argument51【clover】第四次小组作业 by a08805436

a08805436UID：2725634

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: 430
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/2/6 19:23:59

In this argument, the medical newsletter cites the data from a recent study of two groups of patients and reaches the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics.
At first sight, this argument seems to be convincing, however, close scrutiny reveals that these evidences neither constitutes a logical support to the conclusion nor providing compelling sound and invulnerable.

First and foremost, the newsletter cites a study of two groups of patients; however, the two groups are not carried out by the same doctor. Notice that the second group of patients who suffered from muscle strain is treated by a physician. Common sense tells us that treating muscle strain is a kind of jobs of the surgeon, and it is entirely possible that Dr.Alton is not familiar with muscle strains and failed to treat the patients in the second group.

Furthermore, even assuming that Dr.Alton has done the same job as Dr.Newland, the data contains the information that while the first group of patients took antibiotics, the second group was given sugar pills. Maybe it is the sugar pills prevent the patients in the second group recover quickly.

Moreover, even assuming that sugar pills did not prevent the patients in the second group recover as quick as that of the first group, the argument provides no information about the number of the patients in each group. Without ruling out the numbers, it is entirely possible that there are only several patients in the first group and the result of the experiment is unwarranted as it stands. Unless the argument sampled a sufficient number of patients and did so randomly across the entire patients, the results of the experiment are not reliable to gauge the effect of the antibiotics to the muscle strain.

Finally, even assuming that the numbers of patients in two groups are the same and they were chosen randomly across the entire group of patients, the argument hastily draw the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics. Yet this argument provides no evidence to substantiate it. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that there are myriad kinds of muscle strains and each of them must be treated differently and distinguishingly.

In final analysis, the conclusion reached by the argument has several flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the argument, the writer needs to inform us whether Dr.Alton in the second group has the same capacity as that of Dr.Newland and whether sugar pills have detrimental effect on muscle strain. I would also need to know the numbers of the patients in each group and whether antibiotics have side-effect on muscle strains.

桔子susanUID：2754084

改好了

misirUID：2684938

我在橘子的基础上修改的~用高亮注明了