argument 51为我所用小组第四次作业

guoshishuoUID: 2467577

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: 426      TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2008-3-26 16:07:27

The author concludes that secondary infections prevent some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and also they should keep this from happening through taking antibiotics. To support the conclusion, she offers various evidences. However, I find the argument with logical flaws which renders it unconvincing.
To begin with, the methodology of the survey which the author cites is problematic and thus renders the consequences dubious. There is no evidence to show that the conditions of the two groups are of the same and can be compared. It is entirely possible that the patients in the first group are originally younger and healthier and are more likely to recover from muscle strain. What's more, the doctor of the first group specializes in sports medicine while the doctor of the second group is a general physician. Maybe the patients in the first group has a shorter recuperation time because their doctor is a specialist and knows how to cure a patient who suffers form muscle strain better than the other doctor and has used other effective treatments such as massage rather than antibiotics mentioned by the author. As a result, the author can not use the result of the survey to support her conclusion because it is problematic.
Secondly, the author has not provided any evidence to substantiate the crucial assumption that the patients of the second group recovered slowly than those of the first group because of secondary infections. Also, there is no evidence to show that those who suffer from muscle strain are easily to get secondary infections. Absent of such evidence, it is just as likely that there is no correlation actually between muscle strain and secondary infections, not to mention that the patients should take antibiotics as their treatment.
Thirdly, even those who suffer from muscle strain are easily to have secondary infections and they really prohibit those people from recovering quickly, there is no evidence to prove that they should take antibiotics. Maybe these medicines have side effects and will aggravate the muscle strain. Or perhaps there are other medicines which are much better and more effective than antibiotics. Since the author has not adequately responded to the concern, her conclusion is untenable.
In conclusion, the author's conclusion is dubious because it relies on doubtful assumptions. To better bolster it , she should make sure that the survey is reliable and provides a reliable scientific research result to show that the muscle strain patients are easily to suffer from secondary infections which will slow down their recuperation time.