argument51写的第一篇~~请求指点~

mini137UID: 2711174

51. The following appeared in a medicalnewsletter.
“Doctors have long suspectedthat secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor whospecializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout theirtreatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the secondgroup, all being treated by Dr. Alton,a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believedthey were taking antibiotics. Their averagerecuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients whoare diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics aspart of their treatment.”
WORDS:445
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-2-20

In this argument, the arguer claims that itis because of the secondary infections that patients cannot be kept fromhealing quickly after severe muscle strain and to treat them, antibioticsshould be taken. To support this argument, the arguer provides the evidencethat a study of two groups of patients, one took antibiotics regularlythroughout treatment conducted by Dr. Newland who specializes in sportsmedicine and the other group of patients, conducted by Dr. Alton, were givensugar pills but they believed these were antibiotics, showed that the firstgroup of patients took less time to recover. This argument has severalfallacies as follows.

The arguer fails to provide more evidence toverify that the test group and the control group are all the same except forthe medicine the patients take. For example, the two doctors, Dr. Newland andDr. Alton, majored in different medical area, may cause some influence to theresult of experiment. Maybe the two doctors take some methods which can makesome influence to the patients’ treatment. In addition, the patients, suffered themuscle injuries, may be in different situation between two groups. Perhaps thepatients in the first group are in good health and when they have muscleinjuries, they can recover quicker than normal person. The time of recoverythey cost is less than the second cannot effectively sustain the arguer’s conclusion.Without more evidences to rule out these possibilities, I cannot be convincedto accept the arguer’s statement.

Even if there are not any differences betweenthe two groups, more information also should be provided to promise that we candraw the conclusion as the arguer states. For instance, we have no sense of theseverity of the patients’ muscle injuries. Maybe they feel just a little painand the muscle injuries are not severe. If so, we have to believe that thearguer draw a false conclusion.

In addition, the arguer falsely assumesthat the muscle injuries are equated with the muscle strain without providingfurther information to support his assumption. Lacking of these information,even if we can draw the conclusion that antibiotics can be helpful to cure themuscle injuries, the truth of patients who suffered from muscle strain can betreated by antibiotics.

In conclusion, this is a weak argument. Tosupport the argument, more evidences should be provided. Information, forexample, the two groups of patients are absolutely same and two doctors wouldnot make any difference to the result s, should be given. The arguer must alsoprovide evidence that the muscle injuries can equate with the muscle strain. Withoutthis information, we cannot be convinced to admit this argument.