argument51 比较短 随便看看说两句呗 谢啦

hazelilyUID: 2578520

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."


In the medical news letter, the author claims that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would recover better by taking antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the recommendation, a study which regarded as a proof of the hypothesis: "secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain", is cited. The reasoning behind the letter based on unscientific study and problematic reasoning, which makes it unconvincing.

In the first place, lacking of the introduction of patients' situation put the study into question. The amount of patients in each group is unmentioned, which means the sample size may not be large enough to present general situation. Additionally, the patients' injure condition is unmentioned, thus it is possible that disparity in degree of injury makes the study results inaccurate. Furthermore, there is no evidence that those patients were suffering from secondary infections and severe muscle strain. If not, the study has nothing to do with that hypothesis, letting alone to prove it. Failing to address the patients' condition questions the motivation of the study and weakens the argument.

Even if assuming that patients are well chosen, there is a fatal mistake on the structure of the study. It is problematic that doctors assigned to different groups have different professional background. Since the doctor's medical skills matter a lot in the treatment, this mistake destroys the credibility of the study.

Moreover, even if assuming that the study is well organized, the conclusion was drawn too hastily and more like a speculation. Antibiotics help in reducing recuperation time is one thing, overuse of antibiotics is another story since the abuse of antibiotics will render drug-resistance. Without considering the particularity in medical field, the recommendation of the author should be rejected or it will lead to disasters.

In summary, this letter is based on a flawed study and immature reasoning. To make use of a study, the author should introduction the structure and every parameter in detail, and be carefully enough to keep the scientific rules when organize it. To make valid conclusions, the author should take more factors into account.

littlepeng3UID: 2193339

:)

hazelilyUID: 2578520

2# littlepeng3

哈，兄台说两句吧~