Argument51 【loveaw】 第五次作业

njuliuyangUID: 2300567

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: 409(原394)          TIME: 0:49:33          DATE: 2007-2-16
一、study不可靠，受伤程度不一，心理作用。
二、可能采用其他疗法导致恢复较快
三、不一定所用的病人都需要服antibiotics

       The author comes to the conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics to accelerate their recuperation on the basis of a dubious study revealing that antibiotics are beneficial to those patients' treatment and some unsubstantiated assumptions. As a consequence, the conclusion is flawed in several critical respects.
      
       To begin with, the author fails to prove that the preliminary results of the study quoted are statistically valid. Neither does the author provide detailed information regarding how many patients participated in the study, nor does the author prove that the conditions of muscle strain of patients in the first group are the same as those in the second group. It is entirely possible that the patients in the second group suffered from severer muscle strain than those in the first group so that they spent far more time on recuperation. In addition, the argument leaves open the possibility that the recuperation time of the first group was less than the other because the patients in the first group feel more confident of Dr. Newland, which has a positive influence on their psychology and treatment.

       What is more, the author lends no strong support to the claim that antibiotics are reponsible for the better and quicker treatment. The author provides no evidence that it is due to taking antibiotics regularly that those patients in the first group recovered more quickly. Perhaps Dr. Newland added other medicines to the course of their treatment. Or there is a good chance that Dr. Newland utilize some additional treatments, such as massage and acupuncture, which also benefit those patients to recover more quickly.

       Finally, while it may be true that antibiotics are of use to accelerate the treatment of severe muscle strain, it may not be true of overall patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. The author rules out the possibility that the patients with slight muscle strain simply need to take the common treatment on the ground that taking antibiotis cannot advance their treatment. Consequently, the conclusion that overall patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment is too hasty and unsound.

       In sum, the author lends little support to the conclusion based on the questionable study and unsubstantiated assumptions, which render the conclusion unconvincing as it stands. To better bolster it, the author should prove that the results of the study is valid and the less recuperation time is the result of taking antibiotics regularly.