Argument51 [0710G-summer小组]第6次作业 by name05

name05UID: 2291624

Argument51 (words 426)

"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."

提纲：
1、首先，前提不一定成立，没有任何资料证明二次感染会发生在肌肉拉伤的病人身上，或者是这种病人容易发生二次感染；
2、论断没有提供两组病人的相关资料，如他们的性别、年龄以及其他生理特征。体质不一样，就不能说明是抗生素而不是其他原因导致第一组病人康复的快；
3、另外，两位医生的经验和水平也会影响病人的康复速度；一般来说specialized in sports medicine要比general physician更了解肌肉的情况，所以由他治疗的病人康复速度快。这样就不能说明是抗生素是病人恢复的快；
4、没有资料证明食用这种糖片会不会影响病人的康复速度；
5、没有考虑抗生素除了杀菌防止感染外还可能带来其他问题，如副作用，也有可能有人对抗生素过名，这些情况没有考虑进来就急于建议所有肌肉损伤的病人服用抗生素太仓促了。

In this argument, the arguer advocates that all muscle injured patients should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer points out that a result of a study of two groups of patients, who suffers from muscle injuries, reveals that those who took antibiotics recuperates more quickly than those who did not. At first glance, this advocating seems somewhat reasonable, but further reflection reveals that it omits some critical information, which makes it suffer from several logical flaws.

The threshold problem is there are no evidences show that secondary infections will inevitably occurred on patients with muscle injuries or these patients are most easily tend to suffer such infections. Without such critical documents or data, the whole basis of the author’s argument would nothing but just a unwarranted assumption.

What’s more, the author does not give out any relevant documents of the two groups patients such as gender, age, and other physical condition. Perhaps, the first group is younger or their physical condition is better than the second group on average. Without ruling these and other possible factors, the author cannot justifiably conclude that only antibiotic taking could accelerate recuperation of muscle injured patients.

Even assuming documents mentioned above is given, the conclusion could not be drawn out, because the experience and ability would also affect the recuperation of patients. Generally speaking, doctor specialized in sports medicine always knows much more about muscles than general physician and thus patients under his care will get well more quickly. Therefore, if this is true, it would be impossible to suggest that it is antibiotic taking that accelerate recuperation of muscle injured patients.

Even if the two doctors’ experiences and abilities are the same, there is no evidence that this sugar pills would not delay the recuperation of the patients. So only based on the study of these two groups could not justifiably conclude that antibiotic can cure muscle injuries.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw involved in this statement that patients should take antibiotic to avoid the inhibition, caused by secondary infection, of quickly healing, without considering some other problems such as side-effects or perhaps some patients are sensitive to antibiotics. Without these considerations, it would too hasty to persuade all patients taking antibiotic pills.

In conclusion, this recommendation is wholly unwarranted only based on the unconvincing study. To make this argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to all relevant factors that would rectify these flaws mentioned above.

[ 本帖最后由 name05 于 2007-7-23 14:44 编辑 ]

laststrikeUID: 2318203

首先，逻辑错误都找出来了，但是因为5个错误很难详细weaken，所以每一段的weaken都有些单薄。

In this argument, the argueradvocates that all muscle injured patients should take antibiotics aspart of their treatment. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguerpoints out that a result of a study of two groups of patients, whosuffers from muscle injuries, reveals that those who took antibioticsrecuperates more quickly than those who did not. At first glance, thisadvocating seems somewhat reasonable, but further reflection revealsthat it omits some critical information, which makes it suffer fromseveral logical flaws.

The threshold problem is there areno evidences show that secondary infections will inevitably occurred onpatients with muscle injuries or these patients are most easily tend tosuffer such infections. Without such critical documents or data, thewhole basis of the author’s argument would nothing but just aunwarranted assumption.（我认为这个没必要攻击，这不是作者的reason，只是一个backgroup的介绍）

What’s more, the author does notgive out any relevant documents of the two groups patients such asgender, age, and other physical condition. Perhaps, the first group isyounger or their physical condition is better than the second group onaverage. (一句话的攻击很没有力度啊）Without ruling these and other possible factors, the authorcannot justifiably conclude that only antibiotic taking couldaccelerate recuperation of muscle injured patients.

