1010G【fish】bestcamp

bestcampUID: 2640940

20100524 作业
AUG51
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."

bestcampUID: 2640940

Flaws:
1.        Using antibiotics and secondary infection is not certainly related.
2.        Test condition is not equal in the two groups.
Not everyone of the two groups will suffer secondary infection.  
Doctor is not the same in two groups.
Other alternatives are not considered.

The argument assumes that weather using antibiotics will accelerate the rate of recovery by muscle strain. To support this point of view, the author cites an experiment that two groups of people are treated differently by using antibiotics or not. It seems that with support of the study it is quite right, but if we think it though, we will find some flaws.

To start with, we can deduce from the passage that the author wants to suggest that using antibiotics will lower the chance suffering secondary infection. But the relation between antibiotics and secondary infection is not such clear. Secondary infection is not easily avoided by just using antibiotics. Antibiotics are not the only medicine that can use to avoid secondary infection. There are many other alternatives to choose.

Even we assume that the two are closely related then the test conditions are not equal in two groups is certain. I will show it in three aspects. Firstly, not every member of the two groups will suffer from secondary infection. There are many kinds of muscle injures and not every kind will definitely result in secondary infection. So if some of them are not suffered from secondary infection, then the study is useless because the percentage is not right at all. It may be much lower than 40% in the first group. Secondly, doctors in two groups are not the same. One is a specialist in sports medicine, which is definitely good at medicine treatment. T he other is a general physician, which is more excellent in pure treatment. So what other medicine except antibiotics is given and how they treat the patients before medicine is not the same. Thirdly, patients in the second group are given sugar pills but they are informed antibiotics. So there is psychological factor that patients think they have eaten antibiotics so they will recover quicker.

To sum up, the argument is not such convincing as it is looked like. It will be better and more convincing if the author can just provide a study under equal conditions and eliminate other alternatives.