DA小组 第1次作业 argument51 BY Gassa

GassaUID: 2498402

51．Thefollowing appeared in a medical newsletter.


"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they weretaking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced.Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be welladvised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."



In this argument, the author concludes thatall patients with muscle strained injury had better take antibiotic as part oftheir treatment because secondary infections will slower the speed of the patientsrecovering. To support this assertion, the author mentions two control group studies.The group, which are treated by specialist in the sport medicine and take antibioticsregularly, revert faster than the other group treated only by a generalphysician and take sugar pills as placebo. However, the argument relies onseries of fallacies, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

Firstly, the author fails to provide theclear numbers in these two studies that may lead the result are not statisticallyreliable. As we know, in order to lead a consistent result, the number ofpatients in each group must be sufficient in size. However, the author doesn’tmention the exactly numbers in different groups. It is possible that there are onlya few patients in the both group so that the results of the two studies are unreliable.

Secondly, even offering the exact numbersin tow groups, the author also fails to consider other factors which may alsocontribute the faster recuperation. For example, the specialist in sportmedicine may render some special treatment to these patients in the firstgroup, such as schedule some suitable exercises and adjust the patients eatinghabits. Additionally, the author do not mention the seriousness of theirinjuries and their body status in these two groups, the commonsense shows thatthe serious injuries may be healed slower than the others, and also the peoplewith a strong body may also revert quicker than the normal people. Before theauthor ruling out these possible factors, the assertion is open to doubt.

Finally, I would like point out that theauthor commit the hasty generality, though the author might rule out of theabove possible factors. The author unnecessarily broadens the scope to allpatients, but there is no evidence that every patient will be attacked by thevirus. Meanwhile, there are some people who are allergic to certainantibiotics. It is definitely harmful for them to take antibiotics.

In conclusion, the conclusion lackscredibility because the two studies in analysis do not lend strong support towhat the author support. To strengthen that argument, the author would have toprovide a clear and sufficient numbers of the two study groups. To betterevaluate the argument, the author also would need to get rid of the otherfactors may benefit to the quicker healing.