argument51 [0710G Victors互助小组]第7次作业 by Lemon

lemon71500UID: 2335516

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."

In this paragraph the commenter presents his point that the recovering period of a severe muscle injury may be prolonged by a secondary infection, with the support of a medical experimental result, so in the treatment process to a patient with muscle strain, it is advisable to take antibiotics simultaneously. However, although his reason seems suitable, it is full of illogical statement and causality, and this example is not so substantial to support this conclusion. From many aspects it is vulnerable.

Firstly, in this experiment it is absurd to use two different doctors, especially when they are specialized in different directions. The first group of patients is treated by Dr. Newland, who is a specialist in sports medicine, here we can see, he must be very familiar with muscle strain and experienced in its treatment, what medicine should these patients take and how to recover soon exactly is his major. Yet things convert to the other doctor. Dr. Alton, who is a general physician, may be less knowledgeable when confronts with muscle problem, a lack of effective treatment method undoubtedly leads to the longer recovering period of his patients. Consequently the result is not believable because two different doctors may present different effects which bring diversity in recuperation time.

What’s more, in this newsletter the condition of patients is ambiguous and not clear. For one thing, we are not told about the degree of the injuries, it is possibly the first group, which is treated by Dr. Newland, suffered a muscle strain that is not as severe as the second group, so it’s no wonder that the periods are not similar. For another, if the patients’ physical qualities are different, then their recovering progress will be different too. The last, a satisfied experiment is consisted of considerable examples, and it could convince nothing if the patients in these groups are only several individuals.

Even if this experiment is successful and the result is believable, the conclusion that the treatment of muscle strain needs the help of antibiotics couldn’t be drawn out, either. There may be some other reasons lead to their relationship. Here it is advisable to clarify the environment and background of this experiment, maybe there is a simultaneous infectious disease which could influence the regular treatment of muscle injury hugely, so it can’t manifest a popular relationship between muscle strain and antibiotic effect.

Consequently, the hypothesis hasn’t been testified clearly for a lack of substantial support and accurate evidence. If the author wants to present his point, farther investigation is necessary and he needs more experiments with proper controls. Only one example above is deficient and proves nothing.