argument51 【challenge yourself 小组】第五次作业 by springelf

springelfUID: 2458536

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: 472    TIME: 00:30:00(其实没写完，被强制停止了)    DATE: 2008-8-1 10:29:10

In this argument, the speaker recommends that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support his suggestion, he points out the hypothesis that secondary infection keep some patients from healing, also he cite a science research. However, the argument is specious a several grounds, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

To the beginning, the speaker unfairly assumes that all patients will suffer the secondary infections. Yet, he cannot provide any evidence to support his assumption. It is entirely possible that a few proportions of the total patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will suffer secondary infections. If it the case, there is no need to take antibiotic for those who do not infect. Therefore, the recommendation that all patients should take antibiotics as a part of their treatment cannot convince me.

Secondly, the hypothesis is a trivial part of the speaker's evidence, the first-rate important evidence cited by the speakers is the preliminary results of a study of two group of patient. At the first glance, the result of the study seems reasonable. Whereas, close scrutiny of it, it is problematic as it stands. First, the comparison of two doctors is unfair. Dr. Newland (N) is a doctor who specializes in sports medicine; perhaps he has more experience in muscle strain than Dr. Alton, a general physician. Second, the other treatment given to patient is unknown. If Dr. N gave his patient other treatment help them cure, but Dr. A gave nothing, it can not prove the antibiotics have positive effect. Third, the health condition of two group of patient is not provided by speaker. If the patients in the group, whose recuperation time are shorter, are younger and stronger than ones in the other group, the shorter recuperation time is unpersuasive. Lacking of the same condition in a study, the result of study is unconvincing.

Finally, the speaker should consider this and that possibility when he put forward the suggestion. For example, perhaps the antibiotic has some side-effect will influence the patient’s heart health, and many patients cannot take antibiotics. Or perhaps, many patients are sensitive for the antibiotics that the antibiotic will endanger their lives once taking the antibiotics. Without considering and eliminating these and those possible effects, I cannot the speaker’s arbitrary recommendation that all patients should take antibiotics.

In conclusion, the speaker’s evidence does not justify the argument’s sweeping conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To strength the argument, its proponent must show at the very least that the antibiotics are necessary for all patients, and the result of study is reliable. To assess the argument I would need more information about the antibiotics’ side-effect, price and so on.

yangsheep123UID: 2471346

In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to reduce the recuperation time for those patient who suffer from secondary infections after severe muscle strain, they should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this argument, the speaker cites a study that patients with muscle strain in one group take antibiotics regularly, and patients take sugar pills instead, in the other group. However, the argument suffers from some logically flaws, thus rendering unconvincing as it stands

Firstly, there is no evidence that all patients with muscle strain, in this study, will easily get secondary infections. If only a part of these patients are prone to get secondary. If only a small part of those muscle strain patients suffer from secondary infections, then it is unwise to suggest all the patients to take antibiotics as part of treatment or even a waste of money, because they will not get secondary infections. So without enough evidence that all the muscle strain patients are prone to get secondary infections, suggesting all of them to take antibiotics unwarranted.

Secondly, even assuming that all the patients will get secondary infections, the speaker provides no information about the two groups of patients, including their health condition, age, gender. It is entirely possible that patients in the first group are young and strong people while patients in the second group are weak old patients. If that is the case, even taking no antibiotics, members in the first group would recover more quickly than that of the second groups. Moreover, the doctors who are in charge of the two different group are not the same, common sense informs us that doctors who specializes in sport medicine are more experienced in muscle strain treatment than general doctors. Thus, without ruling out such factors as the information of the patients and difference between the two doctors, the conclusion that antibiotics is effective in curing secondary infections.

Thirdly, the arguer provides no evidence to prove that sugar pill have no effect in the patients’ recovery time. It is entirely possible that after they take the sugar pills, their health conditions get worse and thus impede their recovery. Without such information, we should not draw any conclusion that patients who take antibiotics recovery more quickly than those who take sugar pills.

Last but not least, even if antibiotics help to reduce recuperation time, the arguer fails to consider some harm that antibiotics will bring to the patients, common sense tells me that any medicine have side effects, it is entirely possible that the side effect overweigh the benefit that it gives to the patients.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands, before we can accept it, we should know sufficient information about the patients in this study, In addition, such factors that will weaken this argument as the difference between the two doctors and that sugar pills will not weaken the patients’ health condition should be ruled out. Most importantly, the safety of the medicine must be ensured.