argument 51 这是我的第二篇 模版味很强 希望高手们指出错误和我的改进之处 感谢！

szmanutdUID: 2727152

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: 402
TIME: 00:53:15
DATE: 2010-3-1 22:33:13

In this analysis, the arguer claims that it would be a good advice that all of the patients diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics during their treatment. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites a study done by researchers of two groups of patients. One group is treated by specialist in sports medicine and the other group by a general physician. In addition, these two groups were given different treatment. In my own opinion, however, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies for lacking logical legitimacy.
Firstly, the author provides no statistic or data to support his point. The amount of the individuals in each group should be illustrated. Just a few people and thousands of people are completely of two distinct conceptions. More often than not, a small sample can't always be persuasive for there might be non-ignorable exceptions. What if quite a lot of individuals in the groups are naturally strong enough, and in this circumstance, the recuperation time of them is absolutely quicker than those weak.
Secondly, the fact that the treatment conducted by two doctors, one specializes in sports medicine and the other is a general physician whose profession is totally different from the first one's does not necessarily imply the study is trustworthy. Since this two doctor specialize in two distinctive aspects, their methods towards their own group may differ. The first doctor may hold an optimistic attitude towards his patients and sometimes make them laugh more than the patients in the group 2, so it is possibly that the less optimism which the patients in the latter group absorbed and showed can keep them from healing quickly.
Finally and the most fallacious the author assumes is the antibiotics and the sugar pills the patients take. In the argument, the effect of these two kinds of substances isn't manifested to our readers, so results can be easily reversed by others. As we all known, that quite amount of persons are allergic to antibiotics and sometimes these antibiotics are fatal to them. Obviously, the author fails to consider and take this kind of possibility into account.
To sum up, the conclusion in the argument lacks credibility because evidence cited in the analysis does not lend to strong support to what the arguer believes. In order to strengthen this argument, the arguer would have to more evidence concerning the numbers of the sample and the effect of the medicines.