Argument51【0906G 文以载道三月四月作文小组】第2周第1作业 by timon_hacuna

timon_hacunaUID: 2534867

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."

医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。

In this argument, the arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this claim, the arguer cites the results of a study of two groups of patients. This argument is vulnerable in several aspects.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer omits the other difference between the two groups. The first group of patients was treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. While the other group was treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. It is possible that Dr. Newland’s way is more effective than Dr. Alton’s. Besides, the arguer fails to give the conditions of the group members. The statement of the patients is very important to the treatment. So without illustrations of these factors the conclusion is unconvincing.

Besides, samples for a study should be statistically reliable. Unfortunately, from the study we find no sign of the numbers of the patients. And on information about the level of the injuries is given. The evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion. Unless it can be shown that the patients in the study is the representative of all the patients. The conclusion is completely unwarranted. In fact, in face of such limited evidence it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that the patients in the two groups were treated by the same method. And information mentioned above should also be taken into consideration. Even the effect of sugar pills taken by the second group may have something to do with the cure.