0910G[North America Flying] Argument51 by haunteagle

haunteagleUID: 2609432

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: 450
TIME: 00:28:54
DATE: 2009/7/21 22:45:23

The argument, while seems logical, has some flaws. Firstly, the study of a comparison is not convincing. Secondly, only one study is not enough to get a scientific result. Finally, the argument does not mention the side effect of antibiotics when implemented to the patients.

Firstly, the study is not a control comparison which means the two groups, except the drugs, are rather similar or even identical. The first group is treated by Dr. Newland and the second is treated by Dr. Alton. It entirely possible that the two doctors adopt different treatment and thus the result of the study is not reliable. Even if these two doctors adopt the same treatment, the argument does not mention the severance of the sprain of the two groups and the basic health condition of them. Perhaps all people of the first group have a strong body and they need less time to recover. Or perhaps the second group are hurt more severely than the first and the time they needs is longer. Unless the arguer provides substantial evidence that the two groups are treated the same and they have fairly similar health condition, the argument is convincing.

The study, as a short-term one, is not enough to eliminate all the random factors. To get a convincing scientific result, a long-term study of a huge sample should be tested. In only one experiment, many random factors may change the result. It is possible that those kinds of antibiotics have a excellent effect in curing sprain. Perhaps the circumstance of the first group of people happens to be good for the cure of the sprain. Maybe the first group of people’s diet contains something good for the recovery. Before carefully eliminating all these possible explanations, the argument is unconvincing.

Finally, even we accept the antibiotics have splendid effect on the cure of sprain. We should first study the side effects of antibiotics. According to biologists, the power of antibiotics will be reduced if we use them too much. And the abuse of antibiotics is a great problem worldwide. What is more, some people are cleric to certain antibiotics. Thus, we should think twice before we adopt the measures that implementing every patient with antibiotics. To justify the widely use of antibiotics, the arguer should provide enough evidence that it will neither hurt the patients nor prevent them from further treatment.

Accordingly, the argument is not well-reasoned for the points discussed above. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide enough evidence that the study can eliminate all alternative explanations and random factors. To further strengthen the conclusion the arguer should prove that the usage of antibiotics is effective and has no side effects.