Phoenix写作小组6号A51

hhfboyUID: 2749089

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: 401
TIME: 00:35:22
DATE: 2010-3-4 11:54:58

In this argument, the author advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be taken antibiotics as part of their treatment. The recommendation is based on the evidence that Doctors suspect the secondary infection will hamper the severe muscle strain to recuperate quickly and a preliminary results came from a control experiment. However, the argument exist several flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author's conclusion that the secondary infections have relationship to the severe muscle strain is open to doubt. But the author has no evidence to prove this assumption. Even if the assumption is correct. The author claims that all patients should take antibiotics is unreasonable. It is entirely possible that the antibiotics on can help the severe injuries but no effect on the slight one. Thus, without the evidence that the muscle stain causes the secondary infections and the antibiotics will have effects on all scale severity of patient, the argument remains unconvincing.

Next, the author who cites a unclear control group to substantiate his conclusion is unreasonable. In the first place, the comparison can not provide some information about the patients. It is possible that the body health condition of the first group is better than the second. In the second place, the differences between the doctors are overlooks in this experiment. The doctor in the former group is a sport doctors who with huge experience on curing muscle strain, whereas the latter is a common doctors. Finally, the experiment can not substantiate that whether the pills have an effect or not to the patients. In short, lacking the evidence, the author can not convince me that the study he cited is reliable.

Aside from the flaws mentioned above in this argument. Granted the antibiotics have effect on muscle strain, but author has no evidence to prove that the antibiotics have no disadvantage to the patients' health. Therefore, without ruling out this possibility, the author can not make a conclusion so hastily.


In conclusion, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To convince me, author should provide more clear evidence that there is a relationship between secondary infections and severe muscle strain. To better bolster his argument, I need more information about the control group, such as the condition of the two doctors, the severity of the injury, and the effect of the sugar pills.