiment group and control group is reasonable, the arguer fails to justify that antibiotics caused the group of patients who took it regularly to recover more quickly. In a successful [这里的意思是研究的科学性，好像不太适用successful] experiment, except the factor which is researched, all factors should be same in experiment group and in control group, which were never brought to fruition. It is most likely that the patients in control [加上group是指对照组，单一的in control是受控制的意思] suffered no secondary infections at all. In that case, obviously, antibiotics made no difference [有些歧义，命题中明确了用antibiotics有用]. Even if the patients in control [group] did suffer secondary infections, it is still possible that other factors, rather than secondary infection plays a decisive role to render patients recover not so quickly as the patients taking antibiotics regularly. Either foregoing scenario, if true, would cause the result of the example make no sense as the evidence of the hypothesis .therefore, the result of the survey is worth doubting.

Last but not the least, assuming that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. [前面并没有论证有关secondary infection与healing的因果关系，突然冒出一句有些脱节]It is open to doubt that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics. Simply, not every patient would suffer secondary infections after muscle strain, thus antibiotics is not necessary. Especially, if antibiotics gave some byproduct[ 药物副作用一般用side effect，byproduct常用于工业中], it can bring danger to the patients. In that case, patients will not only fail to recuperate quickly but also suffered new sick. Unfortunately, the experiment failed to exclude this possibility, which make its result not tenable.

In sum, the arguer fails to prove us the information about the selection of experiment group and control group, besides, he does not inform the procedure of the experiment, what's more, the arguer commits a fallacy of overgeneralization. With so many logical flaws, the arguer can not make any valuable proposal.

这篇ARGUMENT，我自己觉得论证的时候逻辑链衔接有些困难，所以上述意见仅供参考，大家可以多讨论！

乳虎UID: 2251211

In the medical newsletter, the arguer proposes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. In order to support his proposal the arguer points out that Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer who took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment healed more quickly than those in control group. In fact, the proposal contains some crucial logical flaws.

First of all, the selection of experiment group should be reasonable. Unfortunately, the arguer provides no information about that. On one hand we can find no evidence of the number of the patients enrolled in the experiment. Maybe, the number is too small, for example, every group only included 5 patients. In that case, an insufficiently large size makes the result of the experiment worthless. On the other hand, the arguer does not inform how these patients were selected. It is possible that the severity of the patients who took antibiotics regularly was not so much as those in control group. Without providing the information of those two aspects, the arguer can not make me take seriously his proposal.
Secondly, even if the selection of experiment group and control group is reasonable, the arguer fails to justify that antibiotics caused the group of patients who took it regularly to recover more quickly. In a successful experiment, except the factor which is researched, all factors should be same in experiment group and in control group, which were never brought to fruition. It is most likely that the patients in control suffered no secondary infections at all. In that case, obviously, antibiotics is not the determinant. Even if the patients in control group  did suffer secondary infections, it is still possible that other factors,  played a decisive role to render patients recover not so quickly as the patients taking antibiotics regularly. For example, the patients n experiment group undertook a series of physical exercise, but thouse in control group did not.  Either foregoing scenario, if true, would cause the result of the example to make no sense as the evidence of the hypothesis .therefore, the result of the survey is dubious.

Last but not the least, assuming that antibiotics can make patients suffering from muscle strain recover more quickly, in other words,  secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. It is open to doubt that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics. Simply, not every patient would suffer secondary infections after muscle strain, thus antibiotics is not necessary. Especially, if antibiotics gave some side effect, it can bring danger to the patients. In that case, patients will not only fail to recuperate quickly but also suffered new sick. Unfortunately, the experiment failed to exclude this possibility, which make its result not tenable.

In sum, the arguer fails to prove us the information about the selection of experiment group and control group, besides, he does not inform the procedure of the experiment, what's more, the arguer commits a fallacy of overgeneralization. With so many logical flaws, the arguer can not make any valuable proposal.