查看: 1519|回复: 7

[a习作temp] Argument51 求好心人狠拍有拍必回~~~！！！ [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 196
注册时间: 2009-3-16
精华: 0
帖子: 3

发表于 2009-8-24 15:25:54 |显示全部楼层

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.'

In this argument, the author concludes that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well suggested to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the argument, the author cited a study of 2 groups of patients. One group was treated by Dr. Newland taking antibiotics throughout their treatment while another group takes sugar pills instead. And the first group's recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than another group on average. However, at the first glance, these reasoning seem to be appealing. After a close scrutiny of the reason, we would find how groundless the conclusion is. The argument is unconvincing for several critical fallacies that will be mentioned below.
To begin with, the author surely assumes that most of the patients with muscle strain would have secondary infections which are not proved in this argument. This argument is all talking about the secondary infections may keep from healing. However, if the patient doesn't get infections then the problem doesn't exist at all. So we should know how many percent of patients would have secondary infection. Before that we cannot suggests all the patients to take antibiotics.
Secondly, the author didn't account for other possibilities that may results the different recuperation time of 2 groups. The author didn't mention the age, sex and health condition of the 2 groups of patients. It is possible that the first group is younger and the health condition is better than the second group. Then it is not the antibiotics that help to reduce the recuperation time but themselves. And we cannot rules out a possibility the sugar pills that the second group takes keep the patients from healing quickly because the author did not tell us what it contained.
Finally, the author did not consider the side effect of antibiotics. In common sense, we know that using too much antibiotics would make the sensitivity of our body to antibiotics reduce. So if we keep using antibiotics throughout the treatment, it may not work sometime when we really need.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing and unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, we need more information that the 2 groups of patients have the same average age and health condition. And we should know whether most of patients would get secondary infections. Then we should assure that there is no side effect when using antibiotics throughout the treatment.

使用道具举报

wqqingtian
UID: 2594382

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 106
注册时间: 2009-1-23
精华: 0
帖子: 1

发表于 2009-8-24 15:58:23 |显示全部楼层

1. 有点小语法错误什么的，在word里面找找吧
2. 我觉得开头复述那么多没有必要，还不如多把时间花在丰富论证上，开头对作者的论述有个评价，点出逻辑错误，引领下文一下就行了。
3.这篇的逻辑错误的确比较恶心，不多，然后之间关联性不强，文章不好组织，我也没什么思路。
4.lz语言上有点单薄（个人感觉啊）