Argument51 【StruggleToTriumph】by 逆影 12.24 ~Happy Xmas' Eve~

sonicjamUID: 2507839

Argument 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."

Given two groups of patients with different treatments, the author argues that all patients of muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent from secondary infections during their treatments. It seems reasonable at first glance, but there are some critical fallacies and ineligible pitfalls in the argument, which may, to a great extent, influence the conclusion the author made.

First and foremost, different conditions in the experiment cannot deduce the correct result. The test group whose patients take antibiotics is treated by Dr. Newland, a specialist in sports medicine, but as a contrast, the control group that patients only take sugar pills is under the treatments of Dr. Alton, a general physician. In this situation, Dr. Newland is more likely to choose better medications in the experiment, but Dr. Alton is probably not good at dealing the cases of muscle strain. Meanwhile, if patients’ condition varies from severities to conditions, Dr. Newland is able to adjust the treatment for different individuals in his specialized area, which may be beyond the ability of Dr. Alton. As a consequence, the final result cannot tell whether the professional treatment of Dr. Newland or the antibiotics take the prior effect in the experiment.

In addition, the conditions of patients in two groups are not clarified in the argument. It is possible to make the assumption that secondary infections are more likely to happen to patients in the control group than those in the other because of different environments of treatment, so maybe not the antibiotics accelerate the recuperations of the patients in the test group. Furthermore, the sugar pills taken by the patients in the control group are regarded as antibiotics, but there is no evidence to show that the sugar would not aggravate their muscle strain, so it is perhaps the sugar makes patients cure slowly, and the antibiotics have nothing to do with the muscle strain. Without all those influence factors excluded from the experiment, the result of it cannot be credible.

Last but not the least, even if all patients in the experiment suffer severe muscle strain rather than a slight one as the hypothesis states, it still can only be concluded as patients with severe muscle strain should be recommended to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because slightly injured patients may not be necessary to take them in case of allergic reaction, which is known as a vital and even deadly side effect of antibiotics. Nonetheless, the severity is also unclear in the argument, thus the experiment can neither support the hypothesis nor prove the conclusion.

All in all, the conclusion in the argument cannot be reached until all the conditions in the experiment are elaborately designed and strictly controlled. The doctors appointed in two groups should be at least in the same level and specialization. In the same way, every other condition should be kept the equivalent between two groups. Finally, precise description of severities of patients can make the conclusion more accurate.

(495 words)