Argument51 【加州阳光】第7次作业 sandy 拍呀

sandyfriendUID: 157486

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."
WORDS: 401          TIME: 1:10:32          DATE: 2006-7-6

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By using the preliminary results of two groups of patients, the arguer's conclusion that secondary infection enables people to recover slower after severe muscle injuries seems logical.

However, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that other factors that enabled the first group of patients to recover more quickly on average.  Firstly, in the study the first group is treated by specialized docter, Dr. Newland, while the second group is inspected by a general physician, DR. Alton.  Different doctor may adopt different kinds of therapy. Since specialized doctor may have more experience than the general ones in dealing with the severe muscle strain, the recovery time of the first group may be shorter than the latter. Hence it may affect the validity of the study.  Also, we should not neglect the clinic condition. if the first group are in the hospital with careful care, nevertheless the second group only stay in home and go to hospital for further consultant once a week. The second group may have the considerable possibility of second infection even eating the antibiotics every day. Except these two factors, many other factors may also make us confused at the function of the first group.  It appears more reasonable; therefore, that the researchers make sure that the other factors can not affect the conclusion.

Only a preliminary result of a study could not make people convince that secondary infection comparatively affect the recovery condition of the patients of severe muscle strain. The arguer commits a fallacy of overgeneralization. Even if the antibiotics can reduce the chance for infection, it does not follow that the second group who are only given sugar pills cause the second infection and keep them from health quickly. The argument should demonstrate the correlation between the second infection and the preliminary result of the study. From the result of the study, we may get the conclusion that antibiotics are effective in quick muscle stain recovery. Hence, those two groups may not have second infections and the study can not deduce the arguer’s claim.

To sum up the hypothesis that secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing quickly seems logical as presented above, since antibiotics tends to be a well protect method in recovery. However, before any final decision is made about the hypothesis, the scientists should justify the legitimacy and validity of the study.