Argument51

zyqingUID: 2605201

51The 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."


The speaker concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support that the speaker cites the preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients which turn out to be the group taking antibiotics regularly throughout the treatment recuperates 40 percent quicker than typically expected while the other group given sugar pills recuperate after a normal time. However, careful consideration reveals that the conclusion suffers several logical flaws.

First, the two groups of patients are treated by two different doctors, so the speaker fails to exclude other different factor can also attribute to the different results. It is entirely possible that Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine is more experienced in treating muscle strain than the Dr. Alton who is just a general physician. Maybe it is other medicines rather than the antibiotics make the group treated by Dr. Newland recuperate more quickly. With out providing the detail of the treatment of two doctors, we can hardly judge it is the antibiotics shorten the recuperation time of the group treated by Dr. Newland.

Second, the speaker also overlooks the differences of the physical condition and severity of injury between two groups of patients. Perhaps, the group of patients treated by Newland has better physical condition. So they recuperate more quickly is just reasonable. Or perhaps the group treated by Dr. Alton suffers more severe injuries than the previous group. Without ruling out these possibilities the speaker cannot hastily justify the conclusion.

Third, the speaker fails to substantiate the assumption that every patient will suffer the secondary infection. The speaker fails to supply the rate of the secondary infection of the muscle strain. It is entirely possible that the rate of secondary infection is very low. So the speaker cannot hastily conclude that it is necessary to advise all patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Moreover, the speaker also does not inform us the number of participants. So whether the study is representative remains a problem.

In sum, the statement is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the speaker should prove the treatments of two doctors are the same except for the taking antibiotics. And to better assess the results of the study, we would need to know the physical condition and severity of injury of two groups of patients. We would also need more information about the rate of secondary infection of the muscle strain and what exactly the number of participants is.

zyqingUID: 2605201

写的不好,大家狂批,谢谢