Argument51 【flying小组】第六次作业

千年子猫UID: 2237656

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: 365       TIME: 上午 12:24:56     DATE: 2007-2-23      WORDS: 389
提纲：
1 前提有漏洞，整个结论的前提是病人是二次感染，但是作者淡化了这一点，只是提到肌肉发炎。
2 实验也不能完全说明问题，两组病人的身体状况如何，医生如何都没有考虑进来
3 第二组并不是空白对照，不满足试验标准。第二组病人均服用糖片，而作者并没有交待这种糖片会产生什么作用。
4 作者没有考虑其他的影响因素，如抗生素的副作用等。

The author in the argument provides experiments to prove his conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics. And he points out the patients in the group which use antibiotics get well quicker than the average situation. At first glance, the conclusion seems right, but when we get deeply consideration, we can find out logical errors.

First, the basement of the affection of antibiotics is the patients are all by secondary infections. But the author does not give any data which could proves there is direct relationship between muscle strain and secondary infection. Whether the antibiotics are effectual to the muscle strain patients or the secondary infection ones is unknown. Those people diagnosed with muscle strain may not likely be infected twice. Those infected people may be not the people whose muscle is hurt, either. Simply figure them as the same concept is misleading.

Secondly, the experiments also weaken the authenticity about his sum-up. There needs more data about the condition of those patients. The first group maybe has a better condition or the doctor for them maybe better than the normal doctor for the second group. Those factors will probably make the treatment easier on the surface. Then it is doubtful that what role does antibiotic plays in the treatment.

Thirdly, those two groups of people dose not fit for comparing because the second group is not a blank control group. The members in the second group all use sugar pills. The author does not tell what the composition of it, whether if the pills would affect the treatment. Maybe the sugar pills have some effectual composition the same as the antibioses, then how to explain the situation in the second group becomes a problem.

What is more, the author fails to consider other possibilities of treatment. Does the weather affect it? Does the food affect it? Furthermore, the antibiotics as a kind of medicine will of cause have side-effect. If doctors only tell patient to use this kind of antibiotics without considering their conditions is indeed an irresponsible action which may be fatal.

In sum, the author needs more data to prove his idea, especially needs to do the experiments again in right way. He also needs to show the relation between the diagnosed and the secondary infections.