Argument51 求拍

swiftsongUID: 2694470

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."



In this analysis, the arguer claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a study that taking antibiotic would make the patients’ recuperation time quicker than typically expected. Moreover, the arguer assumes that sugar pills would have no effect to the results. However, as the following discussion shows, this argument is fraught with critical fallacies and unwarranted assumption.

In first place, the major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to establish a relationship between the secondary infections and the severe muscle strain. There is no evidence to ensure that if a patient is severe muscle strain, he must be secondary infections. The evidence provided in this argument is not sufficient to validate the assumption that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.

In the second place, the study does not provide complete information concerning the two groups of patients and doctors. Perhaps the first group of patients was not more serious than the second group of patients. Or perhaps Dr.Newland who specializes in sports medicine had more experience and measure to cure the muscle injuries than the Dr.Alton who was a general physician. Without accounting for possible differences between the first group and the second group, the arguer can not convince me that that taking antibiotic would make the first group of patients' recuperation time quicker than typically expected.

Last but not least, the arguer overlooks several other factors that might undermine the argument.
Sugar pills may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The arguer cannot exclude this possibility. There is no reason to believe that some patients who took antibiotics as part of their treatment are representative of all patients. Some patients may be allergy to the antibiotics, and some patients may be too serious to cure by any antibiotics.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Additionally, to solidify the argument, we would need more information about the situation of the first group and the second group. Moreover, the arguer must provided evidence to rule out other possible such as sugar pills which may affect the results.