标题: [ARGU51] by Cherish [打印本页] 作者: kidlove 时间: 2011-2-5 21:14:20 标题: [ARGU51] by Cherish
51.The following appeared in a medicalnewsletter.
"Doctors have longsuspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quicklyafter severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminaryresults of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, allbeing treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes insports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they weretaking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would bewell advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
In this argument, the arguer recommendsthat all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised totake antibiotics as part of their treatment. In addition, the arguer suspectsthat secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing quickly aftersevere muscle strain. To justify this claim, the arguer also provides the approvalthat two groups of patients of different doctors with one group takingantibiotics and the other one not. Although at first sight it is alright, thisargument suffers from several critical fallacies.
Firstly, the arguer has mixed the actual conceptof the recuperation time of each group and average recuperation time. It ispossible that the recuperation times of the two groups compared with aredifferent. Besides, the arguer does not provide sufficient information aboutpatients in each group. We are not informed about the ages, physical conditions,genders, etc. of the patients. Thus, we have no access to know if they have anydifference in taking pills. Young persons may recover much easier for their recoveringfunctions are more efficient than those of old ages. Or those people who oftengo to gymnasium are in good conditions so that they can revive quicker. At thesame time, patients of the other group may be people in weak or poor conditionthat it takes longer for them to be cured.
Secondly, the arguer fails to inform us ofthe severity of muscle strain of patients in each group. The severity ofdifferent patients may differ them a lot by adopting treatments. Those withmuch severer condition may need more methods of recovering other than only takeantibiotics. Besides this, different specializations in two different medicalfields of the two doctors may make them use distinctive methods in treatingtheir patients. Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, may use othermethods like muscle massage or other specific drug and so on. What’s more, inthe study the second group treated by Dr. Alton were given sugar pills, but weare not informed that this kind of sugar pills will not affect the patients’condition or even prevent them from healing.
Thirdly, the arguer commits a fallacy ofhasty generalization. Even if antibiotics can accelerate the recuperation time,it is true that not everyone is fit for taking antibiotics that it may cause allergicreactions and other side effects to the patients. Also, assuming that secondaryinfections may be obstacle from healing quickly, there’s no evidence that thesecondary infections will surly take place on those who suffers from musclestrain.
In sum, the conclusion lacks credibilitybecause the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to whatthe arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should have toprovide more evidence concerning conditions of different patients and methodsthe doctors adopt.