argument51 076G myth 小组第2次作业--Phevos

phevos_xxUID: 2258006

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."

syllabus:
A. First of all, the author’s argument based on the irrational assumption that secondary infections would probably happen.
B. In the second place, the author’s argument that the antibiotics would reduce the recuperation time based on the two groups is unconvincing
C. In the third place, assuming that the experiment of these two groups indicates that the antibiotics could decline the recuperation time, it is not necessarily implied that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.


In this argument, the author suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this suggestion, the author shows us a contract experiment between two groups of patients, the result indicates that the antibiotics can reduce the recuperation time. However, this experiment is unconvincing and the author's suggestion is irrational.

First of all, the author's argument based on the irrational assumption that secondary infections would probably occur in the muscle strain is unconvincing. It is only suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, not muscle strain. The author mistakes the severe muscle strain as the general muscle strain. Even in the severe muscle strain, the secondary infections are suspected. No evidence shows that the patient suffering from the muscle strain would get secondary infections.

In the second place, the author's conclusion that the antibiotics would reduce the recuperation time based on the two groups is unconvincing. Let us see the two groups. The first group suffering from the muscle strain and their doctor specializes in sports medicine. What disease the second group suffering from is unknown, and their doctor is a general physician. The first doctor may be more professional in dealing with the muscle strain, so the patient in the first group could recover much more quickly. And since there is no information about the patients, we can not decide whether the two groups of patients are equal in contrasting. Maybe the patients in the first group is much stronger than those in the second group, as a result, they probably could recover from muscle strain much more quickly that the patients of the second group.

In the third place, assuming that the experiment results of these two groups indicate that the antibiotics could decline the recuperation time, it is not necessarily implied that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The doctors do not take experiments in considering whether the antibiotics will have side-effect on the patients who take them regularly. May be the antibiotics will do harm to certain kind of people, and this harm will not reveal until long time has passed.

In conclusion, the author does not give us sufficient evidence to prove that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. It is better for the author to take more experiments on the side-effect of the antibiotic pills and take a more convincing controlled experiment to show that the antibiotics are effective in reducing the recuperation time.

30分钟只写了362个字，拿到word里面修改了一下，加了100个字，呵呵。欢迎狠狠地拍。

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

In this argument, the author suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this suggestion, the author shows us a contract experiment between two groups of patients, the result indicates that the antibiotics can reduce the recuperation time. However, this experiment is unconvincing and the author's suggestion is irrational.逻辑关系层次上少了一层，没有提到开头的假说，另外the result indicates that...这句给人感觉是赞同了作者的观点，不如加入些限定词

First of all, the author's argument based on the irrational assumption that secondary infections would probably occur in the muscle strain is unconvincing. It is only suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, not muscle strain. severe muscle strain就不是muscle strain么？有点白马非马的意思。后面的muscle strain建议改成all kinds of muscle strain，然后后面那句话也有些多余了The author mistakes the severe muscle strain as the general muscle strain. Even in the severe muscle strain, the secondary infections are suspected. No evidence shows that the patient suffering from the muscle strain would get secondary infections.这句话很唐突，事实上作者举出的那个实验就是为了证明溃疡病人会受到二次感染。这句话从并不属于这一段的逻辑层面

In the second place, the author's conclusion that the antibiotics would reduce the recuperation time based on the two groups is unconvincing. Let us see the two groups. The first group suffering from the muscle strain and their doctor specializes in sports medicine. What disease the second group suffering from is unknown不如说是什么程度的疾病，而不是何种疾病，因为作者讨论的前提就是溃疡, and their doctor is a general physician. The first doctor may be more professional in dealing with the muscle strain, so the patient in the first group could recover much more quickly. And since there is no information about the patients, we can not decide whether the two groups of patients are equal in contrasting. Maybe the patients in the first group is much stronger than those in the second group, as a result, they probably could recover from muscle strain much more quickly that the patients of the second group.
有关这一段和前面一段最后一句，我的个人观点是这样的：溃疡是因为伤口感染，实验组中的患者都有溃疡，他们接受抗生素是为了防止二次感染。所以唯一的控制条件应该是抗生素，其他控制因素都应该大抵相当，而且原则上这个实验应该采用双盲实验。所以 No evidence shows that the patient suffering from the muscle strain would get secondary infections和实验不成立原理上是一样的。

In the third place, assuming that the experiment results of these two groups indicate that the antibiotics could decline the recuperation time, it is not necessarily implied that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The doctors do not take experiments in considering whether the antibiotics will have side-effect on the patients who take them regularly. May be the antibiotics will do harm to certain kind of people, and this harm will not reveal until long time has passed.这段没什么问题，而且理由很强，建议可以多写点，提高论证的强度，现在字数实在少了点。

In conclusion, the author does not give us sufficient evidence to prove that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment这句话出现了好多次了，不如换个表达方式. It is better for the author to take more experiments on the side-effect of the antibiotic pills and take a more convincing controlled experiment to show that the antibiotics are effective in reducing the recuperation time.

总体感觉第一段和第二段的逻辑关系有些混乱，特别是第一段攻击点不明确，而且有几次车轱辘话来回说，建议把句子之间的关系再理清楚点。另外象First of all, in the second place, in the third place这种并列式的开段短语有些多余，削弱了段与段之间的逻辑关系。

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2006-10-24 13:35 编辑 ]