Definitely, a victory 小组第1次作业 argument51 By6号liyao0509（KM骰子）

liyao0509UID: 2825597

51．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 this argument, the arguer suggests that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of treatment. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, for that two experiments are established to show the different rate of recuperation in different groups treated with antibodies and sugar pills respectively, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follow.

In the first place, the arguer acquiesces in the prerequisite that the average recuperation time is shortened by elimination of the possibilities of the secondary infection. Although this is entirely possible, the arguer just mentions that doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly. This assumption is acquiesced as prerequisite but does not be proved by any subsequent experiment. Neither the arguer nor doctors explain the relationship between muscle strain and secondary infection. It is very likely that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain has as same opportunities as healthy people or even lower, and it is possible that potential secondary infection do not happen in two experimental groups. In one hand, antibodies may directly accelerate the recuperation of muscle strain; in the other hand, sugar pills may prolong the therapy.

In the second place, the arguer provides no evidence that the number of patients is statistically significant or that the patients in experiment were representative of all the patients of muscle strain in general. Lacking information about number of patients, the “40 percent” may generate randomly in a small size. And also whether the experimental group and control group is parallel is not illuminated. Maybe the condition of injury in each group is not same; maybe two doctors give patients totally different therapy in other medicines; maybe the different surroundings affect patients’ mental conditions which influenced the cure of physic. Without knowing concrete details about sample’s size and each group’s condition of injury, and without exclude any other influence of recuperation, the causes of different rate of recuperation stays unknown.

The last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, as the common sense, abuse of antibodies would make pathogenic bacteria drug fast, and cause more serious disease. There is no subsequent investigation to guarantee no complicating disease would happen. In order to advise responsibly, the arguer must down into further research.

To sum up, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is indispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should give more details about two groups’ size, conditions of injury, guarantee the other conditions are same in two groups, and add more experiments to evident that secondary infection indeed delay the recuperation of muscle strain and antibodies almost have no side-effects.