argument51 0906G三月底AW“永不言弃”互改小组第一周第一次作业 by stgzhao

stgzhaoUID: 2583165

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: 400          TIME: 01:29:44          DATE: 2009-2-1 21:44:04

TS 实验未能排除除抗生素外其他因素影响；无法概括出所有病人都需要抗生素的结论


This article uses a preliminary result of a study to prove the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To prove the hypothesis and bolster the conclusion, the article's author takes a study in which one group of patients uses antibiotics in their treatment while the control does not. It turns out that patients with antibiotics in their treatment have a recuperation time 40 percent quicker than the other group of patients on average. I find it unconvincing in several aspects.
First of all, it is controversial that two groups of patients are being treated by two doctors respectively who are different in their expertise of treating muscle strain. And it is natural for doctors to treat their patients in their own ways which might leads to a divergent efficacy. Moreover, the author fails to provide evidence that nothing else influence the convalescence of the patients other than secondary infections. As a matter of fact, it is entirely possible that whether the patients do what the doctors tell them to do or the difference in their health conditions of the patients themselves will also make a different.
Secondly, even assuming that the study between these two groups of patients does prove that it is the antibiotics reduce the recuperation time, it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Penicillin, as for an example, may bring some people allergy which is often fatal to them. In addition, it is a global agreement that abusing antibiotics can make bacteria drug resistant. In most cases of muscle strain, patients do not need risk their opportunities of surviving in a serious disease to take antibiotics in their treatment. After all, to recover from a muscle strain if often a matter of time.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the study does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To prove the hypothesis the argument must deliver the information that patient in the study are being treated only differ in the use of antibiotics, and the patients should be at approximate health condition. I would also like to know the necessity of using antibiotics to all patients.