[a习作temp] argument51【challenge yourself小组】第五次作业 by tongdawp [复制链接]

tongdawp
UID：2500696

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 227
注册时间: 2008-6-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-8-1 23:51:27 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

1样本错误，没有提供样本的大小以及样本结构比例。
2康复时间不同可能是由于不同的医师导致。
3这个现象并不能证明假设。
4不能推广到全部，有些轻微损伤的不需要，还有的可能不能服用抗生素。

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: 543 TIME: 01:46:52 DATE: 2008-7-31 21:32:19

In this argument, the arguer makes a suggestion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To strengthen this suggestion, the arguer cites a hypothesis that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The arguer also provides study of two groups of patients to prove the hypothesis. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First, the argument provides insufficient evidence about the sample in the study so that the result of the study remains unreliable. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the first group of patients are younger and stronger and the others are older and weaker, or the first group's average damaging level is lower than the second one's; after all, the health conditions of the two groups are not proved to be similar by any evidence. In addition, the size of the sample is not mentioned in this argument, and perhaps, it is not large enough to support the result of the study. I remain doubtful about the result until the arguer offers sufficient information about the sample.

Secondly, even if the sample is reliable, it is unpersuasive to conclude that the average recuperation of the first group being shorter than that of the second is based on the fact that they took antibiotics, considering that they are treated by different doctors. As mentioned in the argument, the first groups of patients are treated by a doctor specializing in sports medicine, and, on the contrary, the second groups of patients are treated by a general physician, who may not be good at curing muscle strain. Taking this into consideration, the first group can get better treatment and it is reasonable to attribute the shorter recuperation time to the doctor, not the antibiotics.

Thirdly, even if the shorter recuperation of the first group of patients is prove to be caused by the utility of antibiotics, the "preliminary" results cannot prove the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. There is no evidence provided to show that antibiotics play a role of protecting patients from secondary infection. Only when sufficient information about "further", not "preliminary", result is provided and proves the correlation between antibiotics and secondary infection, I am convinced that the hypothesis is true.

Finally, even if the hypothesis is proved to be reliable, the suggestion that all patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics is unconvincing. Perhaps the antibiotics are only effective to those having severe muscle strain and do not work on the patients not serious damaged. Furthermore, there is strong possibility that antibiotics may cause some side effects, thus it is unnecessary to take them when slightly hurt, and even they are efficient. Considering these respects, advising all patient with muscle strain to take antibiotics is unpersuasive.

In sum, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the arguer must provide evidence to prove the reliability of the study. To better assess the suggestion, I would need to know the result of further study of the phenomenon of the two groups of patients. I would also need to know the side effect caused by antibiotics.