Argument51, 诚恳请求拍砖

monika_rhliUID: 2314050

过一个礼拜就要考试了，现在把练习的习作发上来，诚恳请求拍砖

Argument51: 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.Altron, 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.


In this letter the author claims that people who are injured with muscle strain should take antibiotic to help strain recovering. To substantiate the conclusion, the author cites a study that two groups that one group treated by Dr.Newland takes antibiotics and another treated by Dr.Alton take sugar pills instead of antibiotics. However, the argument rests on a serious of unfound assumptions and groundless evidences, which render it unconvincing as it stands. In my view, the argument suffers from several logical flaws.

Firstly, the author falsely assumes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics to accelerate their progress of recuperation. However, no evidence is stated in the argument support this conclusion. Even if the patient suffer from muscle strain, it is unnecessary to take antibiotics in that the patient may diagnosed with slight muscle strain. As it mentions in the argument infections may have adverse effects after severe muscle strain. Yet common sense informs me that every antibiotics have more or less negative effects on body.

Secondly, even if the patients suffer from severe muscle strain, no warranted evidence shows that they should have antibiotics in order reduce their recovery time. The author fails to indicate that what kind of patients in this two groups. It is entirely possible that in the first group patients almost are young people with slight injury while the second group that almost elders with severe injury. It is obvious that recuperation time would be quick than expected.
Furthermore, if patients are allergic to antibiotics it may cause counterproductive to patients which may extend the recovery time. In short, without ruling out these possible facts, the study is suspicious in itself.

Finally, the comparison in these two groups is unfound. The author falsely assumes that the doctors in these two groups are the same to cure muscle strain. It is highly possible that the two different doctors have different specialties. Perhaps Dr.Newland is expert in cure muscle and then patients in this group clearly recuperate quickly. Or perhaps, Dr.Alton knows litter about muscle strain, therefore patients would recover slowly.

Sum up, the assumption that all patients should take antibiotics would help to accelerate their recovery time is unfounded. To strength it, the author should point out that the ability of these two doctors and the injury level of patients are comparable in these two groups. In addition the author should indicate warranted evidence that antibiotics would help patients recuperation. If the argument had included the facts discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.