Definitely, a victory 小组第3次作业 Argument188 By Melody

claire530UID: 2363559

188. A new report suggests that men and women experience pain very differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa opioids-a painkiller-to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women. This research suggests that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.

逻辑谬误：
1.
最新的报道可靠性值得怀疑。作者没有提供这个报告的具体数据，那得出的结论可靠不可靠就另当别论了。
2.
就算这个报告可靠，不代表用不同的药就能解决这个问题。男性和女性其他方面的不同可能能解释这个问题。有可能是其他造成的，比如男一般比女爱运动，消耗量更大。这个可能是原因，不一定换了药，男女区别对待就能解决问题。
3.
作者给出的research不具有说服性。男女人数不一样，而且他们的年龄阶段我们不知道，而且痛苦的程度不知道。很有可能女性的年龄阶段要小，而且相比于男性来说痛苦的情况没那么严峻，因此这个这个报道不具有说服性。就算这个报告的实验本身是有说服性的，这些病人有没有如实报告他们的病情不得而知，很有可能是他们谎报了。出现这种结果，也不排除是女性用了其他的方法，比如服用了其他减轻病痛的药，或者是男性做了其他更加刺激这种病痛的药，比如吃了很多很辛辣的食物，等。
4.
就算这个研究有效，也不能说随时随地都能开这种药，可能有的人对这种药过敏，可能这个药并不适用于很多人群，比如孕妇，老人，小孩要慎用。
5.
就算这种抗病痛的药的这个结论是对的，不代表所有的其他的药都适用这个结论，重新评估所有的要的要求是很没道理的。有些药的治病机理不同，就不适用。
8．总之，作者给出的例子不具有说服力，结论也下的很武断，这个结论不成立。

字数：506

By providing the new report’s suggestion and the kappa opioids’ research result, the author hastily made the assertion that kappa opioids should be prescribed to women patients whenever possible and all medicines should be reevaluated. It may attempt to agree with the author for the first sight, whereas, deep analysis of these evidences, reveals that none of them lend credible support about it.
First of all, the report that men and women’s reaction to pain varies provided by the author may not be properly applied to a certain region. Without implicit data given out, only relies on a simple conclusion is unacceptable. We should be noticed more information to ensure the scientificity of this conclusion.
Secondly, even if the report is proved to be a clear and believable evidence, inference that doctors should prescribe different medicines to men and women reveals unpersuasive as it indicates. The differences between men and women may explain their dissimilar reactions to pain. Possibility that it is other factors that caused the variety of the reactions can not be ruled out.
The reason may ascribe to men’s furor to the sports which leads to their more acuity to pain, or simply the hormones. Thus, prescribing alternate pain medicines may not work as well.
Thirdly, the number of the subjects of the research may be insufficient to constitute a representative sample. Besides the unequal number of men and women, we are also unacquainted about their age range and pain level. The author fails to consider the possibility that women patients are much younger than men patients, or their pains are not as severe as the men’s. Moreover, the level of pain reported by the patients may not reflect their actual levels of pain, they may have lied for some reason. Besides, other explains such as the women patients have taken other pills to alleviate the pain or the men patients have taken over other physical therapy in the meantime may attribute to the inaccurate result of this research.
What is more, granted that the research result is scientific, without more information about complete effect of kappa opioids given out, the author can not curtly conclude that women patients can be prescribed this medicine whenever they want to. It is probably that some people are susceptible to this medicine, or this medicine would cause side effect to gravidas, the elders, and the kids. Also, the assertion that it is unsuitable for all men patients merely based on the fact above renders unpersuasive as it stands.
Finally, the author falsely equates the research results of kappa opioids to all other pain medicines. Lacking the comparison between kappa opioids and other medicines, ratiocination that all medicines should be prescribed distinctively is unwarranted. Moreover, considering about the various mechanisms of different medicines, necessity that reevaluated all of them is ridiculous as it bespeaks.
In sum, there are plenty of loopholes exist in the insufficient evidences and unpersuasive research results provided by the author. They reveal to be so scant that ultimately serves to undermine this argument.

