argument51 【076G－背水一战小组】第三次作业

kylinUID: 2242436

51The 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."
——提纲——
1.前提不一定成立。前提是二次感染一定会发生。但没有资料显示它们必定会发生在肌肉拉伤的病人身上 或他们容易得。
2。一个是运动药方面专家 一个普通 技术不能比 而且不一定是抗生素帮助好 patients体质年龄可能不一样
3。没道理让所有肌肉伤的病人都服用抗生素 即使可治疗二次感染 但有些会对抗生素过敏 何况抗生素还有副作用 糖片没说是否会impede康复
——正文——
In this argument, the arguer suggests that all patients with severe muscle strain should take antibiotics, as they are effective for recuperation. Although this argument seems sound and convictive at first glance, it has several logical flaws which undermine the validity of conclusion.

First of all, the premise that claims the secondary infections would definitely occur is not firmly founded. There are no references to demonstrate that it is 100percent possibility for patients with muscle strain to encounter secondary infection, or they are very likely to suffer it. Perhaps patients are exceedingly aware of avoiding from contaminants so that they can be absence of secondary infections. Whatever, this dubious premise results in the hypothesis can not be well-confirmed.

Another major flaw in this argument is that the experiment commits the fallacy of false analogy. The arguer ignores to offer conditions of those two groups of patients. What if patients in the first group are younger and healthier? It is likely that young people are able to recover faster than elder patients--especially when muscle is strained--due to their metabolism is more vigorous than the latter. Meanwhile, comparing with a general physician, a doctor who is an expert in sports medicine may be more proficient in curing hurts of muscle, so perhaps Dr. Newland is more competent to help his/her group of patients contract the recuperation time.

Moreover, how can the arguer conclude that all patients who are treated for muscle strain should take antibiotics for a better recovery? Even if those patients are under attack of secondary infections, taking antibiotics may have the side effect and do harm to other organs of patients. This advice also excludes the possibility that some patients might have allergy to antibiotics, so they can not take antibiotics for benefiting their treatment at all. On the other hand, the arguer fails to prove that those sugar pills provided to patients in the second group are free from negative effect. It is likely that sugar pills might inhibit the secreting of some substances for recovering in patients' body, thus, they can't recuperated as soon as patients in the first group.

In sum, unless the arguer takes a further investigation to clarify the rates of getting secondary infections as patients injured their muscle, and operate another experiment which is equipped with doctors, patients and curing plans in the same condition, the conclusion of this argument is not reliable.



[ 本帖最后由 kylin 于 2007-2-8 18:38 编辑 ]

SkysijieUID: 2233317

这篇我写得实在太懒，飘过来学习学习