0910AW SPECTACULAR [TSUBASA] 作业补交argument 51 by wildrose800331

wildrose800331UID: 2602131

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: 262 (10mins 412 completion)
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-6-23 8:51:07

The arguer recommends in a medical newsletter that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This recommendation is based on a hypothesis that secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. To justify the hypothesis, the author cited preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. However, the suggestion is problematic and thus not convincing.

First of all, hypothesis can not be proved by the results of the cited study. It is obvious that the objects in the hypothesis are some patients suffering severe muscle strain, but the participants in the study underwent muscle injuries. Since muscle strain is not necessarily identical to muscle injury, the results in the study had little to do with the hypothesis.

Secondly, the results themselves in the study are incomplete and unwarranted between these two groups of patients. Because the study failed to mention the previous conditions of these two groups. It is unknown whether they suffered the same level of injuries and whether they were expected to have the same recuperation time. If the first group had less serious problems and need shorter recuperation time, their recovery should be quicker regardless of taking antibiotics or not. In addition, the treatment may vary with different doctors. The first group was treated by Dr. Newland specializing in sports medicine, while the second by Dr. Alton, a general physician, thus he former group may have received more professional, scientific and effective treatment than the latter. Accordingly, the effectiveness of antibiotic can not be proven with other possibilities in the study.

Last but not least, the proposal deduced from the hypothesis and the results are filled with flaws. Secondary infections are not proven to happen to every patient with muscle strain, moreover, it needs more evidences to identify whether secondary infections may hinder healing or not. Thus, it is groundless and over generalized to assert all patients with muscle strains would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

To sum up, the conclusion drawn in this argument is lack of legitimacy and credibility. To make the results more forceful, the author should point out other variables and negate other possibilities to prove the effective function of antibiotic to muscle strain. To better evaluate the deduction, the arguer needs to pinpoint the identical relations between muscle injuries and muscle strain as well as the necessity of secondary infections on patients with muscle strain.