[Clover] Argument51 by taotaole

taotaoleUID: 2694983

写晚了……
A51
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."
In this newsletter, the arguer claims that all patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics during their treatment. To support his ideas, he cites the hypothesis of doctors’ suspicion on secondary infection in preventing the muscle strain healing and preliminary results of a study with control tests, focusing on the effect of antibiotics on the patients. This argument is problematic both in its conclusion and deduction of the evidence.
A threshold problem is that the arguer wrongly assumes the causal relationship between antibiotics and secondary infection, and then put forth his conclusion from the two evidences. We see the arguer first offers a hypothesis of doctors’ suspicion on secondary infection delaying the healing of severe muscle strain patients. But he then supplies a study, claiming that it proved the hypothesis. However, the study is about two groups of muscle injuries patients taking antibiotics or sugar pills. The study may indicate the effect of antibiotics in healing to some extent, but it gives a blur proof for the hypothesis. It should be paid attention that the study give no distinguish on the effect of antibiotics to the muscle strain itself or to the secondary infection. Thus, it is quite likely that antibiotics increase the healing not in the term of secondary infection, meaning the connection the arguer develops is of little significance. Besides, considering the factors delaying the recuperation for severe muscle patients, there are other factors more than the doctor’s suspicion of secondary infection. The condition of each patients’ immune system, the living condition and the attend he receives are possible factors.
Next, the evidence of the contrast test is doubtful and far from being a piece of strong basis for the conclusion. Firstly, the differences of the doctor in the study cannot neglect. The ability of the doctors on diagnosing the disease is not guaranteed, since there is a specialized sport medicine doctor but another a general physician. In such cases, we can wonder if all of the patients participating in the study are of the same injuries and can be healed in the same expected period. There also might be other differences between treatments offered by the two doctors, besides the medicines they give to the patients. What’s more, with final study result we may doubt if sugar pills may cause negative effects on the healing of the second group of patients. As long as the information the material offers, the arguer does not inform us about the severity of injuries, physical conditions of the two groups of patients. The first group of patients is labeled as muscle injuries, while no information for the second. Therefore, with all those neglected details, how can the result of the study on 40 percent quicker recuperation be reliable?
Even we overlook the fallacy of the study, the conclusion the arguer draws from the study is feasible. It is a common sense to know the fact that not everyone is suitable to accept antibiotics treatment, let alone those suffering muscle strains. Thus, it is unreasonable to demand “all” diagnosed patients to be advised to take antibiotics for shorten the recuperation time, regardless the situation of the patients’ physical condition and the severity of his injuries.
As it demonstrated above, the argument in the newsletter on antibiotics in muscle strain treatment is incredible. Before he figures out the specific details on the doctor’s suspicion and clearer and more precise operation of the study to get a reliable result, the suggestion of the antibiotic therapy shouldn’t take into practice for the sake of patients.

misirUID: 2684938

直接下载吧~