第十一次作业 Argument 51 欢迎拍砖

Lisa-yuanUID: 2748489

第11次作业; Argument 51 - 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."
中英文提纲：
A．
The arguer can not provide enough evidence to prove the causal relationship between muscle injuries recover and antibiotics.
B．
The patients which been researched are not typical.
正文字数：431
正文：
According to the argument, the arguer makes a conclusion that all patients with muscle injures should take antibiotics during the treatment. This conclusion is basic on a study that the recuperation time of patients who took antibiotics is higher than that without having antibiotics. However, under an examination, we can find that there are two major problem of this conclusion.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide enough evidence to prove that the causal relationship between muscle injuries recuperation and taking antibiotics. To suppose this conclusion, the arguer points out that the patients’ recuperation time in the first group who took antibiotics is 40 percent higher on average. However, the arguer ignores that there maybe some other factors will bring influence to the recover of muscle injuries. For example, the arguer does not tell us the basic situation of the patients in two groups. Maybe the muscle injuries in the first group are on average not serious. In this situation, the patients in the first group without antibiotics will recover more quickly on average. As we know, the recuperation time usually connects to emotions, appropriate rest of patients. If the patients did not follow the suggestion of doctors, it also bring negative influence to the recover.

And at the same time, the arguer points out that the average recuperation time in the second group who did not take antibiotic is not significantly reduced. This implies that the antibiotics maybe nothing to do with the treatment of muscle injuries

On the other hand, let’s suppose that the antibiotics enable to treat muscle injuries. But the arguer can not show that these patients who accept research are typical. If these patient is only a fraction of the number who suffer muscle injuries, how the arguer can draw the conclusion that all the patients should take antibiotics when they accept treatment. For instance, the arguer ignores that someone may have bad reaction to antibiotics. As we know, penicillin is one kind of effect antibiotics which can help cure infection. However, not all the people are suitable to use this antibiotic. If the doctor wants to use penicillin to therapy patients, he/she must make a test to make sure the patient without negative reaction to penicillin. Without strict investigation, we can not say that all the patients are suitable to antibiotics. We can tell that this conclusion is too hasty to convince others.

As a result, if the arguer wants to prove the antibiotics have a great help to treatment of muscle injuries indeed, he/she must give more evidences to suppose this conclusion.