Argument51【0906G 文以载道三月四月作文小组】第二周第二作业 thanks lilianli

ConceptalUID: 2590019

【标题】
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。

【提纲】
1. the author does not provide enough information about the background of patients of two groups.

2. we can not believe the study is reliable and effective, since the author fails to offer more information on the study itself.
    (the number of samples, the time preiod, the kind of antibiotics used)

3. the effective way of treating severe muscle strain does not mean it's also effective in treating normail nmuscle strain(severe在治疗过程中不也就变成normal了吗.....个人认为,可以文中所说的"任何人"进行反驳.)

4. The different skills and experience of doctors might cause the different speed of recuperation.

5. the author also mentions the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly, which seems to say the secondary infection is the core of not healing from the muscle strain rather than muscle strain itself.

【正文】

In this argument, the author recommends all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain are better to take antibiotics during their treatment. To support this recommendation, the author cites a study in which two groups of patients are compared. This seems to be logical and persuasive. However, careful scrutiny reveals several flaws existed in this argument, as discussed below.

First of all, the author does not provide enough information about the background of patients of two groups. Perhaps, the patients in the first group might have a better health condition than those in the other group. Or perhaps, the group-one patients are younger than those in group two, which might affect the speed of the recuperations.

Second, we can not believe the study is reliable and effective, since the author fails to offer more information on the study itself. The author does not show how many samples involved in this study and whether these samples-patients-are sufficiently large or representative of all the muscle-strain patients. The author also does not describe the whole study process in detail. What is the time period of this study? Is it long enough or appropriate enough to support the hypothesis? And what' are the other methods taken by the doctors of two groups since taking antibiotics is just one part of treatment. We can not rule out the possibility that the patients in the first group might be cured by another more effective treatment contemporarily, which might lead to the quicker recuperation, rather than taking antibiotics.

Even if, we assume the study is reliable and effective. We still can not reach the conclusion the author give. The hypothesis has just said the severe muscle strain can be healed quickly, while the author recommends all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be better to take antibiotics. This is unlogical. Antibiotics might bring some side effects to certain patients, which might lead to severe disease and bring more trouble to them.

We might doubt whether the normal muscle strain can also be cured rapidly by taking antibiotics or whether it is necessary for the normal patient to use the antibiotics. And the “average” is also not persuasive. The recuperation of one patient might be extremely fast because of his good health condition, while the recuperation of another patient might be very low. This also could be able to lead to the “average” condition the author talks about, but it can not be logical.

Forth, in this argument, one group of patients is treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine and the other group is treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. Yet, the author ignores that the different  skills and experiences of the doctors might also affects the treatment. It has more possibility for a sports-medicine-specializing doctor to have more professional knowledge, abundant experience and sophisticated skills than that general physician. So the rapid recuperation of patients in group one might be not caused by taking antibiotics.

Finally, the author also mentions the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly, which seems to say the secondary infection is the core of not healing from the muscle strain rather than muscle strain itself. Thus, the treatment that the doctors do to patients-taking antibiotics regularly-must focus on the secondary infections and be used to cure it. The author can’t assume the antibiotics have the function of helping to cure muscle strain.

In sum, the author hastily makes the recommendation which lacks scientific proof. The author should provide more sufficient information about the details of the study background and the condition of the study. Otherwise, we can not accept the recommendation.