Argument51 【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第二周第二次作业 by sibslcc

sibslccUID: 2463158

Argument51
The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Thishypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of twogroups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated formuscle 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 typicallyexpected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton,a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patientsbelieved they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation timewas not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who arediagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibioticsas 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。

提纲：
1.study有问题，医生，患者情况都不一样。
2.作者的推论均是在一个前提，就是得了肌肉拉伤一定会得二次感染，并且二次感染一定会延缓康复。
3.所有人都服用抗生素，可能会有过敏，有抗药性 之类的。


In this newsletter, the author recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because the secondary infections may delay the process of the treatment. To strengthen this recommendation, the author cites a compared conclusion on a study about two groups of patients treated by different doctors. However, the argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive.

First, the study cited by the author was open to doubt. The author fails to consider possible differences between the people in the same position of the two groups that might help to bring about a different result. The doctors were different. The one who specializes in sports medicine might be good at the treatment because he was familiar to the construction of the muscle. Furthermore, the patients were different. Therefore their condition of the muscle injured were different. Maybe, the patients in the second group injured more severely than those in the first group. Thus, without ruling out these possibilities, it is unfairly to conclude that the patient in the first group recovers quickly due to the antibiotics.

Second, the author makes a conclusion based on the premise that the patients who injured their muscle would get secondary infections. However, he provides no evidence to prove it. Perhaps, the patients in the two groups did not get secondary infections. Such result that the recuperation time of the patients in the first group was quicker was gotten just by the reason of the two groups' different. Or perhaps the secondary infections after a severe muscle strain dose not affect the treatment, though antibiotics are indeed effective to the secondary infections. Without accounting for the explanations, the author cannot make a conclusion that taking antibiotics will abbreviate the time of the treatment.

Third, even assuming that taking antibiotics can reduce the recuperation time, it is unreasonable to ask all the patients who injured their muscle to take it. The author obviously overlooks other possible conditions. Perhaps some people injured are allergic to the antibiotics. Perhaps the antibiotics were not effective to the patients who ever abused of it just because the resistance to the action of the drug. If these patients take theantibiotics, it is harmful to their health and the time of the treatment may be enlonged.

In sum, the author's recommendation about all patients injured their muscle would take antibiotics is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide more evidence that secondary infections can keep patients from healing quickly. To better assess the problem, I would also need to know the antibiotics can prevent the secondary infections, and it cannot cause allergy.

过期的蛋糕UID: 2586400

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-911156-1-1.html