Argument51【Triple Week】第6次练习by ahng

ahngUID: 2605383

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: 407(578)          TIME: 00:30:00(40)          DATE: 2009-7-23 11:59:42

Grounded on the distinct results of the two groups of patients treated by different doctors and different medicines - one group took antibiotics regularly and the other were given sugar pills - the author of this newsletter concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, in account of the influences of secondary infections. However, in my point of view, the argument suffers from several serious fallacies, rendering itself unconvincing to me.

To begin with, the two groups are indeed treated by different doctors, who can have distinct methods of treatment due to their different specialities. Dr. Newland is specializes in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton is a general physician. This would probable lead to the different approaches either of them uses on the patients. Perhaps, considering the deep investigation that Dr.Newland has made in sports medicine, the pills that are recommended by him are more powerful and more effective than Dr. Alton on treating severe muscle strain. One the other hand, Dr.Alton may have some mistakes in drafting the medicines, one of which can be negative to the treatment of muscle strain. In short, without the acknowledgement of the whole proposal of the two doctors, it is hard to say that the different results are certainly caused by antibiotics and sugar pills.

Secondly, the author does not inform us the medical situations of the two groups' patients. It is entirely possible that the two groups are suffering from the strain in different levels of severity, making the hypothesis uninstructive to us. Furthermore, it is probable that not all of the patients could be secondary infected. That could be caused by the different environment of the two places they are treated, if the secondary infections are mainly owing to the environment. Suppose the first group is treated in a tidier and cleaner hospital and the second one is staying in somewhere with more virus or bacterial, then the first group can be less likely to get a secondary infection. Evenmore, some people may be inherently more likely in getting a secondary infection due to their weak health. So, the uncertainty of the two groups contributes to the uncertainty of the results.

Last but not least, the author unfairly concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics. On the one hand, the severity of the patients may vary largely. For example, some of them may suffer less than others. Then the additional effect of antibiotics can be in vain, since human's own immune system can take the place of antibiotics and help the continuing prevention from secondary infections. In this case, the advice can be useless for some patients. On the other hand, the medical conditions can also be different. The author fails to rule out the possibility that some of the patients are unfortunately sensitive to the antibiotics. If so, they can not be recommended to use such medicines definitely. What's more, some other medicines might be also helpful to the patients, which the author also misses in the argument.

To sum up, the arguer get a unreasonable conclusion based on some incorrect assumptions and uncertain statistics. In order to bolster the idea, the author should rule out other possibilities that could also lead to the secondary infections. And to better assess the argument, I would need more information about the two doctors and the environments the patients are treated in.