51 Argument: 讨论 求拍

rescsuyiUID: 2913136

51，（医疗/建议/对比）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(3), although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced(1,2). Therefore, all patients(4) who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics(5) as part of their treatment."

This argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. In this argument, the arguer claims that the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this claim, the arguer points out that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle train. In addition, the arguer cites results of surveys to substantiat the hypothesis that patients who are given pill which content with antibiotics, recover soon. Close scrutiny reveal, however, that these evidence provide little credible support for the arguer’s assertion.

In the first place, the argument base on a problematic assumption that there is influential contingency between secondary infections and the recovery time of severe muscle strain. However, the arguer provides no substantial evidence to support this. There is no direct information that clarifies whether the treatment mentioned orients towards infections in general or the secondary infection.Perhaps the patients do not infect at all in this situation. Without eliminating this possibility, the arguer cannot convince me.

Second of all, the argument commits a fallacy of false analogy that the arguer drew his conclusion by comparing the recuperation of the first group, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected with the second group. Nevertheless, the arguer fails consider the potential extraneous factors and conditions existed in the two groups which were reported by two different doctors. It is impossible to confidently apply the result because there might be differences in physical conditions of the patients, as well as the differences in the way two doctors conducted their treatments. Due to these considerations, the argument is dubious at best.

Even assuming that reasonable comparison may be made between the two groups, the arguer situates the reader in further confusion when providing the findings of the second group which, ironically turned out to be negative evidence. In the second group, patients were given sugar pills as to test the placebo effect, which resulted in negligible difference in comparison to the first group. This result not only failed to support the hypothesis, but also proved against the hypothesis.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence on the extent to which the healing process of severe muscle strain can be compared to the influence of secondary infection. Also to better assess the hypothesis, accurate and detailed data on the conditions such as the doctor, patient situations, environment and other healing methods, would help to evaluate the arguer’s conclusion more efficiently.