［clover］106G Argument51 by 九天揽月

九天揽月UID: 2737667

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."

This argument begins with a hypothesis that some patients with severe muscle strain may be secondarily infectious, based on two experiments, the argument concludes that all patients with muscle strain should be treated with antibiotics. It is evident that the conclusion is unreasonable in that the arguer fails to consider the concrete situations of the patients and the results of the experiments cannot sufficiently prove the proposal.

First of all, the arguer unsoundly considers that secondary infections are bound to happen to all those with muscle strain. As the hypothesis suggests that some patients may be secondarily infectious, there is no evidence that any patients with muscle strain will suffer the same symptom. If the patients are merely with slight muscle strain, then it is highly impossible the secondary infection will occur. Even in the case of severe muscle strain, the symptom may not occur to some patients. Therefore, as for the ones without secondary infection, taking antibiotics is not necessary.

Even for those with secondary infection, antibiotics are not sure effective through the results of the experiments, as the conclusion of the studies are not sufficient in the following facets. First, the number of patients in each group is unclear, which is perhaps not representative for the general. Whether the group is large enough is left to concern. Does the group cover patients at various ages with different symptom? Are the patients from diverse areas? As we know that people at dissimilar ages and areas may vary in physical suffering and immune, and may differentiate in rehabilitation. Second, treated by doctors specialize in different fields, even the same patient may recover at different rate, let alone the two groups. It is possible that the doctor who majors in sports medicine may be more experienced at muscle strain treatment than the one who is general. In addition, no evidence indicates that other treatments except antibiotics are the same in the two groups, therefore, if other parameters are not strictly controlled, there is possibility that it's not the antibiotics affects the recuperation time but other unknown factors.

Furthermore, even though antibiotics are effective, it is possible that other medicine may play the same role as antibiotics, which is far from the only treatment the patients should accept. Without considering the patients' medical history, the complexity of the conditions and the side-effect of antibiotics, it is too hast to recommend all the patients take the same antibiotics. After all, medical treatment is not a mass experiment but a specific diagnosis.

In summary, this argument is weakened by the unwarranted suggestion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics based on the invalid experiments. In spite of other complicated conditions of the patients, the conclusion is soundless. To strengthen the recommendation, the arguer should take any other issues into consideration and provide more details about the experiments. By doing this, the suggestion may be persuasive.