arguemnt51【jet】第四次作业

hds123523000UID: 2454889

Argument 51
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 result 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 sport 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.”
Word 447

    The author draws a conclusion that the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, has now been proved. To support his conclusion, the author reasons the different recuperation time between Group One and Group Two, which are inducted by different doctor. The argument appears plausible, at the first glance, however, strict examination reveal that it is unconvincing for the following reasons
    First of all, there is no information about how can the antibiotics keep patients from secondary infection. If the author can not give a scientific relationship between secondary infection and antibiotic, it is reasonable to conclude that antibiotic can heal muscle strain quickly and have nothing to do with the secondary infection, since what the author focuses on is recuperation time, but not the way how antibiotics play their function. What’s more, we can even suspect the existence of secondary infection when a patient get muscle strain, let alone that it will play a role in healing patients.
    Secondly, the two groups are not comparable. Because they are inducted by different doctors, there is a possibility that it is the difference of the two doctors in experience or major or even character leads to different results, which may make the result unconvincing. Additionally, there is no detail about the patients of the two groups. Obviously, elder people need more time to get well from ailment, and such factors as sexes, ages and health condition could influence recuperation time. To make the comparison meaningful, the population of both group should be the same and huge enough, which are not indicated in this article.  
    Thirdly, whether the patients took another treatment is not mentioned. If the patient took another treatment, the author should state in his argument and show its function. If the patients did not take another treatment, it is reasonable that a patients group took medicine get well more quickly than the group only took sugar pills, and the control experiment is meaningless.
    Finally, we can attribute that patients who took antibiotics need less time than the others to science development, since typical way of healing patient does not appear in this article. As everyone knows, nowadays science and technique develop at a very fast speed, it is not surprised a better way to heal the ailment because of better qualified medicine or more reasonable treatment plan, but not avoid secondary intention.
In sum, the author does not give a convincing argument because of lack of evidence and analysis. To strengthen his conclusion, the author should collect more reliable evidence and the relationship between secondary intention and antibiotics. To better evaluate the argument, the group details are also necessary.  
  

[ 本帖最后由 hds123523000 于 2008-2-11 15:08 编辑 ]