Argument51 [perseverance&crack小组]第五次作业by 执着

wchao69UID: 2209794

Argument 51
The arguer in this editorial reaches a conclusion that doctors do not need to suspect the fact that secondary infections would prevent some patients from healing quickly after serious muscle strain due to a study and suggest that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To uphold his/her claim, the arguer cites the results of a study of two groups of patients, who are separately treated. Based on the abovementioned analysis, the argument seems to be credible at first glance, while revealed by a close scrutiny, the argument omits some necessary concerns that should be considered and addressed to substantiate the conclusion.

To begin with, the first and also the most glaring fallacy the arguer commits is "hasty generalization" in assuming that the two groups of patients includes all typical situation and the results of the study are representative enough. However, this is not necessarily the case. Actually, the arguer fails to provide the number of the sample, which directly affects the accuracy of the results. The more people in one group are, the more accurate the results are, and the more convincing the suggestion is. Furthermore, the arguer fails to take into account the difference and professional skills of the two doctors, which may also influence the results of the study. Based on such insufficient information, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.

Secondly, even if we concede that people of the study is representative and the results of the study is convincing, the arguer still commits a fallacy of "false dilemma", since the arguer assume that the antibiotics and sugar pills is actually an either-or choice for the patients. Yet in all likelihood, other kinds of medicine can better cure the patient, and the antibiotics are not the best one. Also, it is highly possible that the antibiotics can not cure the patients with serious muscle strain as fast as another medicine can; or perhaps the antibiotics can dramatically reduce the average recuperation time, but they have some side-effect which would hurt the body and health of the patients in some other way. And there is another possibility that the antibiotics are effective the first time when the patients are treated, but they will lose their function to the patients with secondary infections. Consequently, any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion that the arguer has reached.

Further more, even if we were to concede all the abovementioned possibilities can be eliminated, the arguer still cannot preclude the longtime doubt of doctors that secondary infections may prevent some patients from recovering quickly after severe muscle strain. Actually the study has nothing to do with the secondary infections. To solidify his/her suggestion, the arguer should provide more evidences, like the patients who are surveyed in this study have got secondary infections. Without such premise, the argument is unsubstantial.   

To sum up, the argument is logically problematic and therefore unreasonable as it stands. To strengthen his/her recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidences. Such evidences may include the following: 1,the sample of the study are of authority and representative; 2, there are no better medicine than antibiotics for the patient to recover sooner; 3, the study can provide the difference between the date of patients  with secondary infections and those not. Without such evidence, the arguer can not make the conclusion and suggestion convincing.

小破孩UID: 2125288

The arguer in this editorial reaches a conclusion that doctors do not need to suspect the fact that secondary infections would prevent some patients from healing quickly after serious muscle strain due to a study and suggest that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To uphold his/her claim, the arguer cites the results of a study of two groups of patients, who are separately treated. Based on the abovementioned analysis, the argument seems to be credible at first glance, while revealed by a close scrutiny, the argument omits some necessary concerns that should be considered and addressed to substantiate the conclusion.感觉开头有点厂，不过如果lz打字很快的话也可以，但是感觉实际考试的时候放重点在body上比较好吧

To begin with, the first and also the most glaring（我不知道这个可不可以修饰fallacy） fallacy the arguer commits is "hasty generalization" in assuming that the two groups of patients includes all typical situation and the results of the study are representative enough. 大概看了一下ts一共34words，貌似在那里看过6分得ts不会超过25,有待考证，呵呵However, this is not necessarily the case. Actually, the arguer fails to provide the number of the sample, which directly affects the accuracy of the results. The more people in one group are, the more accurate the results are, and the more convincing the suggestion is. Furthermore, the arguer fails to take into account the difference and professional skills of the two doctors, which may also influence the results of the study. Based on such insufficient information, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.关于study或者survey要不要批的问题好像有很多帖子讨论过，不过我个人还是觉得放在后面说吧，毕竟这个不是最严重的逻辑错误

Secondly, even if we concede that people of the study is representative and the results of the study is convincing后面这些可以不要了吧representative就够了, the arguer still commits a fallacy of "false dilemma", since the arguer assume that the antibiotics and sugar pills is actually an either-or choice for the patients. 还是ts有点长，而且人家只是说这个study里面用sugar pill作为control, 并没有说实际应用的时候也要用sugar pills啊，而且关于faslse delimma我感觉好像应该是那种不要选这个市长，而要选那个市长，或者是不要用这个公司而要用另一个公司的吧，还有其他候选人或者其他公司可以供选择。不知道我理解得对不对。或者ts可以写成：Secondly, even if we concede the validity of the study, the arguer gratuitously assumes that ......Yet in all likelihood, other kinds of medicine can better cure the patient, and the antibiotics are not the best one. 题目里只是说antibiotics可以帮助防止secondary infection而使恢复时间缩短啊Also, it is highly possible that the antibiotics can not cure the patients with serious muscle strain as fast as another medicine can; or perhaps the antibiotics can dramatically reduce the average recuperation time, but they have some side-effect which would hurt the body and health of the patients in some other way. And there is another possibility that the antibiotics are effective the first time when the patients are treated, but they will lose their function to the patients with secondary infections. Consequently, any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion that the arguer has reached.感觉这段的前一部分和题目的关系不是很大

