issue51 [Jet小组第四次作业]

txjlionUID: 2445370

字数 466              强烈要求猛拍

Based on a study that the recuperation of one group of patients, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected, the arguer concludes that all patients, with muscle strain, should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, there are several flaws in this argument.

To begin with, the major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to provide strong evidence to convince us the credibility of the result of the study. Firstly, we don't know how many patients participated in each group in the study. If the number were not big enough, the result would be unwarranted. Secondly, also, from the study quoted in the argument, it is the same condition when it comes to the age, the gender and so on. There is no sign of such procedures for random sampling. So we have good reason to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general conditions of all the people. We all know that women and men are distinct physiologically. And people of different age have different health condition. So if one group contains much more younger patients, who is easier to cure, than the other group, the result will also be unwarranted.

Next, the arguer fails to consider the factor that Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, is probably better than Dr. Alton, a general physician, in the area of muscle injuries. Muscle injuries are common injuries in sports, and Dr. Newland is a specializes in sports medicine. So he should treat more muscle injury patient than Dr. Alton. It is well know that practice makes perfect. For example, the patients in group one can be given more advise about how to protect themselves from being injured. Also, maybe Dr. Newland massaged the patients in his group in a given time. All these measures  can be contributive to the cure of the participants.

And also, we are not told that all the patients with severe muscle strain must get secondary infections. The argument unfairly consume that secondary infections is definitely occur on the these patients, which is unwarranted and makes his conclusion unconvincing.

In addition, taking antibiotics regularly throughout the treatment may give rise to side effects. So if no evidence can be available to attest the safety of taking antibiotics for every one, it is improper for all the people taking them.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to convince us these two group patient are similar in every aspect. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the effect of the different ability of the two doctors.

teeweeUID: 2456185

Based on a study that the recuperation time of one group of patients, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected, the arguer concludes that all patients, with muscle strain, should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, there are several flaws in this argument.

To begin with, the major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to provide strong evidence to convince us the credibility of the result of the study. Firstly, we don't know how many patients participated in each group in the study. If the number were not big enough, the result would be unwarranted. Secondly, also, from the study quoted in the argument, it is the same condition when it comes to the age, the gender and so on. There is no sign of such procedures for random sampling. So we have good reason to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general conditions of all the people.感觉这句话有点牵强啊，这里面没有涉及随机抽样的问题。We all know that women and men are distinct physiologically. And people of different age have different health condition. So if one group contains much more younger patients, who’s muscle injuries is(are) easier to cure, than the other group, the result will also be unwarranted.

Next, the arguer fails to consider the factor that Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, is probably better这个词换一下吧, 比如改为 more familiar或者其他更好的 than Dr. Alton, a general physician, in the area of muscle injuries. Muscle injuries are common injuries in sports, and Dr. Newland is a specializes in sports medicine. So he (should treat)应该是完成时吧，表示已经治疗过，改为 may has treated more muscle injury patients than Dr. Alton. It is well know that practice makes perfect. For example, the patients in group one can be given more advise about how to protect themselves from being injured.这个例子与恢复时间没有关系吧，放在这儿是不是有些不妥，感觉举例子应该举后面第二个这样的。 Also, maybe Dr. Newland massaged the patients in his group in a given time. All these measures  can be contributive（前面红色的批语中提到了，第一个例子对病人伤势的愈合没有贡献） to the cure of the participants.

And also, we are not told that all the patients with severe muscle strain must get secondary infections. The argument unfairly consume that secondary infections is definitely occur on the these patients, which is unwarranted and makes his conclusion unconvincing.

In addition, taking antibiotics regularly throughout the treatment may give rise to side effects. So if no evidences can be改为are available to attest the safety of taking antibiotics for every one, it is improper for all the people taking them.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to convince us these two group patient are similar in every aspect. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the effect of the different ability of the two doctors.

只有一些小问题，逻辑错误发掘得非常全面。
顶一下。^_^
revised by wangzexun@56#jet