：[i习题temp] Issue130(Argument51)【Cracking AW】3.17

sunmintijmuUID: 2692476

TOPIC: ISSUE130 - "How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."
WORDS: 504
TIME: 01:03:25
DATE: 2010-3-15 23:35:59

The speaker asserts that the destiny of society will be determined by whether children are socialized or not. Although I concede that the socialization is a personality that children should be developed, the destiny of society will be determined not only by how children are socialized but also by other aspects.
In addition, there is apparently no evident to support that the children have not been raised socialized to make a better society.
On one hand, whether children are socialized is not the only one factor that could determine the destiny of society and even more it is not the most important one. There are other reasons that all of them combined together could advance the development of society.
It is known that Thamos Edison is the one of the greatest scientist all over the world who invented bulb and bring the light to the world. Definitely, he changed the destiny of society. The most appreciated thing in the invention is for Edison's insistence on the whole course, which attribute to his parents who told him "never give up" when he just was a little boy.
It is said that the parents are children's first teachers who have more influence on children than socialization.
On the other hand, the speaker doesn't give the clear definition of a better society. Does "a better society" mean more peaceful, more developed and technological or others? At least "a better society" is creating in the most recent half-century. Since the World War 2 was over, it is more peaceful in the whole world ever though there are fights between some countries. The environment is improving; we are drinking cleaner water, eating safer food and dressing more comfortable clothes. I should say that children were not so "socialized" before and I am positive our society will be much better.
Furthermore, the speaker claims that we have not yet learned how to "raise" children.
When children were in kindergarten, they know how to play toys with the other kids. No one told them how and why to do that, the kids can not understand the reasons and they just did that because they want. Children know to play the football or basketball game in a team when they go to the primary school and they know only the team wins they win. These lessons help children grow up to be cooperate, respectful and good citizens.
So we don not need to "raise" children or to teacher them how to do. Children could be healthy socialized in condition that they have the opportunities for healthy interaction with peers and normal persons.
To sum up, whether children are socialized today is not a determinate factor to contribute to a better society, but rather some other factors-such as parental influence, the environmental they grew up and so on. The definition of a "better" society is different to different. In my opinion, our society is a more peaceful, safer and beautiful one. In a world, I don't agree the two aspects of speaker's statement.


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: 356
TIME: 00:33:55
DATE: 2010-3-15 23:35:59

In this argument, the author concludes that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The statement above seems at first glance would be an obvious conclusion, while clearly examining the author's reasoning, we way find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.
First of all, the author's evidences are insufficient to support the conclusion. We are told nothing about the baseline of the two groups of patients, such as the age, the gender, the healthy condition before they were injured. If the patients in the first group are younger, more health and less injured than the second of patients, they should recover faster. Even more "40 percent quicker than typically expected" seems a big number; it is not compared to the other experiments. There is a big chance that it is less than the others.
Secondly, admittedly, there is no any evidence that the two groups of patientes got secondary infections. The arguer presented that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The conclusion is based on that the patients have secondary infections. But, how to illustrate the effects of antibiotics if the patients in the experiment did not get secondary infections?
Thirdly, the patients in two groups were treated by different doctors, one of them is an expert who specializes in sport medicine but the another is just a general physician. It is known that an expert should do better on treating the special disease than general doctors because they treat more patients and they have more knowledge and more experience.
Last, patients in the second group were given sugar pills, but we are not told whether the "sugar pills" have some side-effects that will do harm to the patients and impede their recovery.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibility. Regardless of who the author is, he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. I insist that the more information should be provided to make the above conclusion, such as the baseline of two groups of patients, the patients whether got secondary infections or not, the effects of sugar pills and so on.