Argument51[desperado] 第四次作业 by Grace

grace040802UID: 2348819

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: 511                    DATE: 2007-12-12 0:36:51

[Outline]:
1.开头转述作者观点,指出逻辑错误.
2.质疑实验"患者"这一变量
3.质疑实验"医生"这一变量
4.质疑不是"所有的患者都要服用抗生素"
5.总结
This medical newsletter suggests that all patients who suffer from the muscle strain would take the antibitics,which can be effective on the secondary infections and help heal quickly,as a part of their treatment.To justify this statment,the arguer cites a study of two groups of patients which cured by two doctors from different areas.This argument,at first glance,seems logical.However,after carefully examined,it is flawed by several critical respects.

To begin with,the arguer fails to provide any information about the patients whether they are all infected by the second time after suffering from the muscle strain,and their present condition.Perhaps the first group of patients are about to become healthy gradually,while the other group are staying in the bad conditions.Or perhaps the former have not yet infected by the second time.Or even perhaps there are no secondary infections existing among the patients in the study.If so ,it is unconcluded that the antibiotics take effct,resulting that the first group patients heals more quickly than the other one.

Secondly,even if the two group of persons are actually infected the secongdly and there are no big difference of the ill compared patients from the group one to another ,the results of the study are still open to doubt.Because ther are two different doctors treating the patients,分别,which brings about many other irrelative factors into this test,such as the different skills,the various medical experiences,and the different treatments to the patients.Let alone they are from the different domains-one specializes in the sports medicine,the other one is a general physician.Definitely,all above possibilities are presented.What's more,they have different knowledge background and various views towards this disease.Obviously, the former doctor is more skillful in treating the kind of ill people than the other one.Perhaps just because of his excellent skill,the curing period is 40% shorter than the perspective time.Therefore ,the study is unpersuative,unless conducted by the same doctor.

Last but not the least,even though the antibiotics can fight with the viruses and shorten the curing period for the muscle strain patients,but the arguer mistakenly consider that the patients who want to become healthy must take the antibiotics and fails to provide evidence that all the patients should take them.Yet,the fact that the antibiotics can used for shortening the time to be healthy doesn't insicate that without them ,the patients won't be cured.As we all know,the antibiotics have the side-effcts,such as drag-fast,which is harmful for human beings .Besides ,they is no need to take this medicine,if the patients suffer the muscle strain but aren't infected by the virtues at the second time.Because not every patients will have the secondary infections,only the severe muscle strain patients. In addition,perhaps because of the good body condition of the patients such as the sports men,they sustained this disease without taking the antibiotics.

In sum, this medical newsletter id unconvincing as it stands.To strengthen the persuation,the arguer should make sure that in what conditions the patients are staying and whether they are comparable,and the study of the two groups operated by one doctor.Moreover,the arguer had better make sure that whether it is necessary for all the patients to take the antibiotics.