argument57 meiyue

jessicamarineUID: 2595044

TOPIC: ARGUMENT57 - The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health.

"Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well."
488
In this newsletter, the author cited a study showing first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba (Z) reported less recurrence. Guessing that Z is effective in preventing recurrence, the arguer further suggested Z would help prevent first-time ulcers as well. Tough the newsletter seems reasonable at the first glance; further analysis reveals several logical problems as below.
To begin with, the survey information is too vague Firstly the arguer offered no information about the investigator, who plays an important role in determining whether the survey result is truthful and objective, for we cannot neglect the unpleasing possibility that the investigators might have some beneficial associations with the producer of Z. What's more, we see no detail information about the number of patients took part in the survey and its distribution. Perhaps, the study just surveyed quite small amount of ulcer patients. If so, the difference between 25 percent and 75percent might be meaningless. Neither could we neglect the possibility that not all patients investigated replied or replied the truth. In any of these cases, the result of the study is hard to trust on, let alone the further optimistic prediction that Z would prevent first-time ulcers.



Moreover, many other factors rather than Z might have contributed to the difference. Without the detail information about the surveyed patients, such as their health condition, their
habits related with recurrence, and most importantly the detailed procedure of their treatment, It is possible that the patients who recovered better were actually healthier and stronger, if so, it is not rare that they their recurrence rate is lower. The difference in curing procedure may also lead to the different recovery result. Maybe, the first part of patients paid more attention to their habits, or their doctors guided them more scientifically, prescribing some other medicine which effectively and directly helped patients avoid recurrence. Yet, the Z-free patients were not so lucky. If this is the case, we should never attribute the less recurrence to taking Z.

Even assuming Z does help prevent recurrent ulcers, it is immature to apply that to first-time ulcers. Perhaps, with the help of Z, the first-time ulcer patients would develop a immune system against ulcer which is not naturally owned. Or perhaps, the reason for first-time ulcers is nothing but unhealthy habits. If so, Z would lose its role when it comes to prevent the first-time ulcers.
To sum up, the arguer’s reasoning is open to doubt. To better support his claim, the author has to
provide convincing evidence that the surveyor was credible, and the number of patients involved in the survey is large enough, he or she would also need to secure that the all the patients involved replied their real condition. To better evaluate it, we would also need to know the treatment process these two groups of patients accepted, whether other different factors is involved at all. The pathogenesis for ulcer and recurrence is also needed.