Argument51【0806G desperado小组】第四次作业by坐照

wangyu0920UID: 199396

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: 371         DATE: 2007-12-14 17:00:32

1.         被测试小组的病人恢复加快，并没有证据证明是抗生素造成的
2.         恢复时间加快40%是平均值，并不能代表每个病人都因为使用抗生素使恢复加快
3.         测试病人的背景没有更详细的说明，因此不具有代表性。由于个人年龄、性别等其他方面的差异，可能会导致不同的治疗效果

In this argument, the arguer advise all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment because a study of two groups of patients show that the group took antibiotics regularly got a 40% quicker recuperation time than typically expected while the other group does not. Nevertheless, the evidence is insufficient and hence does not lend solid support to what the arguer assumes.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide reliable evidence that it is the antibiotics that cause a shorter recuperation time. As we all know, antibiotics can not be the only medicine the doctor use to cure patients of the muscle strain, perhaps other medicines that are not listed in the argument reduced the recuperation time.

Moreover, even though it was the antibiotics which accelerate the recovering process, a 40% quicker time on average can not represent that every patient in the group got the same consequence. Perhaps one patient's recuperation time was not reduced, while another one's was 80% quicker. In this kind of situation, the result will be 40% on average as well, but we can not assume that the treatment is fit for all the patients.

Finally, even if every patient in the group had a similar recuperation time that is 40% quicker than typically expected, there is not any further evidence to prove that the experimental patients in one group can represent all other patients who suffered from muscle strain. Perhaps the patients' ages all ranged from 20 to 30, or they are all male (female), or they all came from one small town in a country. All the possibilities will probably lead another result, maybe much worse than the former one, if the patients who are different from them take the same treatment.

In conclusion, the argument is not only well reasoned but also not persuasive. To make it more convincing, the arguer would provide more information to prove that (1) the quicker recuperation time was directly due to the antibiotics (2) every patient in the group got a shorter recovering time, not only on average (3) the patients can be representative to make the study statistically reliable and convincing, if possible, more studies with different backgrounds patients are needed.