最后的战役 Argument51 by Elaine

hfyyelaineUID: 2976419

Argument 51
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.


In this argument, the arguer concludes that the hypothesis of the negative influence of secondary infections on severe muscle strain has been proved by an experiment of two groups of patients. The first group took antibiotics and recuperated quicker, while the second one taking no antibiotics, had no significant improvement. In addition, the arguer suggests that all patients who are suffering from muscle strain take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
However, this argument is not persuasive because of some logical flaws.

First of all, no evidence shows that it is the antibiotics which contribute to the quicker recuperation of the first group. There are several factors that can influence the treatment, including age bracket and exercise. For instance, it is possible that the first group is mainly consisted of younger people, who are stronger than the member of the second one, rendering their recoveries easier. Similarly, exercise plays a crucial role. If the patients in the first group did more exercises during the period of study, their recuperation can be accelerated. Unless it can be proved that it is the antibiotics worked alone instead of other factors, the conclusion of the experiment could be embraced.

Second, the differences between these two groups make the experiment less valid. Dr. Newland, as a specialist in sports medicine, is equipped with enough experience and skills when dealing with muscle strain, while Dr. Alton is not an expert in this field. With a better doctor, it is suspicious that antibiotics work well. Again, the arguer does not make it clear that whether the patients of the two groups were suffering from the same severity of muscle strain, nor that everyone in group one has strained their muscle rather than had other muscle injuries. Now that the evidence is not enough to guarantee all the patients were in the same condition, the effect of antibiotics is in doubt.

Then, granted that antibiotics work well in the treatment of severe muscle strain, it does not lend support to its extension to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Patients who just suffer from a slight strain even need no medicine care--there are other ways, ranging from massage, stretching exercise to acupuncture, can also be effective to normal muscle strain. Besides, it is commonsense that antibiotics have side effects, which may cause resistance and lead to other undesirable symptoms. So the advice put forward by the arguer should be examined more carefully.


In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive enough. To make it more convincing, the arguer should provide more detailed information about the design of the experiment and make sure that the unnecessary differences of two groups are ruled out. Apart from these, an investigation on the effect of antibiotics when it is applied to normal muscle strain is needed, otherwise the hasty use of antibiotics may cause serious consequence.