Argument51 考前9天模考，求建议 by ieyangj08

ieyangj08UID: 2743219

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - 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."
WORDS: 398
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-2-19


In this argument, the author draws his/her conclusion that all muscle strain patients should take antibiotics as their part treatment. Admittedly, at first glance, it is convincing, however, further reflecting reveals that this argument suffers from several flaws.

To begin with, the results of two group patients can not prove doctors' hypothesis at beginning of this argument. In the study, the author has never mentioned any information about patients' secondary infections. Perhaps, all patients in two groups have never suffered from secondary infections. Thus, without more convincing evidences, the arguer's assertion that the results of the study can prove doctors' hypothesis is dubious.

In addition, the difference between two group's results might not be due to taking antibiotics. Perhaps, other factors should be blamed for this difference. Firstly, the arguer has never told us more detail information about the two doctors, and it is totally possible that Dr. Newland have more experiences in curing muscle injuries than Dr. Alton, which might be the true reasons for the rapid rehabilitation of the first group patients. Or perhaps, Dr. Newland used more suitable treatment plan, and thus shortened the recovery period. Additionally, information about two group's equipments and patients are not given. Perhaps, there are diversities in these factors and these diversities would be responsible for the study results. Unless the author could convince us that all other explanations are irrational, his/her conclusion is suspicious.

Finally, even the different results of the two groups are due to taking antibiotics, the author's conclusion that all patients who suffer from muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics is open to doubt. Perhaps patients of the two groups are all severe muscle strain, and antibiotics only have good effect on severe muscle strain, but not all muscle strain, such as slight muscle strain. Or perhaps, patients of the study all be caused by excessive movement, if we use antibiotics on muscle strain patients who are caused by excessive force, it might not work. If any case is true, the arguer’s conclusion is dubious.

To sum up, the author's conclusion that we should advise all muscle strain patients to take antibiotics is dubious and suspicious at best. To convince readers to accept his/her viewpoint, he or she should provide more information on secondary infections of the patients in study, other different factors of the two groups, and the degree and reasons for injury.