[a习作temp] argument51 wanwp 第十三次作业 [复制链接]

wanwp
UID：2369605

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 228
注册时间: 2007-7-26
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-12 14:42:42 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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: 423 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2007-8-11 23:56:45

In this argument, the arguer comes to the conclusion that Doctors should suggest all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. However, a careful examination reveals that this argument contains several critical flaws as follows.

The threshold problem of this argument is the arguer offers no detail of the patients. For instance, the arguer does not point out the age of the patients and the difference between their muscle injuries. Due to lack of such evidence it is entirely possible that the average age of the patients in the first group is very small. They are strong enough to recover in a short time. While perhaps in the second group, the patients are all old people. It is certain that they can not recover in a short time. Also it is possible that the patients in the first group are not so serious as the patients in the second group. So they can recover more quickly. Without such evidences, the arguer can not make me convince the result of the study.

Secondly, even if the patients in the two groups are in the same condition, the arguer fails to provide the evidence to show how the treatment is conducted. As the arguer infers, the first group is treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine while the second group is treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. Lacking the evidence to show the process of treatment, it is possible that Dr. Newland treat his patients with the help of sport while the other group does not take this treatment. So it may lead to the different recuperation time between the two groups.

Finally, even if we accept the result of the study, the arguer can not draw a hasty conclusion that all patients should be treated by antibiotics. Commonsense tells us that some medicine is not fit for some patients. They may have some side-effect. If the patients take wrong medicine, things will be worst. So even assuming that antibiotics is effective in the treatment of muscle injuries, the arguer can not draw the conclusion that all the patients should take antibiotics.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive. To support the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide the details of the patients and the process of treatment. To better assess the argument, I also need to know the information about the side-effect of the medicine.