ARGUMENT51

革命者UID: 2261957

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: 374          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-25

In this argument, the arguer concluded that all patients who are sufferd from muscle strain would be suggested to take antibiotics as part of the treatment.
To support his contention, he cited an experiment which is  unconvincing so that made the conclusion unpersuasive.

In the first place, the speaker's assumption is that doctor have long suspected whether it is the secondary infections that keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. And since this premise is true, it is not proper to get any conclusion that all the patients should take antibiotics. Because there is possibility that other patients who did not get severe muscle strain do not need to take anitbiotic. The speaker unecessarily extand the extent to all the individuals. In addition, it is not sure whether the secondary infection is relevant with the healing period and whether there is any relation between antibiotics and secondary infection is suspectable. So without the speaker provide more detail evidence, any consequence or summary draw from the experiment is unconvincing.

In the second place,  the experiment is not representative enough for it is undertook by a biased control. The two groups were treated by the two doctors. And the two doctors are of striking differences. Not only are they from two profession, but also their skill at healing muscle patients are not clear.  There maybe a circumstance that the  two ability of treatment influence the result. So the survey can tell nothing about the relation between anitbiotics and the treatment. In addition, the condition of this two groups of people is unclear. Maybe the group of Dr.Newland is less severe than the latter one. As a result, its members could heal more quicker than the second group. In short, lacking rational and the same condition made the experiment rootless.

In the third place,it may be not proper for all patients to take antibiotics because of the side effect. And the arguer omits other medicines or method could also applied to cure the patients not only anitibiotics.  Even if all the patients take them,it is not sure that they will heal quickly.

To sum up, unless the arguer give us the ralationship between the secondary infections and the antibiotics,the antibiotics with the treatment, we could not draw any conclusion. So to make this argument more convincing,the speaker should provide more clear evidence and more sound casual relation.