argument 51 求拍 （有拍必回，视死如归！）

gasros123UID: 2689661

Thefollowing 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 of the medical newsletter givesus the recommendation here that all patients who are diagnosed with musclestrain should take antibiotics during their treatment period. The author citesa study of two groups of patients to support the hypothesis that secondaryinfectious wounds prevent the patients suffering severe muscle strain fromcuring. The conclusion is claimed that treatments with antibiotics are moreeffective than those without it. But I find the argument flawed in severalrespects.
First of all, the author does not inform usabout the severity of the injuries, physical conditions and age of the twogroups of patients. It always costs a patient with severe injures more time torecover compared with who only get some slight strain. It may also be in verydifferent circumstances for young patients in good physical conditions and oldpatients in relatively poor health, which we commonly believe that the formerwill suffer less than the latter. Without the detailed information of the twogroups of patients, the result of the comparison could not be convincing to me.
Secondly, there might be other differencebetween treatments offered by the two doctors that contribute to therecuperation rate achieved by the study. The doctor of the first group,Dr.Newland, is a specialist in sports medicine, so he may has more experiencein the treatment to muscle strain which usually happens in sports injuries andknow how to help the patients to get well sooner by some other methods. To thecontrast, the doctor of the second group who is just a general physician maynot know much more solutions to reduce the recuperation rate of his or herpatients. Thus, the antibiotics should not be the only factor that influencethe recovering time.
Furthermore, the author neglect one pointthat the sugar bills will possibility cause negative effects on the healing ofthe second group of patients. Lacking of evidence confirming that the sugarbills has nothing to do with the injuries of the patients, it quite fair for meto doubt that whether it is the sugar bill that leads to the longerrecuperation period of the second group of patients.
Last but not least, even assuming that theantibiotics do expedite the recovering period of the patients with secondinfections, the author hastily generalizes that all patients who are diagnosedwith muscle strain will suffer from second infection. Besides, what about ifsome patients are not suitable to taking antibiotics? And the author alsoneglect that antibiotics probably have some side effect on the health of body.So the advice for all patients to take antibiotics is not reasonable.
To sum up, the conclusion is short ofcredibility because the evidence cited makes the argument not persuasive as itstands. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide evidencethat the patients studied are of near body condition and injury severity andmaintain the treatment at the same level so as to confirm the effect theantibiotics. Finally, the author should take the side effect of antibiotic into account, if any.