Argument51 有拍必回

lucy_pandoraUID: 2364179

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."

Merely based on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence, the author recommends that all patients suffering muscle strain take antibiotics as part of their treatment. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat logical. Careful examination of the author's reasoning, however, reveals that the argument is specious in several critical respects.

First of all, the argument rests on the assumption that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain might suffer secondary infections. Yet the letter's author provides no evidence that this is the case. It is entirely possible that secondary infections are not directly related to muscle strain at all. If so, it would be hasty to draw the conclusion that all muscle-strain patients should take antibiotics against secondary infections.

Secondly, even if severe muscle strain is likely to cause secondary infections, the author assumes further that antibiotics would effectively prevent secondary infections on the basis of a study. However, the way I see it, the study on which the argument depends does not strongly support what the author claims. For example, perhaps Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, is much more experienced than Dr. Alton in treating muscle strain and therefore caused the shorter recuperation. Moreover, the author provides no information about the two patient groups. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the first group of patients are younger and healthier in themselves than the second group. If so, antibiotics might very well do nothing to inhibit secondary infections. Unless the author would rule out such possibilities, I simply cannot be convinced that antibiotics would help patients heal quickly after severe muscle strain.

Finally, even the letter's author could substantiate the foregoing assumptions, he still overlooks the possibility that antibiotics may very well have some side-effects that can do great harm to some particular patients such as pregnant women, old people, or babies. Or perhaps some people are born allergic to antibiotics. If so, it may even be dangerous to advise them to take antibiotics. Without taking into account factors mentioned above, the author cannot hastily comes to the conclusion that all patients suffering muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

In sum, the argument is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. If the argument includes the above-mentioned factors, it would have been more thorough and adequate.