argu51欢迎大家来拍啊~谢谢~

ljerryUID: 2853704

TOPIC: 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."

In the argument the author recommends that all patients suffering from muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support it, the author cites a study of two groups of patients and points a suspicion in medication that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Convincing as the reasoning seems at first glance, further contemplation reveals that the conclusion is logically flawed in several critical respects.

The threshold problem with this argument is that the author assumes the patients of two groups are considerably similar in every aspect. Yet he fails to substantiate it. Thus, it is entirely possible that the former group of patients suffer from less severer muscle injuries than the later group. Or perhaps patients who take antibiotics possess such excellent physical condition that the recuperation systems of their body are much more efficient than the second group. Since the author fails to rule out the possible differences between the two groups of patients that may affect the recuperation time, the study remains unreliable.

Another flaw that weakens the logic of the argument is that the author fails to consider the other differences between the two treatment processions. After all, Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton are specializes in different field, so there exist the possibility that Dr. Newland prescribe other particular medicines and plan a more healthier diet for his patients which helps patients' recuperation. While Dr. Alton probably do not arrange other special treatment strategies, or even give some unwise suggestions to his patients because of his scant experiences about curing muscle injuries, delaying the recuperation time. In short, without the evidence that two doctors have the same treatment scheme except for the usage of sugar pills and antibiotics, the author cannot convince me that it is the antibiotics promote the recuperation time.

In addition, the argument assumes that the longer recuperation time of the second group is attributable to the secondary infection. Yet the author provides no evidence that this is the case. Since no data about the percentage of people who experienced secondary infection, it is totally possible that equal or even less incidence of secondary infections happened on the later group than on the former one. If it is the case, the antibiotics seem have no positive or even negative influences on the treatment.

Finally, it is to hasty for the author to conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Perhaps the injuries is so slight that a couple of days break would be enough to recuperate. Or perhaps the patients are of impressive immunity to infections so that there is no need to take antibiotics. Or perhaps some patients are allergic to the antibiotic or they cannot afford for the antibiotic. Since the author fails to take these and other possibilities into account, I couldn't accept his recommendation.

In conclusion, the argument rests on several dubious assumptions and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author should provide evidence that basic conditions of patients in the study are similar and the usage of antibiotics or sugar pills is the only difference between the two doctor's treatments. What's more, the data about the incidence of secondary infection of two groups must be publicized, and considering people's different situation, the treatment plan should vary from person to person.

ljerryUID: 2853704

第一篇，希望大家指点啊~谢谢啦:)