[Clover] Argument51 by 辰

missingusaUID: 2625832

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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This argument is not well-reasoned for firstly, as well as fundamentally, the author mixes up the notion of the two objects researched by drawing the conclusion that “all patients who….muscle strain would be….” while citing the topic that “….some patients….after severe muscle strain” at the beginning. So the conclusion may be weakened by this uncaused relationship primarily. It is possible that when one reads this newsletter, whether all the people are tend to suffer severe muscle strain which is severe will be questioned. Probably in this well educated society, people are able to know more about keeping themselves safe in sports activities, construction work, etc. As a result, few people are likely to get sever muscle strain. Therefore, to let all the patients to take antibiotics of treatment potentially may cause serious side effects such as growing an abnormal dependence on those drugs. Moreover, even if it is true, the necessity of advising taking antibiotics as part of the patients’ treatment might also be oppugned as we should take the possibility of being infected secondarily into account. With the development of medical conditions and the completeness of medical care systems, we are provided with more opportunities to heal before the state gets worse. Thus, the value of the suggestion is limited unless the notions are consolidated.

Furthermore, when we take a look at the content of this argument, there emerge more problems worth noticing. Whether the pair of controls can be compared appropriately is open to doubt. Considering the difference between the fields in which Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton major, their measures applied to deal with the muscle strain might not appear to be the same, which may affect the objectivity of the results and thus drawing unreasoned summing-ups. Other alternatives such as the dissimilarity between the patients’ muscle endurance, health conditions, treatment surroundings, individual reasons and so forth also should be thought over to make the two groups more comparable. In addition, to make this research more meaningful, we have to reduce mass factors which may blind us in the results. Thus, the sugar pill’s effect on muscle strain ought to be laid emphasis on. It might be case that taking in sugar prolongs the period of time to recover from hurt.

The information in this letter is limited, thus it is not strong enough to convince readers. Merely a research based on two problematical controls and a hasty advice is only a flash glimpse at the surface. Much more work is needed by the investigator before this premature suggestion comes into a feasible one.