argument51求拍

after17UID: 2681985

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: 435
TIME: 00:42:23
DATE: 2010/2/11 11:34:16

At first glance, this editorial appears to be plausibly well-reasoned. The author advocates that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics for their treatment. To justify this claim, he cites the result of an experiment which one group taken antibiotics recovered quicker. However, this argument contains a series of flaws, which contributes to its prematurity.

First and foremost, the author fails to demonstrate the severity of injuries of the two groups of patients. Also he neglects the physical conditions of people in the two groups. So, there is a good chance that people in the first group are slight muscle train while people in the second group suffer severe muscle strain. If this is true, then the claim has no merit because slight strains recover quicker than severe strains. It may; in fact, people in the first group have better physical conditions than the second group. This also can explain why people in the first group have a quicker recuperation time. Without ruling out those possibilities, the author's assertion remains dubious at best.

In addition, even assuming that the people in the experiment are under the same circumstances, the excerpt rest on an analogy between the treatment used by Dr.Newlan and Dr.Alton while lends no evidence that they adopted the same treatment. Perhaps, Dr.Newland adopted special treatment which shorted the recuperation time since he is a specialist in sports medicine. We can imagine that he is more skilled than Dr.Alton in dealing with muscle strain.
Besides, we cannot ignore that may be the sugar pills have bad effect on dealing with the strains. If it is true, then the conclusion is unwarranted. In the absence of evidence, I cannot be convinced by the proposal.

Finally, even if the antibiotics have effect on treating severe muscle strain, they may be not suit for all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. First, the author provides no evidence to show that antibiotics can treat people who suffer severe muscle strain but without secondary infections. Second, granted that antibiotics are fit for all severe strains, may be they have no effect on slight muscle strains. Last but not least, some people cannot take antibiotics for they are allergic to antibiotics. Lacking of such information, the suggestion is unjustifiable.

In sum, the arguer's recommendation is ill conceived and poorly supported. To strengthen the argument, we would need more information for the conditions of people in the experiment. In order to better evaluate the assertion, the author must ensure me that the treatment adopted are the same and if antibiotics are suit for all people.