Argument51: 478 words
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.'
The argument seems to be reasonable at first glance. However, there are many flaws in the process of proving. And I doubt whether the arguer is wide awake or not.
Firstly, the argument simply equates healing quickly with recuperation of muscle strain, which is unwarranted. The results of sports hurt include slow healing, pain, delayed reflection and so forth. It is possible that some patients have a pain now and then or all of time and reflect to stimulation with delay although their temperature rises fast. Moreover, possibly the quickly healing and the recuperation time are two key factors of the affection of the treatment and they are exclusive. In another word, the quickly healing sacrifices for the recuperation time. Yet no cure will be achieved lacking the dispersion of each consciousness and feeling suggesting illness.
Secondly, assuming that the patients are cured completely as soon as they can heal quickly, the author provides insufficient evidence that the antibiotics are necessary to be part of treatment aiming the muscle strain. The argument ignores the most significant factors that the skills of the favorer are largely different between two teams. The first group is cared by the Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, while the second group is treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. Obviously, the doctor of the first group is more professional than that of the second group and he or she specializes in the massage of muscle as well as the psychological comfort. But the physician just gives the sugar pills and even do some harm to the muscle cure because he treats the patients wrongly unconsciously. No evidence shows that the antibiotics have something effective to the cure of the patient.
Finally, there is no proof for the secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and the study represented in the argument has no sense to this hypothesis. Maybe the delay of the heal rise is caused directly of the muscle strain which will be named as fist infection. In addition the study here aims to test the antibiotics’ influence of the muscle strain although it is dubious. What will cause the secondary infection and the test of side effects caused by this infection are not introduced when they are not in the area of the common sense. It is better that the experience can be undertaken with the patients who are ill with secondary infection.
As the last analysis, it is obvious that the argue conflicts the concepts of healing quickly and recuperation, also give insufficient evidence to the conclusion that the antibiotics are necessary for the sufferers of the severe muscle strain, even forget to depict and prove the side effect of the secondary infection. Maybe more suitable experiments and relative results provided for the test, the result will be accurate and convincing.