argument51

king888UID: 2285811

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: 281        TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-9===
In the analysis, barely based on the dubious evidence and the unfounded investigation, the arguer takes it for granted that the all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Plausible as it may seem, further reflection locates me on doubt cast on the conclusion and apprehension heaped on many vague flaws.==============================
To begin with, to substantiate the conclusion, the arguer demonstrates a number of facts that doctors' suspicion about the secondary infections which may persuade the muscle strain patients from healing quickly. But does the entire patients are all struggled the secondary infections? Maybe only a slight proportion of the patients would be communicated and maybe no one! If so, taking the antibiotics as part of treatment would be useless. Unless more sufficient investigation is taken about the state of the illness of patients and the source of the secondary infections, we cannot advise the entire patient with muscle strain to take antibiotics.=================
In addition, to support his analysis, the arguer employs a result of a study of two groups of patients. But I find that one group of patients are treated by a specialized doctor in sports medicine, while the other are treated by a general physician. Though the first group of patient took antibiotics regularly, and the second group did not. The arguer unfairly trivialized the essentiality of doctors. And it's parallel possible that the condition of the hospital and the other pills prescribed by different doctors might also are considerable aspect impacting the result of the experiment. Before ruling out these possibilities, we cannot draw any convincing conclusion.====================
When probing into the result of the conclusion, we may find even bigger flaws in it. Even if we can assert as the hypothesis that even if the patients are sickened in the secondary infections and the antibiotics are effective, but does the antibiotics have side-effect. Maybe some pernicious ingredients containing in it and they are harmful for patients' healthy. Therefore, any decision aimed at treating the patient must be based on stronger thorough investigation to gather adequate data about the both sides of the pill's effect.================================================
All in all, the conclusion lacks credibility, because the evidence cited cannot lead strong support to what the arguer maintain. Further investigation about the states of the patients and the effect of the antibiotics are needed before we work out the further credible conclusion and the ultimate action.