（8.15）Argument51【超越自我小组】第十三次作业

hermituforestUID: 2354296

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 306          TIME: 00:30:55          DATE: 2008-8-17 21:02:15

In this argument, the speaker concluded that because of the fear of secondary infections, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, I think his assertion has some clear mistakes.

First, the speaker gave results of a study of two groups and point out the one with patients taking antibiotic who have shorter recuperation times. But as his saying, the patients recovered quicker received a doctor who specializes in sports medicine treatment and the ones recovered slower only treated by a general physician. We cannot make a conclusion through doctors and even in different levels. The quicker recuperation of the first group may be from other treatment other than the use of antibiotic.

Even if Dr. Alton and Dr. Newland have the same treatment to the patients and the only difference is whether antibiotic is used or not, we cannot conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should use the antibiotic. In the front of this argument, there is a premise that it is the severe muscle strain patients that would have secondary infections which keep them from healing, but not all strains. If a patient only has slightly strains, he should not take antibiotic considering the side-effects of it. So, the speaker should not extend the patients' scope.

Even assume the antibiotic is good for all kinds of people who have muscle strains, the speaker's goal in front of this argument is not be attained. We can only learn from the argument that the antibiotic could shorten the recuperation times but not restrain the secondary infections, which lead this argument lose persuasion totally.

In the end, the speaker failed to explain the benefits of the antibiotic using in muscle strain recuperation. He must reconsider the study and make better illustration.

楚小柳UID: 2518724

In this argument, the speaker concluded that because of the fear of secondary infections, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, I think his assertion has some clear mistakes.
指出作者结论含有逻辑错误

First, the speaker gave results of a study of two groups and point out the one with patients taking antibiotic who have shorter recuperation times精确的表达，不错. But as his 【+or her】saying, the patients recovered quicker received a doctor who specializes in sports medicine treatment and the ones recovered slower only treated by a general physician. We cannot make a conclusion through doctors and even in different levels觉得这句话有点问题，你是想说不能从不同的医生水平的基础上得出这样的结论对吧，我觉得make a conclusion through doctors whose trentment standard are at different level. The quicker recuperation of the first group may be from other treatment other than the use of antibiotic.
我比较赞同开头首句提出每段的逻辑错误，这样方便考官看，你可以考虑在首句加上这段要批驳的逻辑错误是什么

Even if Dr. Alton and Dr. Newland have the same treatment to the patients and the only difference is whether antibiotic is used or not, we cannot conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should use the antibiotic还是那句话，首段就告诉考官你这段要批驳的是什么. In the front of this argument, there is a premise that it is the severe muscle strain patients that would have secondary infections which keep them from healing, but not all strains. If a patient only has slightly strains, he should not take antibiotic considering the side-effects of it. So, the speaker should not extend the patients' scope.
指出严重受伤才容易二次感染，因此要服抗生素，但是不是所有受伤都要二次感染，所以也不用都吃

Even assume the antibiotic is good for all kinds of people who have muscle strains, the speaker's goal in front of this argument is not be attained. We can only learn from the argument that the antibiotic could shorten the recuperation times but not restrain the secondary infections, which lead this argument lose persuasion totally.
这一点正是我欠缺的，说能减少康复时间，但是并没有防止二次感染，很好

In the end, the speaker failed to explain the benefits of the antibiotic using in muscle strain recuperation. He must reconsider the study and make better illustration.

首先。我是很喜欢简单的开头和结尾的，也就是一针见血的指出错误，把时间和笔墨花在论证上
不过觉得你的论证稍显简单马虎了点，每段的论证太少了，其实我觉得可能说2-3个错误把每个错误说清楚更好

[ 本帖最后由 楚小柳 于 2008-8-19 20:24 编辑 ]

zugurrrUID: 2482827

In this argument, the speaker concluded that because of the fear of secondary infections, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, I think his assertion has some clear mistakes.（你这招我也学了，嘿嘿，不介意吧）

First, the speaker gave results of a study of two groups and point out the one with patients taking antibiotic who have shorter recuperation times. But as his saying, the patients recovered quicker received a doctor who specializes in sports medicine treatment and the ones recovered slower only treated by a general physician. We cannot make a conclusion through doctors and even in different levels. The quicker recuperation of the first group may be from other treatment other than the use of antibiotic（建议多点攻击，如医生，调查者身体状况，减少的时间。这招copy于范文）.

Even if Dr. Alton and Dr. Newland have the same treatment to the patients and the only difference is whether antibiotic is used or not, we cannot conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should use the antibiotic. In the front of this argument, there is a premise that it is the severe muscle strain patients that would have secondary infections which keep them from healing, but not all strains. If a patient only has slightly strains, he should not take antibiotic considering the side-effects of it. So, the speaker should not extend the patients' scope.（宏观这段，其中一半为不痛不痒的过渡语句，是不是可以快速入主题，毕竟30分钟不是很充分啊）

Even assume the antibiotic is good for all kinds of people who have muscle strains, the speaker's goal in front of this argument is not be attained. We can only learn from the argument that the antibiotic could shorten the recuperation times but not restrain the secondary infections, which lead this argument lose persuasion totally.（antibiotic not restrain secondary infections??? 不懂。。）

In the end, the speaker failed to explain the benefits of the antibiotic using in muscle strain recuperation. He must reconsider the study and make better illustration.

建议参考下官方例文的argument范文，其中一个很重要的评分点是 在你批驳观点的同时 提出了多少你自己的观点，呵呵说白了不是仅仅指出错误，而是用你论证的自己的观点来反驳他的观点。
个人看法，仅参考~~

hermituforestUID: 2354296

原帖由 zugurrr 于 2008-8-19 00:38 发表
建议参考下官方例文的argument范文，其中一个很重要的评分点是 在你批驳观点的同时 提出了多少你自己的观点，呵呵说白了不是仅仅指出错误，而是用你论证的自己的观点来反驳他的观点。

很有道理。。。谢谢了~~

hermituforestUID: 2354296

原帖由 楚小柳 于 2008-8-18 19:21 发表
我比较赞同开头首句提出每段的逻辑错误，这样方便考官看，你可以考虑在首句加上这段要批驳的逻辑错误是什么

同意~~谢了