argument51 【076G——背水一战】tongwawa第三次作业

tongwawawUID: 2176887

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."

医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。

提纲
1.       病人情况不明确
2.       医生情况不明确
3.       即使研究具有可信性,可以证明假说, 这个假说也不能有效支持结论
===================================================================
The argument, although well-presented, is not completely well-reasoned. By providing a medical study which indicates that antibiotics are efficient to promote the healing of muscle strain, the argument for recommending all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment seems logical at first glance, but is unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the argument provides no information about the personal conditions of patients in the two groups. Lack of such interpretations, it is entirely possible that patients are not chosen by randomness. Perhaps patients in the first group are young people whose immune systems function well enough to protect them from bacteria infection, or the degree of injury of the first group might be less than that of the second group. Even granted the injuries are equally severe in the two groups, no evidence shows that there is a correlation between the injuries and infections. Common sense informs us that not every injury will cause an infection. Perhaps patients in the first group are not suffering from infections at all no matter how severely they have injured. Furthermore, based on the figure that 40 percent of patients in the first group recuperate quicker than typical expected, a question will be asked: what about the rest of 60 percent? They might be suffering more from the side effect of antibiotics. In short, without more information about the patients, the evaluation of antibiotics on dealing with muscle strain is meaningless.

Moreover, another point which might invite inequality in the two groups involves in the two doctors. How do they treat their patients? Does Dr.Newland(DN) use the same method as Dr.Alton(DA)? If not, any differences of treatment might lead to dissimilar effect upon the two groups of patients, which tends to reduce the credibility of the study. In addition, the argument mentions that DN specializes in sports medicine while DA is a general physician, which, to some extent, implies us DN might be superior to DA when it comes to muscle strain.

Finally, the conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics is unwarranted, even if the study upon which the hypothesis depends is compelling. The assumption is that "secondary infections" may keep "some" patients form healing quickly after "severe" muscle strain, which indicate that: "primary" infections might not cause heavy problems of recuperation; only a small number of people need to be treated with antibiotics so they are not representative of all patients; unless people suffer from "severe" muscle strain, other degree of injury cannot be counted in. Any of these restrictions may weaken the conclusion that the arguer makes.

To sum up, the argument lacks the credibility since the evidence and assumption do not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the argument, and to better assess it, the arguer should provide more information about the condition of patients in the two groups, and quality and technical skills of DN and DA.


[ 本帖最后由 tongwawaw 于 2007-3-6 04:39 编辑 ]