Argument51【StruggleToTriumph】by dump 12.29

dumplingplusUID: 2762716

ARGUMENT51 - 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."

The argument concludes that antibiotics would be advised to be taken by the patients with muscle strain as part of the treatment. The argument's proponents point out that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. To strength the conclusion, the argument cites the preliminary results of a study of two groups, in which the group taking antibiotics recuperates 40 percent quicker than normal situation but the other one taking sugar pills doesn’t ameliorate. But a careful examination would reveal that the conclusion has suffered from several critical problems.

To begin with, it is unconvincing to prove the effectiveness of antibiotics by the preliminary results of the study of two groups. An obvious problem is that the argument doesn’t provide patients’ information, such as age, gender and other physical feathers, which would have an influence on the cure effect. It is entirely possible that the group, which takes antibiotics, is mainly composed with adolescents but the other one mainly consists of old people. Obviously, the group with more young people will have a quicker recuperation. Therefore, we can't arbitrarily owe the quick cure effect to the effectiveness of antibiotics.

Yet another problem is that we cannot ignore the influence of doctors' experience and expertise on curing patients. Generally, the doctors specializing in sports medicine has a better understand on severe muscle strain than the general physicians. So the reason of quick recuperation is probably that the sports medicine doctor adopts proper method and cures the patients more efficiently. Without ruling out this problem, we cannot judge whether the doctor's expertise or the antibiotics affect the cure result.

In addition, the third problem is that no evidence has been provided to prove that the sugar pills will not inhibit the patients' recuperation. If the argument wants to support the effectiveness of antibiotics, the other group should take nothing.

Lastly, there are two other problems that we also should consider. One is that the argument doesn’t mention that secondary infections indeed happen during the treatment, if not, the study is meaningless to convince antibiotics' effect. The other one is that the side effect of antibiotics has not been considered. It is improper for all the people to take antibiotics, as it might cause allergy.

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive to advise people take antibiotics after severe muscle strain. To bolster it, he must provide more convincing evidences that the patients in the two groups have the same physical conditions, and that the sugar pills don't affect the patient's recuperation. And the two groups should be treated by the same doctor or under the same medical directive environment. Considering the side effect of antibiotics, it is arbitrary to suggest all patients with muscle strain take antibiotics.