argument51 by cuiwen_07

cuiwen_09UID: 2661472

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."


In this newsletter, the author recommends that all patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotics to recover more quickly based on a study of two groups of muscle strain patients. Because the result of the study is that the group taking antibiotics recovered more quickly than the other group which taken sugar pills instead. At first glance, the antibiotics seem to be the only cause of the quicker recuperation and thus the recommendation seems reasonable. However, closer scrutiny suggests that the result is based on unproven assumption and the author ignores alternative explanations unreasonable.

Firstly, the result of the study based on assumption that the second group of people have more or more heavily secondary infection than the first group. Nonetheless, there isn’t any information about the situation of secondary infection of the two groups. If the infection situation of the two groups is the same, even the first group taking the antibiotics it will have nothing to do with the quicker recuperation. In this case, there will be other reasons to explain the result.

One of the alternative explanations is that it may be the patients themselves rather than the antibiotics that result in the quicker recovery, after all the author didn’t provide any information about the physical condition, age and the seriousness of their muscle strain of the two groups. Perhaps the average age of the first group is lower than the other group, which means that they could recover more easily and quickly. It is also possible that the second group strained more heavily average than the first group, so they need to take more time to recuperate. Thus, without these kinds of conditions controlled, it is unconvincing to owe all the reasons why the patients healed faster to the effect of the antibiotics they take.

Another explanation for the result of the study which the author also ignored is that it may be the doctor, which it differed between the two groups, and the treatments he took that matter, especially when the author doesn’t provide any information about whether the two doctors are of the same experiences and whether the treatment they took are the same. After all, Dr. Newland, the doctor of the first group, specialized in sports medicine, while the other one is a general physician. It is quite possible that Dr. Newland has more experience in healing the muscle strainers than the general physician, so that he can take more effective treatment which help the patients recover quickly.

Last but not least, even I concede that the secondary infection may prevent the patients with muscle strained severely from healing quickly, it is unreasonable that all the muscle strainers should take the antibiotics. Such as the ones who are strained slightly, they can recover easily only with some physical treatment. To this kind of people, they may benefit less from the effect but be affected more by the side effects. Thus, it may be necessary for the ones who are heavily injured to take antibiotics but not all the patients with muscle strain.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate the recommendation for the reason that the study he cited as the main evidence is not strictly and scientific enough. To bolster the recommendation the author should make a more convincing study in which the physical condition and the seriousness of the muscle strain of the patients, the treatment of the patients and other causes which may affect the patients recuperation should be controlled.