Argument51 【SWEETBOX】第五次作业 by 小破孩

小破孩UID: 2125288

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."

50 min
Words: 593
In the above argument, the arguer’s assertion of taking antibiotics to avoid second infections appears reasonable. However, the author didn’t consider the cases where there is no second infection at all. Nor did him clearly interpretate the study or its application to the muscle strain patients.

First of all, it is presumptuous to assume that all the patients suffering severe muscle strain have secondary infections only according to the doctors’ suspicion. The arguer falsely assumes that the secondary infection, which might happen, actually occurs to each patient. It is likely that with professional treatment from the doctors and careful tendance from the nurses and the relatives, secondary infections could be avoided, shortening the recover time for healing. If it is the case, the emphasis should be shift to avoid the infections instead of the treatment after their appearance. Additionally, myriads of other variables should be taken into consideration upon the healing of a muscle strain patient, such as the necessary physical exercises for the muscles, whether the recovering legs could walk and coordinate properly, or the patients’ metal confidence, whether they would like to beat the muscle strain with full energy, or instead, feel lost and refuse further treatments or exercises. Thus, a more specific analysis of the causes of the secondary infections and the healings determinants is needed to make the argument more forceful.

Secondly, even if we concede secondary infections happens to every severe patient, the effectiveness of the antibiotics is open to doubt. The study referred in the argument ignores the inherent difference between the two groups of patients and distinctive treatments from two doctors. It is possible that patients going to see Dr. Newland are mainly getting hurt during exercises, with the condition easily under control without any infection at all whereas those going to Dr. Alton are mostly the ones with chronic problems or the most severe cases, which of course need much longer time for recovering even if they also take the antibiotics. Without comparable patients, the conclusion that antibiotics help shortening the recuperating time is too hasty. (Time is up, word 349) Or perhaps the two doctors have varied definition of recuperation. While Dr. Newland may simply let the patients go after the release of the pain whereas Dr. Alton may use the results of equipment testing or physical exercises variables to make sure the muscles are fully recovered and functions properly. Without detail information to the related aspects, hardly can we make any conclusion about the usefulness of the antibiotics in the muscle strain patients’ recovering.

Moreover, even assuming that antibiotics are powerful to help severe patients, no evidence is provide to indicate that it would help all patients. We don’t know the effect of antibiotics in slight hurt cases, nor do we know whether it has any negative effect in these slight cases. If the extensive usage of antibiotics makes the secondary infecting bacteria more resistant, the doctors could do nothing when the same patients get severe muscle strain. It also might be the case that the antibiotics might damage some healthy tissue or interfere with other drugs used in the slight cases. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause great doubt upon the application of antibiotics to the muscle strain patients.

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given further discussion about the way to avoid the secondary infections, the thorough understanding of the study, and the effect of antibiotics in all possible situations, the arguer’s advice cannot be adopted.

[ 本帖最后由 小破孩 于 2007-6-21 22:36 编辑 ]

wchao69UID: 2209794

In the above argument, the arguer’s assertion of taking antibiotics to avoid second infections appears reasonable. However, the author didn’t consider the cases where there is no second infection at all. Nor did him clearly interpret the study or its application to the muscle strain patients.

First of all, it is presumptuous to assume that all the patients suffering severe muscle strain have secondary infections only according to the doctors’ suspicion. The arguer falsely assumes that the secondary infection, which might happen, actually occurs to each patient. It is likely that with professional treatment from the doctors and careful tendance from the nurses and the relatives, secondary infections could be avoided, shortening the recover time for healing. If it is the case, the emphasis should be shift to avoid the infections instead of the treatment after their appearance. Additionally, myriads of other variables should be taken into consideration upon the healing of a muscle strain patient, such as the necessary physical exercises for the muscles, whether the recovering legs could walk and coordinate properly, or the patients’ metal confidence, whether they would like to beat the muscle strain with full energy, or instead, feel lost and refuse further treatments or exercises. Thus, a more specific analysis of the causes of the secondary infections and the healings determinants is needed to make the argument more forceful.
(题目中的论述和二次感染的关系，也是很多人对这个题目理解争论的焦点。我也同意这个问题可以做为论文的一个fallacy来论述。不过我是认为arguer没有论述到secondary infection(SI),而你是说arguer假设SI 是全部情况。殊途同归。我的疑惑是，你additionally,后面的论述和你这段的ts是否有很大关联。可以讨论一下。)
Secondly, even if we concede secondary infections happens to every severe patient, the effectiveness of the antibiotics is open to doubt. The study referred in the argument ignores the inherent difference between the two groups of patients and distinctive treatments from two doctors. It is possible that patients going to see Dr. Newland are mainly getting hurt during exercises, with the condition easily under control without any infection at all whereas those going to Dr. Alton are mostly the ones with chronic problems or the most severe cases, which of course need much longer time for recovering even if they also take the antibiotics. Without comparable patients, the conclusion that antibiotics help shortening the recuperating time is too hasty. (Time is up, word 349) Or perhaps the two doctors have varied definition of recuperation. While Dr. Newland may simply let the patients go after the release of the pain whereas Dr. Alton may use the results of equipment testing or physical exercises variables to make sure the muscles are fully recovered and functions properly. Without detail information to the related aspects, hardly can we make any conclusion about the usefulness of the antibiotics in the muscle strain patients’ recovering.

