ARGUMENT51 [SHINING SEP]

zeelichUID: 2194744

题目：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."
字数：455          用时：0:25:42          日期：2006-8-12

In this argument the arguer claims recommends that patients who suffers from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this advocation, the arguer provides evidence that an experiment with two groups of patients was held to examine the effectiveness of antibiotics. And the groups in which the patients took antibiotics recuperated 40 percent quicker than the normal. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it could lend little credible support to the recommendation and therefore renders the argument unsound.

To begin with, the arguer claims that the fact that patient in the first group, leaded by Dr. Newland,  recovered more rapidly was ascribed to the antibiotics. Yet this not be necessarily the case. Perhaps Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, has his unique treatment for muscle injuries while not the antibiotics took the effect. Or perhaps antibiotics only serve as an auxilluary medicine in the treatment. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that the time saved in the treatment would attribute to the antibiotics.

Secondly, and similarly, the fact that the second group's recuperation time was not significantly reduced would due to their lack of taking antibiotics. As the argument informs that Dr. Alton, the leader of the second group, was a general physician. It is entirely possible that Dr. Alton has little experience in dealing with muscle injuries which require for a professional expert to cope with. All in all, the arguer's claim that the the fact that second group's recuperation time was not significantly decreased should attribute to not taking antibiotics would be dubious at best based on the vague evidence.

Thirdly, the arguer provides no clear evidence to show that the conditions, under which the patients were treated, were similar between the two groups. Consider that elementary condition, living envirionment and the forth would effect the recuperation time as important as that of the medicine taken by the patient. The arguer makes an oversimplistic assumption that such conditions were same in both groups; however, this is not necessarily so. Besides, the arguer does not justify that the patients in the two groups have same constitutions that they would recover in same time while given same treatment. Again, such assumption is unsubstantiated. Thus, the arguer's assertion that antibiotics play a crucial role in cure muscle injuries is undermined based on such unwarranted assumptions.

In sum, the arguer's recommendation is unpervasive and fraught with logical flaws. To better support this advocation, the arguer should provide clear evidence that Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton both have rich experiences in coping with muscle injuries. Moreover, conditions between the two groups would be needed to claim that there exsits no differences between them.