argument51 【1106G】gelivable小组 第2次作业

tutuhedouUID: 2971121

The argument mistakenly set up a connection between the use of antibiotic and the treatment of patients suffered from muscle strains through a study. However, the validity of the research sample itself is doubtful. In addition, the study doesn’t provide sufficient reasons to drive the conclusion that all patients with muscle trains should be advised to take antibiotics as a part of the treatment. The logical relations hidden in the reasoning progress is mistaken.

During the reasoning period, the study itself shows a poor validity that resulted from the number of the sample and the progress of the study. Firstly, there are no specific data and records that can indicate the number and others characteristics of the participants patients in each group. The scale of the participants can reflect the accuracy of the study, so the lack of enough experimental subjects will make the result unrepresentative and unconvincing. Besides, some other features of those participated patients should be considered in the comparison. In the Dr. Newland’s group, perhaps the majority of the patients were young people or lightly injured. So even if they hadn’t used antibiotics, they could still recover faster than patients of Dr. Alton’s group whose patients might be older and more heavily injured. As to the study progress, the comparison as made in the study didn’t based on the same situation. That means different doctors were likely to give different treatment and the effect of them could be largely depended on the level of the doctors. As mentioned in the argument, Dr. Newland was specialized in sports medicine, the field which exactly included the treatment of muscle strains, while Dr. Alton was just a general physicians who didn’t have advantages in the muscle cure. It’s the same as we always choose medical expert’s consultation rather than general physicians when we are seriously ill. After the above analysis, the study itself is sure to be unreasonable.

However, even if the experiment has been improved and changed to be a convincing one, it can not deduce the conclusion as well that all the patients are suitable for the antibiotics cure because of their various kinds of treatment situations and body status. The precondition of the use of antibiotics is that patients are secondarily infected. But it’s normal that not all patients will suffer from secondary infections. In addition, even when secondary infection happens, since some people perhaps are allergic to antibiotics, the use of it even can bring about strains that haven’t exist before and speed down the recovery. After all, the appliance of antibiotics is limited by its applicable subjects.

Overall, the reasoning behind the conclusion that all patients who diagnosed from the muscle strains should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is insufficient. Further study and more factors should be considered for the treatment method which should be beneficial to the patients.

MrTomUID: 2904037

1# tutuhedou

The argument mistakenly set up a connection between the use of antibiotic and the treatment of patients suffered from muscle strains through a study. However, the validity of the research sample itself is doubtful. In addition, the study doesn’t provide sufficient reasons to drive the conclusion that all patients with muscle trains should be advised to take antibiotics as a part of the treatment. The logical relations hidden in the reasoning progress is mistaken.

During the reasoning period, the study itself shows a poor validity that resulted from the number of the sample and the progress of the study. Firstly, there are no specific data and records that can indicate the number and others 【other】characteristics of the participants [participanting patients?participants patients不对吧。]patients in each group. The scale of the participants can reflect the accuracy of the study, so the lack of enough experimental subjects will make the result unrepresentative and unconvincing.[怎么看出来study的sample不够啊？你的意思是需要很多组么？] Besides, some other features of those participated patients should be considered in the comparison. In the Dr. Newland’s group, perhaps the majority of the patients were young people or lightly injured. So even if they hadn’t used antibiotics, they could still recover faster than patients of Dr. Alton’s group whose patients might be older and more heavily injured. As to the study progress, the comparison as made in the study didn’t based on the same situation. That means different doctors were likely to give different treatment and the effect of them 【their treatment】could be largely depended on the level of the doctors[我也不知道不同资质的医生怎么说，用level感觉不太恰当啊，经验或者学历什么的怎么样?]. As mentioned in the argument, Dr. Newland was specialized in sports medicine, the field which exactly included the treatment of muscle strains, while Dr. Alton was just a general physicians who didn’t have advantages in the muscle cure. It’s the same as we always choose medical expert’s consultation rather than general physicians when we are seriously ill. After the above analysis, the study itself is sure to be unreasonable.
[实验中的样本数量不够，实验结果不正确：病人的情况不一样，医生的资质不同]
However, even if the experiment has been improved and changed to be a convincing one, it can not deduce the conclusion as well that all the patients are suitable for the antibiotics cure because of their various kinds of treatment situations and body status. The precondition of the use of antibiotics is that patients are secondarily infected. But it’s normal that not all patients will suffer from secondary infections. In addition, even when secondary infection happens, since some people perhaps are allergic to antibiotics, the use of it even can bring about strains that haven’t exist before and speed down the recovery. 【过敏！很好的点！】After all, the appliance of antibiotics is limited by its applicable subjects.
[即便前提正确，也未必能推出结论]

Overall, the reasoning behind the conclusion that all patients who diagnosed from the muscle strains should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is insufficient. Further study and more factors should be considered for the treatment method which should be beneficial to the patients.

基本的问题都找到了，列举的它因都比较好，至少我没想到。另外有个问题，就是这个阿狗里有两个大的关系，一是实验证明那个前提，二是前提推出结论。看寄托里有个帖子好像叫“应该这么写argument”里说应该先反驳推出结论的那个关系，在这里就是前提推出结论的这个关系，因为先反驳实验不能证明前提，前提还是有可能正确，并且有可能推出结论。然后再反驳实验证明前提的关系。也就是你的二三段交换一下顺序。我也不确定这个思路绝对正确，但我觉得还是有点道理，提出来仅供参考。

kidsonxianUID: 3001754

你的写作逻辑框架十分混乱，虽然踩到了某些点上，但是这些都是看似有用，事实少用的点；479字很难在考场发挥，要注意时间；以下是我在太傻的贴，因为很多人都写51号，而且犯了同样的错误！！！！！要看看哦~~~你连人家写道的，你都没有写到哦~~~~其实这篇写得很水哦~~~~~！！！！！都是出国的孩子了~~~给你的组员也看看吧~~~





有几个建议供参考的，第一就是写作的逻辑问题；原文大概有3点是前提条件，即严重受伤，二次感染和抗生素的效果；而最有讨论价值的，是“抗生素效果”这一点；所以可以分为3个层次讨论，第一层，严重性；第二层，未知是否真的二次感染；第三层是药物效果；一、二层比较简单，不讲了；第三层写效果，要写到抗生素是否真的起到了作用；通过治疗时间，就能判断吗？不然，因为正如你所写的有很多的因素；

但是你也犯了致命性的错误；

逻辑链如下：很多原因，包括体质、医生等-----治疗时间不一-----抗生素未必有效；红线-----是你所写的，却遗漏了后边重要的部分；你要问问自己，就算治疗时间短，又怎么样？

你说，医生不同，可能导致时间不一，但我说，医生是外部影响，药物是内部影响，当然是内部因素重要啦；我也可以说，可能用抗生素的医生是差的，用糖的医生更好，现在差医生的病人恢复更快，说明抗生素好；但是，如果你直接说，就算治疗时间段，但抗生素未必有效；我就只能问，为神马呢？

具体如下：虽治疗时间短，但抗生素未必有效；（在严重和二次感染的前提）；抗生素有效，在于它杀菌的功效、用量、用时等，而身体机能的恢复，在于病人本身；两个时间加起来，才是治疗时间；所以，病人的体质、生活都是应该控制的因素，这些因素要得以控制；即使病人体质一样，治疗时间短，只能说明抗生素可能有效，至于是否真正有效，还要看用量、用时等；药物用多了就是毒物，这个道理比较简单，药物释放时间也会影响杀菌时间；所以说，单凭时间，不足以说明抗生素有效；