Moreover, even assuming that antibiotics are powerful to help severe patients, no evidence is provide to indicate that it would help all patients. We don’t know the effect of antibiotics in slight hurt cases, nor do we know whether it has any negative effect in these slight cases. If the extensive usage of antibiotics makes the secondary infecting bacteria more resistant, the doctors could do nothing when the same patients get severe muscle strain. It also might be the case that the antibiotics might damage some healthy tissue or interfere with other drugs used in the slight cases. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause great doubt upon the application of antibiotics to the muscle strain patients.

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given further discussion about the way to avoid the secondary infections, the thorough understanding of the study, and the effect of antibiotics in all possible situations, the arguer’s advice cannot be adopted.

整体感觉不错。文笔很流畅，没有过多的模版和套话。论证的思路上我觉得和我的风格不太一样。不知道你是否看过argu论证的错误归类。我习惯性把每个错误归到某类中去。如：“hasty generalization”, causal oversimplification, false dilemma, false analogy, etc.而你是针对文章的某一点展开,这样的论述特点更鲜明。
感谢你对我作业的评阅。你的建议让我看到自己作文的不足。有写问题还是可以交流一下，共同进步。如：TS句子的表述问题，我觉得最重要的是找准错误，然后概括清楚。至于论述的顺序，也是个关键问题。顺序是建立在论点的基础上。欢迎交换意见哈～

[ 本帖最后由 wchao69 于 2007-6-22 15:58 编辑 ]

sara0522UID: 2336981

啊~~~~~~~~ 改不了了,写的太好了,为什么LZ老是能掰出这么多字来啊~~~~

jiangyue011UID: 2340595

看猴哥的argu了吧，呵呵，感觉你批判的顺序也和它上面一样呢。
另外看了你所有的argu, 我觉得你在写第一段的时候是不是都想得太细太全了呀，呵呵，这样会不会在考场上耽误些时间。
文章错误很少，因字数多而显得“丰满”， 挺好。

wzhfutureUID: 2264867

In the above argument, the arguer’s assertion of taking antibiotics to avoid second infections appears reasonable. However, the author didn’t consider the cases where(that?) there is no second infection at all. Nor did him clearly interpretate the study or its application to the muscle strain patients.

First of all, it is presumptuous to assume that all the patients suffering severe muscle strain have secondary infections only according to the doctors’ suspicion. The arguer falsely assumes that the secondary infection, which might happen, actually occurs to each patient. It is likely that with professional treatment from the doctors and careful tendance from the nurses and the relatives, secondary infections could be avoided, shortening the recover time for healing. If it is the case, the emphasis should be shift to avoid the infections instead of the treatment after their appearance. Additionally, myriads of other variables should be taken into consideration upon the healing of a muscle strain patient, such as the necessary physical exercises for the muscles, whether the recovering legs could walk and coordinate properly, or the patients’ metal confidence, whether they would like to beat the muscle strain with full energy, or instead, feel lost and refuse further treatments or exercises. Thus, a more specific analysis of the causes of the secondary infections and the healings determinants is needed to make the argument more forceful.

Secondly, even if we concede secondary infections happens(happen) to every severe patient, the effectiveness of the antibiotics is open to doubt. The study referred in the argument ignores the inherent difference between the two groups of patients and distinctive treatments from two doctors. It is possible that patients going to see Dr. Newland are mainly getting hurt during exercises, with the condition easily under control without any infection at all whereas those going to Dr. Alton are mostly the ones with chronic problems or the most severe cases, which of course need much longer time for recovering even if they also take the antibiotics. Without comparable patients, the conclusion that antibiotics help shortening the recuperating time is too hasty. (Time is up, word 349) Or perhaps the two doctors have varied definition of recuperation. While Dr. Newland may simply let the patients go after the release of the pain whereas Dr. Alton may use the results of equipment testing or physical exercises variables to make sure the muscles are fully recovered and functions properly. Without detail information to the related aspects, hardly can we make any conclusion about the usefulness of the antibiotics in the muscle strain patients’ recovering.

