Argument51 限时作品，快考了，大家来狠拍,有拍必回

WraithboyUID: 2283931

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: 448          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-28 16:08:20

In this argument , the author advises that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate his point, he cites a study consists of two group of people, the people who are given antibiotics recover more quick than other group. At first glance ,this argument seems reasonable, but further inspection shows it suffers from many logical flaws.
   
First and foremost, the study cited in the argument is lack of credibility. Firstly,
the study provides insufficient information about two group people's age , sex and physical condition. Without these information, we may think that the first group is consist of people who are young and more healthier than the those in second group. On the contrary, the people in second group may be some old people who have a poor health condition and recovery speed. In this case, the study is invalid to make a comparison. Secondly, the doctor in the two groups are different. Common sense tells us  that the doctor specialized in sports medicine will do better in curing the muscle strain compared with a general physician. Therefore, there is a high possibility that the first group's shorter recuperation time is result form the doctor's better treatment in first group not the function of antibiotics.  

Second, the arguer provides no information of the function of sugar pills in the treatment of second group. It's entirely possible that the sugar pill will do some harm in people's recovery. Maybe it is the sugar pill that causes the second group people recuperating slower than group one. Without ruling out this possibility, the arguer can not convince me that the antibiotics will reduce people's recuperation time.  

Even if antibiotics could reduce patients' recuperation time, the arguer unfairly assume that all patients must take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Firstly, the arguer provide no evidence that patients who suffered from muscle strain is likely to get secondary infections. There is a good chance that most of patients suffered from muscle strain don't get secondary infections, therefore using antibiotics will have little effects. Secondly, the side-effect of antibiotics should also be take into patients' consideration. If the antibiotics have many side effects such as damaging one's immune system, nausea, vomiting, choosing use antibiotics only to reduce recuperation time is not a wise decision.  

To sum up, this argument relies on an doubtful study, which renders it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it , the arguer should provide more details of the function of sugar pill and consider the doctor's effect in the comparison. To better improve it, the arguer should also investigate whether the antibiotics have some side effects.

[ 本帖最后由 Wraithboy 于 2008-2-28 16:56 编辑 ]