Argument51 April小组第四周第一次作业

gingerleeUID: 2454321

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:466         TIME: 00:49:00          DATE: 2008-4-7 21:59:03

In the medical newsletter, the author contends that patients who suffer from muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their procedure of treatment. The author cites that, according the results of a study of two groups of patients, the group using antibiotics during their recuperation time recover quickly than expected, while the other group does not take antibiotics and their recuperation time was not reduced. The argument suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it wholly unconvincing.

To begin with, the author fails to show that the results of the study are statistically reliable. In order to draw a comparatively fair conclusion, the study's sample must share fundamental or even same features that participants of the sample would be under nearly same health condition and they have comparatively suffers from the same serious level of muscle strain. Lacking evidence of a sufficiently representative sample, the author cannot justifiably draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Even assuming that the participants of the study have the same level of muscle strain, the author provides the assumption that Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton are specialized in different aspects of medical fields. And Dr. Newland, who is responsible for the first group is an expertise in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton, who are in charge of second group, is a general physician. It's obvious to figure out that the group treated by Dr. N would receive more effective results than the other group treated by Dr, A , since specializing in sports medicine equipped Dr. Newland with a knowledge of muscle strain. Thus, without providing or ruling out this or other factors that may cause the different results of two groups, the author cannot rely on the newsletter to conclude that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be better to take antibiotics.

Finally, the argument assumes that the recuperation time of the first group, "on average" reduced 40 percent. The author also fails to provide the evidence to support this assumption. After all, it's possible that some of the patients in the first group do not recover quicker than expected. Or perhaps, these patients need more time than we expected to get over, after taking antibiotics during their heal period. Therefore, the author cannot confidently justify the conclusion from newsletter that patients who take antibiotics will recover quicker than expected.

In sum, the argument suffers from a series of problems as mentioned above and is hard to convince readers. To bolster it, the author must provide a justified sample not only of the same serious level of patients who have trouble in muscle strain, but also of same doctors who specialize in the same medical areas. In addition, we need more information about other methods being used by doctors during patients' recuperation time.