argument51 永不言弃小组 by victor883 8#

victor883UID: 2584914

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: 488

In this argument, the arguer makes the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics in the process of medical treatment. The arguer bases the argument on a study showing that the muscle-strained patients who take antibiotics regularly in the treatment by a doctor specializing in sports medicine heal much quicker than the other group of patients treated by a general physician who did not use antibiotics. This argument is unconvincing because of the unreasonable design of the study in some aspects and inapt generalization.

First of all, the study which intends to prove the hypothesis fails to consider other elements may affect the last results, even though the designer has excluded the psychological influences on the second group of patients by using sugar pills instead of antibiotics which unknown by them. However, the study is still not a parallel research in that the patients’ health conditions and the degree of their injury may be different. For example, if the first group is constituted of some healthier and younger patients who suffer lighter injury than the second one, who knows the consequence results from the using of antibiotic or the different condition of two groups? So the last result can not be explained clearly and thoroughly in the study from which the arguer generalizes the conclusion.

Secondly, the study also fails to consider the different treatment between a medicine specialist and a physician may affect the accuracy of the result that the patients who received the treatment of antibiotics have shorter time in recuperation time than the patients who did not took any antibiotics. Because the shorter time of recovering time of the first group may be induced by the good treatment by the medicine specialist and other reasons, not just by the effects of antibiotics.

Thirdly, the study should not make the recovered time as the only standard to test the efficacy of antibiotics in the curing of muscle-stained. Because the patients who are not take antibiotic in the treatment may benefits in other aspects, such as avoiding hurts of the adverse effect of some antibiotics, even they may suffer more painful time. In other word, the argument that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics overrates the role of the antibiotics and overlooks the disadvantages of it according to different patient.

All in all, taking antibiotics in the process of muscle injury may play a critical role in the patient’s recuperation time. However, the argument is just based on a study which is inadequate of the evidences and lacks of logical analysis in details .To strengthen the argument, the study needs to be designed on the same external condition except the using of antibiotics and the arguer should make deeper analysis of the role of antibiotics to different patient. Only through this can the conclusion be reliable and convincing.