argment 51 我们的小组

nature347UID: 2751175

In this argument, the arguer contends that the antibiotics is essential in curing the severe muscle strain. To strengthen this conclusion, the arguer providers a statistics about a comparing experiment about the muscle injury treatment with and without the antibiotics.
At first glance, the argument seems to be reasonable, but further scrutiny reveals that it contains several logically unconvincing respects

First of all, the author claims that secondary infections might be the reason to postpone the recovery of muscle injury. However, during the experiment, the arguer provides no information about whether the patient of muscle injury suffers from secondary infections or not. If not ,the test cannot tell that the it’s the antibiotics that cure the secondary infections thus shorten the period of recovery.

Secondly, even assuming that all these patients tested are secondary infected, there is no concrete evidence to infer herby an inevitable causal relation between antibiotics and quicker cure of muscle injury. There could be many other factors, such as the other medicine used in the treatment , and the level of the doctor, which may also causes difference of time during the treatment. As is mentioned in the report that the two doctors in this test are from different field, which is a potential clue that their way of treatment and recipe to their patients might be different. If the first group took different or even additional treatment beside antibiotics, the result is not convincing. What’s more, it is quite possible that the health condition of the patient will effect a lot about the treatment. Obviously, those who are more soundly build tends to have a shorter period of recovery. Without ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot conclude that antibiotics are responsible for quicker cure of muscle injury.

Third, even I concede that antibiotics is attributable to quicker cure of muscle injury, the arguer fails to provide compelling and sufficient evidence to affirm that all the patient of muscle injury should use antibiotics. On one hand, some patients might not be able to use antibiotics for their personal reasons. On the other hand, the arguer entirely neglects some other options such as Chinese medicine, which might gives the same even better results.
To sum up, the conclusion is not reliable as it stands because the statement claimed in the analysis does not lend fully reasoning to what the author expects. In order to make it more convincing, a more detailed information about the percentage of the secondary affections and the physical condition of the patient. Furthermore, all the treatment besides antibiotics should be exactly the same and the two doctors should be chosen from the same fields with matching skills. Only by including all these factors can the arguer reach the conclusion that the antibiotics is a essential part in curing the muscle strain.