0910G argument51 by [NAF TTG]Michael

Michael_HanUID: 2656795

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: 394
TIME: 01:00:00
DATE: 2009-7-21 11:11:19

Grounding on the preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients, the arguer think the hypothesis of muscle strain that secondary infection may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and he suggest that all patients suffers from the muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics in order to recover quickly. This argument is problematic for several reasons.

To begin with, the comparison between the two group's recuperation time cannot get the conclusion the arguer claims, because there is an unclear definition concept. The recuperation time of the first group was 40 percent quicker than the typically expected, but the what is the accurate time of the typically expected? And is it longer or shorter than the second group's typically expected? There are no details to prove whether the comparison is done under the same typically expected recuperation time, so without other details the auger cannot convince me effectively.

Furthermore, even if the comparison between the two group's recuperation times is appropriate, it is too hasty to get a conclusion from the study that taking antibiotics can help the patient recover quickly since there are other factors that may affect the recuperation time. For example, the two group is treated by two doctors, one specialized in sports medicine the other is general physician doctor. So there is the possibility that the different treatment and method will affect the recuperation time. Then the study cannot strongly support that it is just because of the antibiotics that the recuperation time reduced.

Finally, granted that the conclusion of the study is reasonable, the arguer's assertion is too hasty to be made, since it is just a preliminary result of a study. To be responsible for the patient, a more thorough research is definitely needed. And it is irrational to suggest all patients with the muscle strain taking the antibiotics on account that different individuals have diverse healthy conditions. For some allergic patients the antibiotic may cause serious health problem which may even threaten the life.

In sum, the assertion of the arguer lacks credibility supports since the preliminary result of the study cannot get the conclusion that the antibiotic is effective to the reducing of the recuperation time. In addition, the suggestion that arguer put forward is still need more support from further medical research and study before provide to the patient.