arugment51 清凉夏日三组作业3

gjqfishesUID: 2229321

argu51

提纲：
1、抗生素用来治疗二次感染，但是二次感染的发生率未知
2、比较试验未明确两组病人的具体情况，他们之间的差异会影响结果的可信程度，而且两组的治疗医生也不相同，这些因素都没有考虑
3、即使产生了二次感染影响了恢复，但抗生素也不是唯一治疗感染的方法，还可以通过预防和其他手段控制，因此也不能确定一定要使用抗生素



The argument for advising the muscle strain patients to take antibiotics seems logical, by making a comparison of the first group of patients, those who took antibiotics regularly for muscle injuries, with the second group which took sugar pills instead though their treatment.
  However, the author is failing to consider the reason for the doctors to use antibiotics. This medicine is used to cure the secondary infection which sometimes accompanies with the injury. But we don't know whether that disease will happen after severe muscle strain. It is possible that the secondary infection is seldom found in the muscle injured patients. If so, the antibiotics are useless except harm ness. And all of us know that abuse of the antibiotics will cause terrible illness. So that, the antibiotics should not  be easily advised to the muscle injuries  without considering the specific cases.
  The experiment between two patient groups cited in the argument is not clearly presented. Is the two groups of muscle injuries similar in most aspects? If not, any difference between them will lead to a false result. It appears possible that the young group surely recover more quickly than the old one. And also for a person who always takes part in excise needs less time for the cury of the muscle strain. If these differences in the two groups exist, the result of the experiment is not convincing.  In the other hand, the doctors treated the two groups are different. The first group's doctor, Dr.Newland, specializes in sports medicine, but Dr. Alton, who treated the second group, is a general physician. It is reasonable that the sport specialized doctor will take care of the muscle strain patients more effectively than the general physician. And this maybe causes the less recuperation time for the first group. The comparison between such  different situations is meaningless.   To cure the secondary infection, the antibiotic is not the only way. There exits all kinds of methods to prevent and cure this disease except the antibiotic. So even the infection will keep the patients from healing quickly, the conclusion that all patients would be advised to take antibiotic could not be made either. The author fails to consider other alternatives to concur the secondary infection.
  Overall, the reasoning behind advising the muscle injuries to take antibiotic seems logical as presented above since the group that take antibiotics needs less recuperation time. However, before any final decisions are made about the use of antibiotic to muscle strain patients, the author should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the effect of the antibiotic to the secondary  infection.