wdx19861106UID: 2821198

逻辑谬误：
1.
最新的报道可靠性值得怀疑。作者没有提供这个报告的具体数据，那得出的结论可靠不可靠就另当别论了。
2.
就算这个报告可靠，不代表用不同的药就能解决这个问题。男性和女性其他方面的不同可能能解释这个问题。有可能是其他造成的，比如男一般比女爱运动，消耗量更大。这个可能是原因，不一定换了药，男女区别对待就能解决问题。
3.
作者给出的research不具有说服性。男女人数不一样，而且他们的年龄阶段我们不知道，而且痛苦的程度不知道。很有可能女性的年龄阶段要小，而且相比于男性来说痛苦的情况没那么严峻，因此这个这个报道不具有说服性。就算这个报告的实验本身是有说服性的，这些病人有没有如实报告他们的病情不得而知，很有可能是他们谎报了。出现这种结果，也不排除是女性用了其他的方法，比如服用了其他减轻病痛的药，或者是男性做了其他更加刺激这种病痛的药，比如吃了很多很辛辣的食物，等。
4.
就算这个研究有效，也不能说随时随地都能开这种药，可能有的人对这种药过敏，可能这个药并不适用于很多人群，比如孕妇，老人，小孩要慎用。
5.
就算这种抗病痛的药的这个结论是对的，不代表所有的其他的药都适用这个结论，重新评估所有的要的要求是很没道理的（这两者之间的转折关系不合理）。有些药的治病机理不同，就不适用。
6．总之，作者给出的例子不具有说服力，结论也下的很武断，这个结论不成立。

字数：506

By providing the new report’s suggestion and the kappa opioids’ research result, the author hastily made the assertion that kappa opioids should be prescribed to women patients whenever possible and all medicines should be reevaluated.（感觉应该把“whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication”加上 ） It may attempt to agree with the author for the first sight, whereas, deep analysis of these evidences, reveals that none of them lend credible support about it.
First of all, the report that men and women’s reaction to pain varies provided by the author may not be properly applied to a certain region. Without implicit data given out, only relies on a simple conclusion is unacceptable. We should be noticed more information to ensure the scientificity of this conclusion.
Secondly, even if the report is proved to be（have a）clear and believable evidence, （then）inference that doctors should prescribe different medicines to men and women reveals unpersuasive as it indicates. The differences between men and women may explain their dissimilar reactions to pain. Possibility that（可有可无）it is other factors that caused the variety of the reactions can not be ruled out.
The reason may ascribe to men’s furor to the sports which leads to their more acuity to pain, or simply the hormones. Thus, prescribing alternate pain medicines may not work as well. (这段好像在证明Argument中的说法，“男人和女人不同，所以用药不同.”感觉应该换种表达方式以便有利于自己的结论。或者删减之后和下一段合并。)
Thirdly, the number（condition）of the subjects of the research may be insufficient to constitute a representative sample. Besides the unequal number of men and women, we are also unacquainted about their age range and pain level. The author fails to consider the possibility that women patients are much younger than men patients, or their pains are not as severe as the men’s. Moreover, the level of pain reported by the patients may not reflect their actual levels （of pain）, they may have lied for some reason. Besides, other explains such as the women patients have taken other pills to alleviate the pain or the men patients have taken over other physical therapy in the meantime may attribute to（lead to） the inaccurate result of this research.
What is more, granted that the research result is scientific, without more information about complete effect of kappa opioids given out, the author can not curtly conclude that women patients can be prescribed this medicine whenever they want to. It is probably that some people are susceptible to this medicine, or this medicine would cause side effect to gravidas, the elders, and the kids. Also, the assertion that it is unsuitable for all men patients merely based on the fact above renders unpersuasive as it stands.
Finally, the author falsely equates the research results of kappa opioids to all other pain medicines. Lacking the comparison between kappa opioids and other medicines, ratiocination that all medicines should be prescribed distinctively is unwarranted. Moreover, considering about the various mechanisms of different medicines, necessity that reevaluated all of them is ridiculous as it bespeaks. (这一段感觉表达粗糙，前后含义不太一致，前说“要不同，不能随便等同，缺乏比较”，后说“不应该测试所有的药”)
In sum, there are plenty of loopholes exist in the insufficient evidences and unpersuasive research results provided by the author. They reveal to be so scant that ultimately serves to undermine this argument.
（论点很充足。但有些表达不详细，不能充分证明自己的观点）
1# claire530