Argument51 【StruggleToTriumph】by Chan 12.29

chenge107UID: 2969676

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."

In the argument, the arguer infers that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment only simply according to preliminary results of the study of two groups of patients. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, there are perhaps some other factors except for antibiotics that enabled the first group of patients to recover more quickly on average. Maybe the second group of patients injured more serious than the first group, or the seasons in which the two study are hold are different, results in the difference of recuperation time. What′s more, difference of the level of the two doctors and the condition of the two hospitals are also the important factors affected.

In the second place, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generation. We do not know the exact amount of the people be studied in the research, so the trustworthy and representative of the study is to be doubted. Antibiotics are only useful when there are secondary infections. It means that when there are no secondary infections, antibiotics are useless. Furthermore, 40 percent quicker than typically expected in the study can never confirm the effective of antibiotics for every patient at every time.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning factors make patients to recover more quickly. Moreover, a wider scale study is also needed to achieve the objective.

(第一篇Argument，字数不足，感觉分析没有深入思维没打开，望各位见谅、赐教！)