达人作业 2.1 A51 (436)

daidarenUID: 2354215

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: 426
TIME: 00:30:00+
DATE: 2010-2-1 22:44:05

In this argument, the author conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment since there is an assumption that secondary infections may be harmful of healing muscle strain. To sustain his point of view, the author presented two groups of patients, and showed that the first group which treated by a doctor who majored in sport medicine, and have antibiotics healed more quickly than the second group which treated by a general physician and have sugar pills instead of antibiotics, although they though they already had them. But I find it problematic in several respects.

First and foremost, the author didn't show any statistics or facts that could prove his prerequisite that most of the patients who suffered from muscle strain would injured secondary infections, if it is not the case, the author would have no conclusion and all the argument followed were in vain.

Secondly, since these two groups are not treated by the same doctor, and as doctors who majored in sport medicine may be better trained than general physicians, it is possible that the treatment of the doctors affect the healing. And the author didn't showed any statistics of these patients, such as age-group, gender, or any other physiological characteristics, how could the author have the conclusion without ruling out these differences? For example, if there are all teenagers in the first group with many elders in the second group, it is quite possible that it is the age difference that affected the result of the experiment. Moreover, the author should also make it persuasive that sugar pill would have no affection of these patients, so that we could believe it is the antibiotics but not sugar pills that help their healing.

Last but not least, even ignore these factors above; the author's conclusion that recommends all the patients to have antibiotics commits a fallacy of hasty generalization since there are possibilities that some patients may be allergic to it or any other reasons that could not have them for treatment, at least not the most suitable for all patients. And the author should also ensure that antibiotics would not have serious side-effect, without making these things clearly, antibiotics are still unworthy to recommend.

In sum, this argument is not persuasive as it stands, to make it more convincing, the author should prove that secondary infection would suffer most of the patients of muscle train and make the experiment more complete, and also ruling out the disadvantages of antibiotics.