ARGUMENT51 【7\8\9\10】 ciludali21第一次作业

ciludali21UID: 2173816

:)

zoubinUID: 2501151

In this analysis, the arguer claims that all patients who have muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics. To support his assumption, a study is cited to prove the hypothesis that secondary infections may slow down the healing process of patients who diagnosed语态 with severe muscle strain. This argument seems well reasoned at first glance; however, there are several major fallacies (which might) undermine this analysis.

The conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain need to take antibiotics is a hasty one. The arguer commits the fallacy of hasty generalization(repeat). Even if the hypothesis was proved by the study, the arguer can only conclude that patients with severe muscle strain can be advised to take antibiotics. It is possible that patients with minor muscle strain will not be infected with secondary infections and therefore do not need any antibiotics as part of the treatment. In addition, the arguer forgets to rule out some special circumstances, for example, patients who are allergic to antibiotics, in this case, taking antibiotics will not be accelerate the healing process.  In all, this assumption is not convincing as it stands (and therefore the conclusion upon this assumption has little credibility).

On the other hand, the study the arguer cited is not entirely supportive to the hypothesis. Firstly, the study contains two groups. In the first group, patients are suffered (我觉得应该是主动语态) from muscle injuries. No evidence is offered that they are all severe muscle strain injuries. It is possible that in this group, most patients have minor injuries and they recover quickly as it is the natural course to take fewer time than severe injuries do, and antibiotics is not helping. In terms of the second group, no specific diagnosis of these patients is given in the text. It is possible that these patients have other combined diseases such as bone fractures, internal bleedings, etc. Without more details about the patient situation and their diagnosis, the hypothesis cannot be strongly proved by this study.

To sum up, this analysis is not convincing in several aspects. To better justify this argument, the arguer needs to provide more information of the study. Also, the arguer needs to exclude other possible factors that affect the healing process. In the end, the arguer should be more careful and use more accurate words when reaching the conclusion.

缺点就是抨击的逻辑错误少了点，能多1段的话会更好。
关于severe与general讨论很好，我写的时候都没注意到这个词。

buctcontrolUID: 2392206

In this analysis, the arguer claims that all patients who have muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics. To support his assumption, a study is cited to prove the hypothesis that secondary infections may slow down the healing process of patients who diagnosed with severe muscle strain. This argument seems well reasoned at first glance; however, there are several major fallacies undermine this analysis.

The conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain need to take antibiotics is a hasty one. The arguer commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the hypothesis was proved by the study, the arguer can only conclude that patients with severe muscle strain can be advised to take antibiotics. It is possible that patients with minor muscle strain will not be infected with secondary infections and therefore do not need any antibiotics as part of the treatment. In addition, the arguer forgets to rule out some special circumstances, for example, patients who are allergic to antibiotics, in this case, taking antibiotics will not be accelerate the healing process.  In all, this assumption is not convincing as it stands.

On the other hand, the study the arguer cited is not entirely supportive to the hypothesis. Firstly, the study contains two groups. In the first group, patients are suffered from muscle injuries. No evidence is offered that they are all severe muscle strain injuries. It is possible that in this group, most patients have minor injuries and they recover quickly as it is the natural course to take fewer time than severe injuries do, and antibiotics is not helping. In terms of the second group, no specific diagnosis of these patients is given in the text. It is possible that these patients have other combined diseases such as bone fractures, internal bleedings, etc. Without more details about the patient situation and their diagnosis, the hypothesis cannot be strongly proved by this study.

To sum up, this analysis is not convincing in several aspects. To better justify this argument, the arguer needs to provide more information of the study. Also, the arguer needs to exclude other possible factors that affect the healing process. In the end, the arguer should be more careful and use more accurate words when reaching the conclusion.
小结：关于对应的问题你可以参考一下。
         此外，对于你所找出的问题我觉得有些许牵强，general和severe的区别我认为太细，有更为主要的问题如对照组的医生不一样，人群可以不一样。正如楼上所说，你找的问题不同于大众的，很有新意，可以有耳目一新效果，不过我觉得主要问题还是需要阐述。一家之见，仅供参考。
         

[ 本帖最后由 buctcontrol 于 2008-7-29 13:11 编辑 ]