Moreover, even assuming that antibiotics are powerful to help severe patients, no evidence is provide(d) to indicate that it would help all patients. We don’t know the effect of antibiotics in slight hurt cases, nor do we know whether it has any negative effect in these slight cases. If the extensive usage of antibiotics makes the secondary infecting bacteria more resistant, the doctors could do nothing when the same patients get severe muscle strain. It also might be the case that the antibiotics might damage some healthy tissue or interfere with other drugs used in the slight cases. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause great doubt upon the application of antibiotics to the muscle strain patients.

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given further discussion about the way to avoid the secondary infections, the thorough understanding of the study, and the effect of antibiotics in all possible situations, the arguer’s advice cannot be adopted.
文笔没得说..但感觉第一和三的攻击好象有些离题了?
lz对这种对比实验的题应是很有经验吧...呵呵

strokes7UID: 2262256

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."

50 min
Words: 593

In the above argument, the arguer’s assertion of taking antibiotics to avoid second infections appears reasonable. However, the author didn’t consider the cases where there is no second infection at all. Nor did him clearly interpretate (interpret) the study or its application to the muscle strain patients.

First of all, it is presumptuous to assume that all the patients suffering severe muscle strain have secondary infections only according to the doctors’ suspicion. The arguer falsely assumes that the secondary infection, which might happen, actually occurs to each patient. It is likely that with professional treatment from the doctors and careful tendance from the nurses and the relatives, secondary infections could be avoided, shortening the recover time for healing. If it is the case, the emphasis should be shift to avoid the infections instead of the treatment after their appearance. Additionally, myriads of other variables should be taken into consideration upon the healing of a muscle strain patient, such as the necessary physical exercises for the muscles, whether the recovering legs could walk and coordinate properly, or the patients’ metal confidence, whether they would like to beat the muscle strain with full energy, or instead, feel lost and refuse further treatments or exercises. Thus, a more specific analysis of the causes of the secondary infections and the healings determinants is needed to make the argument more forceful. (这段的思路感觉有点乱噢，我以前写过一次这个题，也试着在第一段去证明不是所有人都会二次感染，但是发现很难和整篇文章结合起来。)

Secondly, even if we concede secondary infections happens to every severe patient, the effectiveness of the antibiotics is open to doubt. The study referred in the argument ignores the inherent difference between the two groups of patients and distinctive treatments from two doctors. It is possible that patients going to see Dr. Newland are mainly getting hurt during exercises, with the condition easily under control without any infection at all whereas those going to Dr. Alton are mostly the ones with chronic problems or the most severe cases, which of course need much longer time for recovering even if they also take the antibiotics. Without comparable patients, the conclusion that antibiotics help shortening the recuperating time is too hasty. (Time is up, word 349) Or perhaps the two doctors have varied definition of recuperation. While Dr. Newland may simply let the patients go after the release of the pain whereas Dr. Alton may use the results of equipment testing or physical exercises variables to make sure the muscles are fully recovered and functions properly. Without detail information to the related aspects, hardly can we make any conclusion about the usefulness of the antibiotics in the muscle strain patients’ recovering.

Moreover, even assuming that antibiotics are powerful to help severe patients, no evidence is provide to indicate that it would help all patients. We don’t know the effect of antibiotics in slight hurt cases, nor do we know whether it has any negative effect in these slight cases. If the extensive usage of antibiotics makes the secondary infecting bacteria more resistant, the doctors could do nothing when the same patients get severe muscle strain. It also might be the case that the antibiotics might damage some healthy tissue or interfere with other drugs used in the slight cases. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause great doubt upon the application of antibiotics to the muscle strain patients. (我觉得这段写过敏比较合适，大家也更容易理解)

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given further discussion about the way to avoid the secondary infections, the thorough understanding of the study, and the effect of antibiotics in all possible situations, the arguer’s advice cannot be adopted.

happyhappypigUID: 2342810

今天发现有人考过这道题，又翻出来看了一下大家的评论，呵呵，偷懒了没有重写。
这篇是看完“argument就应该这样写”之后的一篇，而且貌似就用的这个例子，所以多少受了点影响，呵呵。
再看一下逻辑

B1. 如果不是所有的人都有secondary infection那就算是antibiotics有作用，也不见得每个人都适用吧。不知道这个point放在这里好还是最后好。问题时，如果secondary infection根本就是可以避免的，或者是只有少数人才发生的，那我们为什么不努力减少这些infection的发生呢？我觉得他最后的结尾是对于这些病人treatment的建议，那如果可以不需要antibiotics的treatment不是更好？

B2. 不用说了大家都批的，试验不可比较，patient condition不一样，doctor treatment, standard也不一样，呵呵

B3. 是不是所有的人都适用antibiotics, 除了allergic 之外，我还想到关于antibiotics resistant, 还可能说有些病人在患其他病的时候已经使用antibiotics所以可以已经resistance了

现在就想到这么多