Argument51 清凉夏日 三组作业

linfan68UID: 2185216

第一次在模考软件上写的，那叫一个乱……大家凑合看一下，我这就改改……
Conclusion: all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
The clue:
        the study of two group of patient --> antibiotics has effect on muscle strain treatment --> secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain --> ALL patients should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
        首先，两组患者没有完全一样的情况，在临床试验中没有说服力，不能推出antibiotics有效
        不能根据一个简单的试验就断定antibiotics是通过阻止二次感染起到加快恢复的效果的。而且假设中说的是严重的病患，实验中没有体现这一点，与假设的条件不符
        即使假设成立，通过使用抗生素阻止二次感染可以加快愈合，也不能武断的让所有的病患使用这种方法，而且，用药的剂量，方法和都值得商榷，可能有比抗生素更有效而无害的方法。

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: 337 (396 overall)         TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-20

In this argument, the conclusion is that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment to prevent the secondary infections to make a quicker recuperation time. To support this conclusion, the arguer refers a study of two groups of patients to prove that the use of antibiotics during the treatment has effect to reduce the recuperation time. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
    To begin with, the arguer overlooks other relevant factors which will make the differences of recuperation time between the two groups of patients. For their have respective doctors, it is possible that the two doctors have different strategies of treatment besides the using of antibiotics, and Dr.Nuwland, who specializes in sport medicine may have more experience in treating with muscle strain than Dr.Alton, a general physician. What is more, the two groups of people may have different conditions of injure, the group of Dr.Alton may have more severe injure, which may make the healing more difficult and time consuming.
    Another point worth considering is that the hypothesis presented at the beginning of the argument states that it is the patients with severe muscle who suffer secondary infections. But no information shows that the two groups of patients in the study have severe muscle strain, which make the study even more meaningless.
   Finally, the reasoning that ALL patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics due to the hypothesis is problematic. Even if we accept the hypothesis about secondary infections, it only states that SOME patients with SEVERE muscle strain will affect by the secondary infections. The arguer unfairly makes the generalization that ALL patients with all kinds of muscle strain should take antibiotics, which is open to doubt. What is more, even if granted that taking antibiotics during muscle strain treatment will help to gain a quicker recuperation, there is no evidence show that the benefit outweighed the harm, and the use of antibiotics is the best way to prevent secondary infections.
-----------30:00---------
    In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument is invalid and misleading. The arguer fails to provide enough information about the clinic study referred in the argument to show that the use of antibiotics is the cardinal factor that make the recuperation quicker, and make a hazy generalization about the use of antibiotics. To solidify the argument, further study is needed.

[ 本帖最后由 linfan68 于 2006-7-22 14:39 编辑 ]

jellojellyUID: 2226291

第一次在模考软件上写的，那叫一个乱……大家凑合看一下，我这就改改……
Conclusion: all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
The clue:
        the study of two group of patient --> antibiotics has effect on muscle strain treatment --> secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain --> ALL patients should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
        首先，两组患者没有完全一样的情况，在临床试验中没有说服力，不能推出antibiotics有效
        不能根据一个简单的试验就断定antibiotics是通过阻止二次感染起到加快恢复的效果的。而且假设中说的是严重的病患，实验中没有体现这一点，与假设的条件不符
        即使假设成立，通过使用抗生素阻止二次感染可以加快愈合，也不能武断的让所有的病患使用这种方法，而且，用药的剂量，方法和都值得商榷，可能有比抗生素更有效而无害的方法。

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: 337 (396 overall)         TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-20

In this argument, the conclusion is that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment to prevent the secondary infections to make a quicker recuperation time. To support this conclusion, the arguer refers a study of two groups of patients to prove that the use of antibiotics during the treatment has effect to reduce the recuperation time. (However)This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
    To begin with, the arguer overlooks other relevant factors which will make the(删去？) differences of recuperation time between the two groups of patients. For their have(having) respective doctors, it is possible that the two doctors have different strategies of treatment besides the using of antibiotics, and(改成/加上for??) Dr.Nuwland, who specializes in sport medicine may have more experience in treating with muscle strain than Dr.Alton, a general physician. What is more, the two groups of people may have different conditions of injure, the group-members of Dr.Alton may have more severe injure, which may make the healing more difficult and time consuming.
    Another point worth considering is that the hypothesis presented at the beginning of the argument states that it is the patients with severe muscle who suffer secondary infections. But no information shows that the two groups of patients in the study have severe muscle strain,(actually the author mentioned the injury that is muscle injuries.. so u can contend with the author on difference between these two kinds of patients~) which make the study even more meaningless.
这段论证略显单调，可以稍微具体展开一下不同的patients会有什么后果，比如结果就不可靠啦，没有可比性质blabla~总之这段在篇幅上要相当于上一段~
   Finally, the reasoning that ALL patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics due to the hypothesis is problematic. Even if we accept the hypothesis about secondary infections, it only states that SOME patients with SEVERE muscle strain will affect(be affected) by the secondary infections. The arguer unfairly makes the generalization that ALL patients with all kinds of muscle strain should take antibiotics, which is open to doubt. What is more, even if granted that taking antibiotics during muscle strain treatment will help to gain a quicker recuperation, there is no evidence show that the benefit outweighed(outweighs) the harm, and the use of antibiotics is the best way to prevent secondary infections.
这段最后的论证我觉得非常convincing~毕竟，一项新药物的推行必须考虑到临床效果之外的因素~:victory:
-----------30:00---------
    In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument is invalid and misleading. The arguer fails to provide enough information about the clinic study referred in the argument to show that the use of antibiotics is the cardinal factor that make the recuperation quicker, and make a hazy generalization about the use of antibiotics. To solidify the argument, further study is needed.
我不知道最后结尾处用不用再写一下recommendation to the author，你是一笔代过了……不过最好还是说一下to bolster his idea, the author needs to blabla~~这样会觉得你思维很全面，不光能找到问题，还能找到问题解决方法
总体来说不错~不过语言方面有些句子的表达可能不太理想吧？中间论述的还是挺好的~

linfan68UID: 2185216

谢谢~发现好像在软件里面写出来的东西就是要差好多……看到那个时间闪呀闪呀……
最后本来我想写建议的，可是当时感觉好像这篇文章问题太多了……不太好概括……
我改一下吧:-P