Definitely, a victory 小组第1次作业 Argument51 By3号echo(huohuo0101)

huohuo0101UID: 2760840

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."
   
    Author proposed that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment by proving the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly with a study of two groups of patients. One of two groups was treated with antibiotics and another with placebo. I found the proposal flawed in study design and deduction.
   
   First, the extra variants of the study is not well controlled thus make the result unconvincing. 40 percent quicker in recuperation time is not necessarily resulted from antibiotic since doctors in two groups work in different fields. Dr. Newland, who specialized in sports medicine, may be more experienced and skilled in muscle strain treatment than Dr. Alton, a general physician. The second extra variant which is not well controlled is patients’ precondition. The author didn’t mention whether the patients were randomly assigned in two groups or not, so the group with antibiotic may be less injured than the group with placebo. Since the author didn’t rule out the alternative explanations of 40 percent quicker in recuperation time, the hypothesis cannot be proved with the result.

    Second, even it is proved that antibiotic can explain 40 percent quicker in recuperation time than expected. The hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain is still poorly evidenced. There is no direct or indirect evidence that secondary infection broke out during recuperation. It’s possible that antibiotic only has effect on the original wound.

    Last but not the least, the hypothesis is not sound enough to support the proposal that all muscle strained patients would be advised to take antibiotics for two reasons. First, the author expand the original hypothesis to assume that secondary infection have effect on all the people who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Yet he/she fails to offer any evidence to substantiate the assumption. Maybe to certain people, secondary infection would not delay the recuperation. What’s worse, the proposal may put people who are allergic to antibiotics in jeopardy. Moreover, taking medicine is an intrusive treatment of infection. The author fails to rule out other friendly methods against infection such like strict sanitation.

    In sum, the proposal relies on flawed-designed study result and poorly evidenced deduction thus make it unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the proposal, the author need to make sure patients are randomized in two groups and under the treatment of the same doctor. And he/she has to provide evidence that secondary infection actually broke out in this experiment. To make the hypothesis strong enough to support the proposal, further evidence that secondary infection effects all the people should be provided. And the alternative method for allergic people should be pointed out . At last, to make the proposal more persuasive, other methods against infection should be ruled out.