argument51 [kb9.11] 第4次作业

goldzincUID: 2378390

题目：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."
字数：433          用时：00:56:49          日期：2007-8-18 上午 11:51:34

By comparing recuperation time of two groups of patients who suffer from muscle strain and receiving different treatment from different doctor, the arguer concluded that all patients who are diagnosed with such kind of injury should take antibiotics. Though the compare seems to be a reasonable one, yet taking a careful examination, the flaws within make it insufficiently lends support to the conclusion.

First of all, even though there is an experiment group and a control group in the experiment, no evidence indicates that the patients in the two groups are equally injured. It is entirely possible that the patients under treatment of DR. Newland are extremely seriously injured and therefore more vulnerable to the infection while the injury of DR. Alton’s patients is relatively slight. Thus, the antibiotics will surely be more effective on the first group, but it is unfair to say that all the patients will benefit in antibiotics.

Furthermore, the arguer failed to mention essential information that whether the two doctors using the same method to expect the recuperation time of the patients. Even though the patients from the two doctors are in the same condition, different method of expectation will lead to the seemingly different result. If the Dr. Newland is relatively controversial compared with Dr. Alton who is optimistic, naturally Dr. Newland will expect a longer recuperation time than Dr. Alton. Under such circumstance, the difference of the recuperation time in the two groups of patients of cause should not be attributed to the use of antibiotics.

Finally, no evidence shows that the two doctors treat their patients in the same way except antibiotics, so the different recuperation time may result from other factors rather than antibiotics. Different medicine, whether the injured part is fixed will also affect the recuperation process.  In addition, even if the antibiotics do have effect on this specific group of patients, however, generalize this treatment to all the patients is hasty. The patients in this experiment probably have their muscle strained in the same part of the body, thus it cannot prove that the antibiotics is also effective on other parts of the body.

In sum, the treatment suggested in the argument needs further examination, for the result of the experiment in the argument is not reliable, and the arguer generalizes it too hasty. To justify the conclusion, the arguer needs to prove the patients from the two doctors are evenly injured and receiving same treatment except the antibiotics. Moreover, s/he should also prove that the effect of antibiotics in this experiment surely exists in all the patients.

时间又慢了下来…真头疼

qiuzirumengUID: 199691

By comparing recuperation time of two groups of patients who suffer from muscle strain and receiving different treatment from different doctor, the arguer concluded that all patients who are diagnosed with such kind of injury should take antibiotics. Though the compare[comparition?] seems to be a reasonable one, yet taking a careful examination, the flaws within make it insufficiently lends support to the conclusion.

First of all, even though there is an experiment group and a control group in the experiment, no evidence indicates that the patients in the two groups are equally injured. It is entirely possible that the patients under treatment of DR. Newland are extremely seriously injured and therefore more vulnerable to the infection while the injury of DR. Alton’s patients is relatively slight. Thus, the antibiotics will surely be more effective on the first group, but it is unfair to say that all the patients will benefit in antibiotics.[从病人角度找不同]

Furthermore, the arguer failed to mention essential information that whether the two doctors using the same method to expect the recuperation time of the patients. Even though the patients from the two doctors are in the same condition, different method of expectation will lead to the seemingly different result. If the Dr. Newland is relatively controversial compared with Dr. Alton who is optimistic, naturally Dr. Newland will expect a longer recuperation time than Dr. Alton. Under such circumstance, the difference of the recuperation time in the two groups of patients of cause should not be attributed to the use of antibiotics.[从医生角度找不同，除了医生的主观因素，是否还可以从他们背景角度谈，从而延伸到下面提到的治疗方法]

Finally, no evidence shows that the two doctors treat their patients in the same way except antibiotics, so the different recuperation time may result from other factors rather than antibiotics. Different medicine, whether the injured part is fixed will also affect the recuperation process. [这一点挺好] In addition, even if the antibiotics do have effect on this specific group of patients, however, generalize this treatment to all the patients is hasty. The patients in this experiment probably have their muscle strained in the same part of the body, thus it cannot prove that the antibiotics is also effective on other parts of the body.[]

上面几条基本都是从论据的角度出发，建议考虑一下论据是否支持论点这一角度。

In sum, the treatment suggested in the argument needs further examination, for the result of the experiment in the argument is not reliable, and the arguer generalizes it too hasty. To justify the conclusion, the arguer needs to prove the patients from the two doctors are evenly injured and receiving same treatment except the antibiotics. Moreover, s/he should also prove that the effect of antibiotics in this experiment surely exists in all the patients.

[ 本帖最后由 qiuzirumeng 于 2007-8-19 09:36 编辑 ]