argument

错失湛蓝UID: 2585937

51The 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."



In this argument, the author maintains that the all patients that suffers from muscle strain are advised to take antibiotic treament as an essential part during the course. The author incited an clinicle test between two groups and treated them with different measurements, finally the author proposed that a consipuous diecrepency were obscured , which gave us an hint that antibiotics is of some value in treatment.Although, it seems plausible and reasonable at the first glance, close scrutiny reveals that it is logically flawed and impertinency.
Firstly,It is not presented that samples in the experiment was radom ,or there were some critera to elect them as the members, at the same time the specfic amount is enough or not to draw a comparism between the two groups according to the statistical principles was unknown.On the one hand, we did not informed of the people that
composed the two groups were collected from society or just the hospital, for the persons from different areas are different in physical and mental well-being, the sorts of diseases, the eating habits,the age,sex and so on, thus it is necessary to produce critera to elect the object.It is without saying that the same condition of the people in groups is essential to practice the following test.On the other hand we could not find the amount of the two groups in this argment,we need accurate staff and from them, we could dicide which statistical method is more appropriate.
Secondly, the two doctors with two backgroud in this test carry
largr doubtful effects to the process ,which led to a unbelievalbe conclusion.It is obvious that the two goups should under a same condition during the experient, such as the same condition of member, the same docters,the same diets ,exercises except the treatment.Nevertheless, the people were cured by absolute different docter,then the differences took place in two group are originated
from treatment or the doctor?obviously,it can not explained through the test.
The last but not the least is the author talked bout the recuperation used antibody was reduced about 40% than typically expected obviously,however the author did not interprete what is the typically expected recupation and 40% reduced is a staff that carrying important statistical sence or not? Since different countries have different standard in schooling and reasearches , so it is so confusing for showing some trival number without any interpretions.
To summary, the argument is unresonable and unconvicing to some extent.At lease, we could not draw a hasty conlusion that we should practice antibotic treatment after muscle strait through the experiment.The author should propose more credible and rational evidence to suppor this argument than just shew some emotional appeal.

missingusaUID: 2625832

请lz修改下法帖格式~参照此帖:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1042201