Argument51

yuki鱼UID: 2414463

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 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."

The conclusion in this medical newsletter, recommended by the author, is that taking antibiotics as part of treatment is good for the paitents who are diagnosed with muscle strain. To bolster the conclusion, the author quotes the result of preliminary study for the sake of strengthening the recommendation. Moreover, he provides evidence that the group which was treated by Dr. Newland and given antibiotics regularly recuperated quicker than typically expected. Furthermore, he states that another group which was treated by Dr. Alton and given sugar pills instead recuperated as usual. Therefore, antibiotics is suggested to cure this sickness. It seems logical ostensibly. Rigid scrutiny of each of these taking points, nevertheless, discloses that no one can lend support to the conclusion credibly. It suffers from several fallacies, which leads it unconvincing as it stands.

Most distinctly, the result of the study appears to be suspicious. The claim seldom indicate the condition of the patients who got the study. We are not informed that whether the patients are representiveness and what kind of sickness the patient really had.It is possible that the patient has been elected by the researchers. If so, the result of this study cannot stand for other broad patients who is feazed with severe muscle strain. Besides, it is not mentioned above that how many patients were joined the study. We merely get some vague information about this study.Supposing that each of the two groups had only 10 people in it, and that the whole people who suffer from the muscle strain are more than 1000,000, the percentage of the patients who have recovered is too little to prove the reality. Lacking sufficient information concerning this study, the author should not judge the conclusion so cursory. More recently, the letter claims that the results are preliminary ones. With the strict attitude of science, it is difficult to define one thing after glancing study immediately.

Another promble weaken the conclusion is that the doctors of the two group are different. Dr. Newland is a sport medicine doctor while Dr.Alton is a general physician, which make the study doubtful. The two conditions between two groups might hardly compare with each other. Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton has their own specializations and those might different obivously. For example, Dr. Newland asked the patients to have a few exercises, often breath fresh air, reasonable meals, plenitudinous dormancy and so forth. And these measures may bring on the recuperation time faster but not for antibiotics. And Dr. Alton might take other steps on the patient. This result can just testify this method is unsuccessful but be insufficient to support the conclusion that antibiotics is effective. Facing this unpersuasive study, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.

Even though, the former evidence had been proved, there should be a third questionable problem in this medical newsletter. At the beginning of this letter, it claims that antibiotics was been used in secondary infections after severe muscle strain. But, at last, the letter recommends that antibiotics should be used in all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. The author commits a fallacy of "All things are equal". It is likely that secondary infections have extremely differed from muscle strain. The muscle strain is responsible for secondary infections rarely stand for that the methods of the treatment between the two are same. And the medicine of secondary infections is not fit muscle strain probably, even has bad effect. According, it is dangerous and carefree to state the conclusion.

To sum up, merely base on certain questionable assumptions and unpersuasive proof, the author of this medical newsletter fails to justify this recommendation. True, the intention that the doctors want to make some contribution to severe muscle strain in their own best interests is well-meaning. However, to intensify the argument, it needs further study and rational analysis; to convine the people, it needs clear evidence that antibiotics is effective for the secondary infection; to better estimate the author's affirmation, it needs more information concerning secondary infection and muscle strain possibly.

674words