【BIG FISH】ARGU51---02.24

PigwidgeanUID: 2759931

ARGU51TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appearedin a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients fromhealing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been provedby preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group ofpatients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor whospecializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout theirtreatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker thantypically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr.Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patientsbelieved they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was notsignificantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with musclestrain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of theirtreatment."
第一次写ARGU，请往狠里批。接受回拍。^^
不限时。字数466.
为什么我贴上来的老会丢空格呢……郁闷的。。。



In this argument, the arguer advocates that doctors should advice all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This recommendation is based on the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Meanwhile, it has now been proved by preliminaryresults of a study of two groups of patients, one of which were treated by adoctor specializing in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughtheir treatment and have an average recuperation time 40 percent quicker thantypically expected while the other one group were treated by a generalphysician, given sugar pills with their average recuperation time not reducedobviously. This argument is problematic for at least three reasons.

First of all, the arguer fails to convinceus that secondary infections will happen to all the patients diagnosed with muscle strain, not even these patients are easier to get secondary infections.If patients in this experiment didn't have severe muscle strain, we may greatly doubt whether they would get the so-called secondary infections, which make the experiment insufficient to support the hypothesis.

In addition, the group experiment has some inconvenient flaws, which weaken the evidence for the conclusion. First, thearguer doesn't provide any information about the two groups of patients, e.g.their age, sex, and other physical characters. If the first group who took antibiotics regularly through their treatment are all young or have greatphysiological function while the other group consists of patients with poorhealth, then we can never rule factors other than antibiotics out when considering the reason why the first group recovered much faster than normal.Second, the fact that the two groups of patients took different amount of timeto recuperate may be due to different levels of the doctors. Common sense tellsus that doctors specializing in sport medicine do better with muscle strain comparing with general doctors. Third, the arguer fails to prove that sugarpills which the second group took have nothing to do with the patients’recuperation.

Last but not least, the arguer concludes that patients should be advised to take antibiotics because of the hypothesisthat secondary infections keep patients from healing quickly, withoutconsidering the side effects of antibiotics, such as antibiotichypersensitivity, which can be worse than muscle strain.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept his conclusion, the arguer should providethe ratio of individuals having secondary infections among all the patients diagnosed with muscle strain, as well as a scientific experiment report whichproves that when all other factors are same, antibiotics do help patients toheal more quickly.

gaobaoayu123UID: 2740997

1# Pigwidgean
首先我认为你的开头段写的过长了 主要的还是应该在主体上
然后第三段里面讲了超过一个主要weaken，一段只能有一个，这也是导致第三段没有主题句的原因
还有一个就是我觉得糖丸是没有问题的因为做医学实验室糖丸都是被当作安慰剂使用作为对照组的（这一点令我很纠结）

zoeyczUID: 2621425

楼主的第一段不但长而且都是照抄原文。不过逻辑思路理比较清晰，所以建议缩写原文的意思而保留作者的分析架构。
同样的分析段也存在轻重相差太大的问题，在前后的衬托下，感觉中间段太重了。
其次，作者首段的逻辑分析展开是非常有条理的，但是相应而言，驳斥的展开没有反应出这种对应的逻辑顺序，或者说不明显，所以比较可惜。
不过第一篇的开头的逻辑就已经很震撼了，学习！

第一次argu写的也正巧是同篇，如能回拍不甚感激
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1063279-1-1.html

tc1220UID: 2585174

2# gaobaoayu123

我觉得是不能攻击suge pills的，它算是安慰剂，这种医学常识不算逻辑错误吧。要写也就一句带过～