Argument 51 求拍

RobbieQQQQQUID: 2761799

In this memo the author recommends that patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotics to heal quickly. To support this recommendation the author cites a study, which concluded that secondary infections can keep patients from healing quickly after muscle strain. In the study, the first group of patients took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment and their recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Recuperation time of patients in the second group was not significantly reduced although they took sugar pills which they thought were antibiotics. The author’s argument is problematic in several respects, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the study rests on the assumption that secondary infections are certain to happen, or that patients suffering from muscle strain are more likely to be infected secondly. However, the author provides no assurances and fails to convince me of that possibility. If few patients are infected secondly, the statement that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics is one-sided. Unless the study’s secondary infection patients are representative of the overall patients of muscle strain, the author cannot rely on it to predict the statement.
Secondly, the argument unfairly assumes that short recuperation time of patients in the first group was due to the antibiotics-rather than to some other factors- and that these accelerate their recoveries of muscle strain. The argument provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that patients of the first group are all very young and strong who are healthier than the old, or that it is the difference between the genders causes the different recuperation time. In other words, perhaps the patients in the first group taking antibiotics have better physical function originally but most of the patients in the second group are weak in health.
Thirdly, experience and professional level of a doctor also determine the recuperation time of patients. Generally, a doctor specializing in sports always has a better understanding of muscular problem than a general doctor does. Then a more professional and targeted treatment of the doctor in the first group might also accelerate the recuperation time instead of antibiotics. Moreover, patients of the second group took sugar pills throughout their treatment, but the author provides no information to deny that sugar pills have negative effects on their recoveries, which might be the true reason.
Finally, the author was too arbitrary to give that recommendation. He suggests that patients should take antibiotics regularly because secondary infection can keep people from healing quickly. However, in addition to preventing infection and being bactericidal, antibiotics might also bring some side effects such as allergy which prolongs the recuperation time. Until the author provide the relevant information I remain unconvinced that antibiotics have positive effects on secondary infection.
In conclusion, the study does not justify the argument’s sweeping conclusion that antibiotics make the patients heal quickly. To strengthen the argument, the author must show at the very least that the proportion of the patients suffering from secondary infection is high. To better assess the argument I would need a new study to prove that antibiotics can accelerate recuperation time of the patients when they are treated in the same way or in the same circumstance by the same doctor, and they have the same physical function originally.