Further more, even if we were to concede all the abovementioned possibilities can be eliminated, the arguer still cannot preclude the longtime doubt of doctors that secondary infections may prevent some patients from recovering quickly after severe muscle strain. Actually the study has nothing to do with the secondary infections. To solidify his/her suggestion, the arguer should provide more evidences, like the patients who are surveyed in this study have got secondary infections. Without such premise, the argument is unsubstantial.  个人觉得这个才是最大的逻辑错误！如果那些study里的人根本没有secondary infection,或者大部分muscle restrain的病人都没有secondary infection那就算抗生素有用，我们也不需要阿。

To sum up, the argument is logically problematic and therefore unreasonable as it stands. To strengthen his/her recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidences. Such evidences may include the following: 1,the sample of the study are of authority and representative; 2, there are no better medicine than antibiotics for the patient to recover sooner; 3, the study can provide the difference between the date of patients  with secondary infections and those not. Without such evidence, the arguer can not make the conclusion and suggestion convincing.

我觉得论证的顺序可能要再斟酌一下，虽然好像层层让步的方法感觉很强势，但是如果找的不是关键的错误的话还不是很有力量
个人浅见，欢迎回拍

wm23UID: 2245087

The arguer in this editorial reaches a conclusion that doctors do not need to suspect the fact that secondary infections would prevent some patients from healing quickly after serious muscle strain due to a study and suggest that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To uphold his/her claim, the arguer cites the results of a study of two groups of patients, who are separately treated. Based on the abovementioned analysis, the argument seems to be credible at first glance, while revealed by a close scrutiny, the argument omits some necessary concerns that should be considered and addressed to substantiate the conclusion.(第一段应该简洁一些，转述原文再精简些，不过我也有这问题。第一句话从句套从句有些复杂，不易理解。)

To begin with, the first and also the most glaring fallacy the arguer commits is "hasty generalization" in assuming that the two groups of patients includes all typical situation and the results of the study are representative enough. However, this is not necessarily the case. Actually, the arguer fails to provide the number of the sample, which directly affects the accuracy of the results. The more people in one group are, the more accurate the results are, and the more convincing the suggestion is.（三个the…more，层层递进，有气势。） Furthermore, the arguer fails to take into account the difference and professional skills of the two doctors, which may also influence the results of the study. Based on such insufficient information, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.（这段意思比较清楚，而且论证也充分，但这个错误可以放在后面的段落里，把更明显的或重要的错误写在前面。而且在题目中说到第一组使用抗生素平均比预计的标准的或普遍的恢复时间短40％，但作者并未说明这个预计的标准恢复时间是从使用何种药物，病人的病情和医疗条件下得出的，所以由此比对而得出的结论也不可靠。）

Secondly, even if we concede that people of the study is representative and the results of the study is convincing, the arguer still commits a fallacy of "false dilemma", since the arguer assume that the antibiotics and sugar pills is actually an either-or choice for the patients. Yet in all likelihood, other kinds of medicine can better cure the patient, and the antibiotics are not the best one. Also, it is highly possible that the antibiotics can not cure the patients with serious muscle strain as fast as another medicine can; or perhaps the antibiotics can dramatically reduce the average recuperation time, but they have some side-effect which would hurt the body and health of the patients in some other way. And there is another possibility that the antibiotics are effective the first time when the patients are treated, but they will lose their function to the patients with secondary infections. Consequently, any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion that the arguer has reached.（本段针对问题提出了很多假设来做为推翻题目观点的论据，不过可以再在此基础上再加强一下，以更肯定的相关论据加强你的论点。本段还分析一下题目中的错误结论，第一组的病人服用抗生素，比那个预期的标准康复时间短40％，第二组未服用抗生素而是sugar pills，只是告诉他们是抗生素，但康复时间并未比第一组慢多少，由此得出的结论应该是抗生素并非一个有效的治疗手段，而是对于该病效果不大。）

Further more, even if we were to concede all the abovementioned possibilities can be eliminated, the arguer still cannot preclude the longtime doubt of doctors that secondary infections may prevent some patients from recovering quickly after severe muscle strain. Actually the study has nothing to do with the secondary infections. To solidify his/her suggestion, the arguer should provide more evidences, like the patients who are surveyed in this study have got secondary infections. Without such premise, the argument is unsubstantial. （提出关键的错误，但论证过程有些仓促，再加强，详细一些）

To sum up, the argument is logically problematic and therefore unreasonable as it stands. To strengthen his/her recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidences. Such evidences may include the following: 1,the sample of the study are of authority and representative; 2, there are no better medicine than antibiotics for the patient to recover sooner; 3, the study can provide the difference between the date of patients  with secondary infections and those not. Without such evidence, the arguer can not make the conclusion and suggestion convincing.（结尾我觉得挺好，并且提出了加强办法，条理也很清楚。）
总体思路清楚，而且层次分明，但是应该提出一些更关键的逻辑错误。至于语法上的问题，我也不是很精通，老犯错，有待高手指正啦。
呵呵，我的作文也还要多多练习，一起努力吧！！

[ 本帖最后由 wm23 于 2007-6-23 23:51 编辑 ]