Even assuming documents mentionedabove is given, the conclusion could not be drawn out, because theexperience and ability would also affect the recuperation of patients.Generally speaking, doctor specialized in sports medicine always knowsmuch more about muscles than general physician and thus patients underhis care will get well more quickly. (老问题，一句话的攻击很没有力度啊）Therefore, if this is true, itwould be impossible to suggest that it is antibiotic taking thataccelerate recuperation of muscle injured patients.

Even if the two doctors’experiences and abilities are the same, there is no evidence that thissugar pills would not delay the recuperation of the patients. So onlybased on the study of these two groups could not justifiably concludethat antibiotic can cure muscle injuries.（同上）

Before I come to my conclusion, itis necessary to point out another flaw involved in this statement thatpatients should take antibiotic to avoid the inhibition, caused bysecondary infection, of quickly healing, without considering some otherproblems such as side-effects or perhaps some patients are sensitive（allergic) toantibiotics. Without these considerations, it would too hasty topersuade all patients taking antibiotic pills.

In conclusion, this recommendationis wholly unwarranted only based on the unconvincing study. To makethis argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide moreinformation with regard to all relevant factors that would rectifythese flaws mentioned above.

rainyni0812UID: 2186847

看了你的之后发现自己的错误找的很不全而且有些偏，近两次的argument感觉大家开始找的有差异了，题目的难度加大了。不过错误不一定要面面俱到，忌讳是遗漏大的错误，所以在分析出错误的基础上要将几个错误分一下权重，向你列举的几个错误，123是大的错误，45应该算细节吧，可以归结一段概括分析。现在的情况看，批判过程有点分散。
提纲：
1、首先，前提不一定成立，没有任何资料证明二次感染会发生在肌肉拉伤的病人身上，或者是这种病人容易发生二次感染；
2、论断没有提供两组病人的相关资料，如他们的性别、年龄以及其他生理特征。体质不一样，就不能说明是抗生素而不是其他原因导致第一组病人康复的快；
3、另外，两位医生的经验和水平也会影响病人的康复速度；一般来说specialized in sports medicine要比general physician更了解肌肉的情况，所以由他治疗的病人康复速度快。这样就不能说明是抗生素是病人恢复的快；
4、没有资料证明食用这种糖片会不会影响病人的康复速度；
5、没有考虑抗生素除了杀菌防止感染外还可能带来其他问题，如副作用，也有可能有人对抗生素过名，这些情况没有考虑进来就急于建议所有肌肉损伤的病人服用抗生素太仓促了。

In this argument, the arguer advocates that all muscle injured patients should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer points out that a result of a study of two groups of patients, who suffers from muscle injuries, reveals that those who took antibiotics recuperates more quickly than those who did not. At first glance, this advocating seems somewhat reasonable, but further reflection reveals that it omits some critical information, which makes it suffers from several logical flaws.

The threshold problem is no evidence show that secondary infections will inevitably occurred on patients with muscle injuries or these patients are most easily tend to suffer such infections. Without such critical documents or data, the whole basis of the author’s argument would nothing（？） but just an unwarranted assumption.

What is more, the author does not give out any relevant documents of the two groups patients such as gender, age, and other physical condition. Perhaps, the first group is younger or their physical condition is better than the second group on average. Without ruling these and other possible factors, the author cannot justifiably conclude that only antibiotic taking could accelerate recuperation of muscle injured patients.

Even assuming documents mentioned above are given, the conclusion could not be drawn out, because the experience and ability of doctors would also affect the recuperation of patients. Generally speaking, doctor specialized in sports medicine always knows much more about muscles than general physician and thus patients under his care will get well more quickly. Therefore, if this is true, it would be impossible to suggest that it is antibiotic taking that accelerate recuperation of muscle injured patients.

Even if the two doctors’ experiences and abilities are the same, there is no evidence that this sugar pills would not delay the recuperation of the patients. So only based on the study of these two groups could not justifiably conclude that antibiotic can cure muscle injuries.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw involved in this statement that patients should take antibiotic to avoid the inhibition, caused by secondary infection, of quickly healing, without considering some other problems such as side-effects or perhaps some patients are sensitive to antibiotics. Without these considerations, it would too hasty to persuade all patients taking antibiotic pills.

In conclusion, this recommendation is wholly unwarranted only based on the unconvincing study. To make this argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to all relevant factors that would rectify these flaws mentioned above.