【超越自我小组】8月17日作业argument51

sccdcdUID: 2289393

In the letter, author argues that all the patients who are suffering muscle strain should take antibiotics for their treatment. He takes a comparison between two groups of patients to prove his conclusion. However, the author overlooks the conditions between two groups of patients are quite different and the conclusion depends on an unsubstantiated assumption.

To begin with, the incomplete information that the two group of patients have different doctors misleading the assertion that could not be tested. For the doctor for the first group is specializes in sports medicine, while the other on for the second group is a general physician. It is common that a specialist on sports medicine have more experiences to treat patient who suffers muscle strain than a general physician one does. As a result, the first group patients have less recuperation time than the second group consumes. Therefore, providing merely the incomplete information without all round comparison showing that the two doctors do the same at treating muscle strains, the author can not convincing me effectively.

Even if I concede that the general physician does as well as the specialist on sport medicine, the author fails to define what the secondary infections are. If it define as the second infection which attack the patient who have muscle strain, then it has little relative to the situation the author infers, where the two groups are both devoid of even the first infection. Despite of antibiotics or sugar pills which give to the two groups respectively, no evidence lend any support for either muscle strain easily neither lead to the second infection nor can the antibiotics help patients heal from strain muscle. In short, without a clear definition of a secondary infection, it is impossible to assess the strength of the argument.

What is more, the author makes a dubious assumption about using antibiotics to all the muscle strain patients who might be infected, without weighting other unexpected consequences. On one hand, it is possible the use of antibiotics is useful for a bad cold, but useless for muscle infection. On the other hand, common sense informs me that abusing antibiotics could lead to a terrible consequence. Under any scenario, adopting the author’s proposal might be harm rather than benefit.

To strengthen the argument, the author is required to control the conditions between two groups, at least, the same doctor. And it is better to rise up a comparison for secondary infection and no infection, because without the comparison, the conclusion for keeping patients from healing is not convincible.

zugurrrUID: 2482827

In the letter, author argues that all the patients who are suffering muscle strain should take antibiotics for their treatment. He takes a comparison between two groups of patients to prove his conclusion. However, the author overlooks the conditions between two groups of patients are quite different and the conclusion depends on an unsubstantiated assumption.

To begin with, the incomplete(去掉) information that the two group of patients have different doctors misleading the assertion that could not be tested. For the doctor for the first group is specializes in sports medicine, while the other on for the second group is a general physician. It is common that a specialist on sports medicine have more experiences to treat patient who suffers muscle strain than a general physician one does. As a result, the first group patients have less recuperation time than the second group consumes. Therefore, providing merely the incomplete information without all round comparison showing that the two doctors do the same at treating muscle strains, the author can not convincing me effectively.

Even if I concede that the general physician does as well as the specialist on sport medicine, the author fails to define what the secondary infections are. If it define as the second infection which attack the patient who have muscle strain, then it has little relative to the situation the author infers, where the two groups are both devoid of even the first infection（关于second infection 的定义 和它对于治疗影响，我看不懂你这句话如何反对这个观点的。）. Despite of antibiotics or sugar pills which give to the two groups respectively, no evidence lend any support for either muscle strain easily neither lead to the second infection nor can the antibiotics help patients heal from strain muscle. In short, without a clear definition of a secondary infection, it is impossible to assess the strength of the argument.（关于second infection 的定义 似乎和）

What is more, the author makes a dubious assumption about using antibiotics to all the muscle strain patients who might be infected, without weighting other unexpected consequences. On one hand, it is possible the use of antibiotics is useful for a bad cold, but useless for muscle infection. On the other hand, common sense informs me that abusing antibiotics could lead to a terrible consequence. Under any scenario, adopting the author’s proposal might be harm rather than benefit.


To strengthen the argument, the author is required to control the conditions between two groups, at least, the same doctor. And it is better to rise up a comparison for secondary infection and no infection, because without the comparison, the conclusion for keeping patients from healing is not convincible.
呵呵，关于argument的写作，指导书上的建议是就 论据和论题之间的不充分，以及和假设上的不成立来反驳，但同时你要用自己的观点来反驳。关于这篇，我的攻击点是：1. 对比试验论据的不充分  a 数据的不全面（没有对比两组的具体数据上日期减少，只说是一个相对期望降低40%，另一个是没有显著降低。）  b两种医生（你提到了）  2. 没有理论的支持，及没有明确的second infection 和healing的 causal relationship 的证据。  3. 对于所有病人都要用是不科学了，论据是 影响some patients的恢复。

呵呵，个人片面的观点。仅供参考

sccdcdUID: 2289393

哎呀，真是辛苦你了。argument也改了。你说的对。在argument上面我也是写的如履薄冰。我觉得argument的精髓就是要讲理，怎么看起来讲理呢？就是要用他自己观点攻击他的结论，让他心服口服，没有还口之力。全部的道理都在于，前提推不出结论。
首先，数据的错误是可以做到这一点的。（但是数据的谬误往往是小错误）
其次，没有必然的因果关系也可以做到这一点。（我觉得这个是最有力的）
最后，就是结论不可行，这个加上了自己的观点，怕会写成issue。

apjackUID: 2381599

讚成你的論點. 但係攻擊時應該點攻. 係最有力為先,OR 数据-因果-結論不行 (即係你寫的次序)