argument52 凌晨写完~欢迎指教~留链互拍

zhengzheng1026UID: 168914

argument51

[题目]“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.”


In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion, the arguer points that doctors believe that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The arguer also cites a study to substantiate the conclusion is convincing. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

In the first place, the arguer ignores the differences between the two groups. The patients' age, physical conditions, nutrition conditions and their jobs can affect the recuperation time. For example, it is possible that the patients in the first group are all young adults and the patients in the second group are all old people, so the first group will naturally recover more quickly than the second group. Furthermore, the arguer provides no evidence that the two groups include similar number of patients and the number is big enough. It is likely that one group has very small number of people and the other group have a big number of patients .If it is true, the study cannot support the arguer's assertion .

In the second place, even if the two groups are similar in all conditions, concerning that the skill and experience of the two different doctors, the arguer cannot make a conclusion that the first group is better than the second group. If the doctor of the first group is good at treating muscles strain or this doctor has better skill and more clinical experience, the arguer should not acclaim that it is the antibiotics that make patients recuperate quickly. Besides, the patients in the second group were given sugar pills, whether the sugar pill will affect the recuperation time is unknown. It is possible that it is the sugar pills that cause the patients to spend more time healing. If the arguer cannot rule out these possibilities, the conclusion is obviously unconvincing.

In the third place, even though the patients and the doctors of the two groups are similar, the arguer provides no evidence that all muscle injuries should be treated by antibiotics. The hypothesis is that secondary infection can keep patients from healing quickly after severe injuries, even if the study can justify the hypothesis is true and scientific, the arguer advocates that all muscle injuries should be treated is too extreme because that infection is not the only factor that affect the healing time, both fatigue and poor nutrition will increase the recuperation time. Moreover, it is possible that slight muscle strain does not need any treatment. Besides, if the patients have no secondary infections, they do not need to use any antibiotics. Further, the arguer should consider that the side effect of antibiotics, it is likely that some patients are allergic to antibiotics. Without ruling out this possibilities, the argument cannot convince me at all.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide evidence that there is not any significant differences between the two groups .To better evaluate the argument, I need to know more information about the doctors' skill and experience to make sure that the doctors cannot affect the result of the study.

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-3-7 17:11 编辑 ]

zhengzheng1026UID: 168914

自己顶一下

littleheavenUID: 191407

我来顶，回去帮你看看：）

littleheavenUID: 191407

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion, the arguer points that doctors believe that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The arguer also cites a study to substantiate the conclusion is convincing. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

In the first place, the arguer ignores the differences between the two groups. The patients' age, physical conditions, nutrition conditions and their jobs can affect the recuperation time. For example, it is possible that the patients in the first group are all young adults and the patients in the second group are all old people, so the first group will naturally recover more quickly than the second group. Furthermore, the arguer provides no evidence that the two groups include similar number of patients and the number is big enough. It is likely that one group has very small number of people and the other group have a big number of patients .(为什么数量影响结果呢？因为数量小所以结果偶然性大，数量大更能反映统计规律？把这个说清楚是不是更好？)If it is true, the study cannot support the arguer's assertion .

In the second place, even if the two groups are similar in all conditions（应该指上面的情况而不是全部情况吧？：），doctor也是一种情况呀）, concerning that the skill and experience of the two different doctors, the arguer cannot make a conclusion that the first group is better than the second group. If the doctor of the first group is good at treating muscles strain or this doctor has better skill and more clinical experience, the arguer should not acclaim that it is the antibiotics that make patients recuperate quickly. Besides, the patients in the second group were given sugar pills, whether the sugar pill will affect the recuperation time is unknown. It is possible that it is the sugar pills that cause the patients to spend more time healing. If the arguer cannot rule out these possibilities, the conclusion is obviously unconvincing.

In the third place, even though the patients and the doctors of the two groups are similar, the arguer provides no evidence that all muscle injuries should be treated by antibiotics. The hypothesis is that secondary infection can keep patients from healing quickly after severe injuries, even if the study can justify the hypothesis is true and scientific, the arguer advocates that all muscle injuries should be treated is too extreme because that infection is not the only factor that affect the healing time, both fatigue and poor nutrition will increase the recuperation time. （偶始终觉得这些它因不能有效反驳论断，尤其题目中已经说了as part of their treatment，题目并没有排斥其他可能的问题）Moreover, it is possible that slight muscle strain does not need any treatment. Besides, if the patients have no secondary infections, they do not need to use any antibiotics. Further, the arguer should consider that the side effect of antibiotics, it is likely that some patients are allergic to antibiotics. Without ruling out this possibilities, the argument cannot convince me at all.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. （哈哈，这句和我用的魔板一样，）To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide evidence that there is not any significant differences between the two groups .To better evaluate the argument, I need to know more information about the doctors' skill and experience to make sure that the doctors cannot affect the result of the study.


我的语言水平太低，所以没改出什么语言问题，要向你学习呀
请多多指教：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

littleheavenUID: 191407

看过你给我改的文章，发觉最后一点的攻击实际上重点在all上：
那些没有二次感染或者很轻的拉伤病人不用antibiotics（也就是攻击 severe）, Further,即使可以用，可能病人有过敏而不能用。这样攻击的就有层次感了。欢迎回来讨论：）