Argument 51 求拍

foraminiferaUID: 2464957

51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis hasnow 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 antibioticsregularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average,40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, allbeing treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills,although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their averagerecuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients whoare diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics aspart of their treatment."
二次感染减慢严重肌肉拉伤的康复
一组由运动医学专家治疗，并一直使用抗生素，回复时间平均比典型预期块40%
二组有普通医生治疗，使用糖片代替抗生度，恢复时间并没有明显降低
结论：所有诊断为肌肉拉伤的病人都应该使用抗生素治疗

Theargument that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics has illogicalflaws in two ways: First, the experiment carried out by the writer is not adirect justification ofDoctors’ hypothesis that second infections can keep patients from healingquickly because he do not justify whether the patients in the experiment havesecondary infections or not.Second, the experiment itself is not accord with scientific standards for itcannot cancel out other factors affecting the speed of patients’ recovery.

Whether the patients have secondary infections is the first condition thewriter should consider of conducting research to testify the hypothesis, butunfortunately the he failed to do this. During the treatment of muscle strain,patient who catch secondary infections must cost more time to recover thanthose who only have primary infections. If the first group includes patientsmainly with primary infection and the second group secondary infections, it isnot difficult to understand why the second group recovered slowly than thefirst.

After the first consideration, even if we assume that people in both groupssuffer secondary infections, a scientifically controlled experiment andcogent analysis of its results are important, but the writer also failed. Scientific researchask the patients in these two groups to have the similar background in age,gender, ethic, body strength and severity of injury. If not, for example, thefirst group are made of younger, stronger, less muscle strained and lesssecondary infected people than the second, then the rapid recovery of the firstgroup are probably primarily due to these factors rather than using ofantibiotics. Further, even if this rule has been applied, another arerequired--the two groups should be treated by similar doctors to exclude theinfluence of different medical treatments--but the experiment not. Dr. Newland, who specialized in sport medicine wouldpossibly more experienced than the general physician Dr. Alton in nursing musclestrain for it is common insport. Therefore, it may be because of his more crafted medical skills, such asproviding patients with scientific program of muscle training and beneficialmassage, rather than his using of antibiotics, the first group could recoverquickly.

Finally, even if these two illogical flaws in experiment are corrected, I stillcan not believe the writer’s finally conclusion, in which, he arbitrarilyignores two opposite opinions. First, the patients involved in his experimentcannot represent “all patients”, who are diverse in age, body strength andother factors irrelevant tomuscle strain. Children, old people, pregnant women, if not involved in theexperiment, are not supposed to treated with antibiotics for they are toodelicate to accommodate tothey. Second, even if the writer’ experiment if correct, antibiotics may not bethe only way to treat muscle strain and ensuing secondary infections, for thewriter does not conducted relative researches and other methods are still unknown. Once they areuncovered, they could serve as a better way to treat such injury since inappropriate useof antibiotics may cause secondary injuries also.

In sum, the writer’s illogical justification of his hypothesis, illegimate conductionof experiment and one-sided view of his conclusion weaken the scientific valueof his research.