[phoenix] argument 51 【20100218】12号

zj-129UID: 2179763

51 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."

The author argues that secondary infections must be the first reason keeping patients from healing soon after severe muscle strain. This conclusion is proved by the preliminary results of two group of patients recently. However, this hypothesis is not too persuasive enough to make me believe the conclusion. My reasons are as follows:

To begin with, the two group patients are compared as a examples to prove the results. What a pity that the assertor are too naïve to compare them. As we all know that even the same results of patient might caused by absolutely different reasons. As to the assertion, we can not see any specific details of the name of the two groups of patients. It is so absurd to compare two groups of patients without even knowing the names of their illness. This is the first big mistake the author has got.

Secondly, the first group is treated by Dr. Newland(N), a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, whereas then second group is treated by Dr. Alton(A), a general physician. It’s obviously easy to find out that the two people are in the two different professional fields. I am not surprised at all that a sports medicine doctor treated his patients more quickly than a physician, whose profession is less useful when facing the problem of treatment. It is equal that asking a 7 years student to solve the math problems compared with his teacher. It is unfair at all.

Finally, the medicines used in two groups, antibiotics in group one whereas sugar pills in group two, are as the evidences to support author’s hypothesis. With the names of the two group patients absents, we can not judge the specific treatment good or not. It is possible that sugar is the best pills treating the second group, or antibiotics might delay the recovery of the first group. Thus, the medicines and specific treatments can not prove author’s conclusion as well.


Sum up, there are so many uncomfortable compared mistakes exist that the conclusion author want to prove is unpersuasive enough to makes me believe. The hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from recovering as fast as possible after severe muscle strain can not proved by preliminary results of the two groups of patient.