argument51 [Jet小组] 第四次作业

yimengshanUID: 2392100

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appearedin a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they weretaking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would bewell advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
WORDS: 429         

In the medical newsletter, the author makesa conclusion that those who have suffered from muscle strain should takeantibiotic as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the authorpoint out it has been proved that the secondary infections may make patients'case even worse. The argument also cites an experiment conducted between twogroups. However, there exist many defects which make the conclusionunconvincing. All my perspectives will be presented as follows.

A threshold problem upon the argument isthe assumption that all patients who have suffered from muscle strain will getsecondary infections. However, there is no evidence to prove that this diseasewill happen on this type of patients' bodies, or these patients run a higherrisk of suffering from secondary infections. So the hypothesis of this argumentis not convincing as it stands.

Even assuming all muscle strain patientswill suffer from secondary infections, the study of two groups of patients isdoubtful. First, the author supplies no information about the patients in two groupslike age and sex. It is entirely possible that the first group contains moreyoung man who have a strong ability to refresh, while the second group containslarge percentage of elders who have infirm bodies. If so, the difference ofmedicines using in two groups cannot make firm conclusion, and the comparisonbetween the two groups is unmeaning.

Also, the different doctors and medicines willaffect the outcome. It is a common sense that general physician always have abetter ability of curing muscle strain patients than general physician, becausethey have much more experiences and knowledge on physical injury, which enablethe first group have a faster recover. Also, there is no evidence to prove thesugar pills used in the second group have no effect on patients’ recover.Therefore the experiment cannot draw the conclusion that antibiotics is meaningin the process of treatment.

The last but not least, the authoroverlooks the negative effect of antibiotics. It is universally acknowledgedthat the abuse of antibiotics is infeasible, for antibiotics will causehypersuspectibiity or other additional disease, yet, the author does notmention this common sense at all, so the conclusion is not secure.
In conclusion, to make the conclusion moreconvincing, the author should provide the probability of suffering secondaryinfection, also, the condition in which the experiment conduct should be provedto be more effective, therefore the conclusion will be more creditable. Thelast but not least, the author should explain the conclusion is not feasible tothose who are sensitive to antibiotics.