Definitely, a victory 小组第1次作业 Argumet 169 By 8-Jack

liyi75556221UID: 2745118

51.The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
(Time 50min)

"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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument is not well-reasoned. As it presents, secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatments. All of these conclusions are due to preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients which shows this hypothesis seems to have been proved. Admittedly, the comparison could be reasonable; however they make some mistakes which are very fallacious and not reliable.

First consider the fallacy of the comparison between the two groups of patients. First， muscle injuries could not be equal to muscle strain obviously. Second, the doctors of each group are different, which is to say there is a possibility that the treat for the two group are different sharply. For example, first group not only get the antibiotics but also do some healthy practice, however, the second group did noting but the sugar pills that positively could not reduce the recuperation time. Third, the condition of each group may be different. Sex, age, health condition and emotion also could be the affection of recuperation time. There are also the possibilities that one group are all children and the other are all men. In this sense， we surely can't draw the conclusion that the comparison is convincing.

Second consider the data of the study. Two groups must be too few for a scientist study. And the result it shows is only preliminary which can't be a very sound responsibility for the conclusion that all patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. What's more, the average data really can’t prove everything. It is likely exist the possibility that there is still some patients who are never recuperate and the result of 40 percent quicker than typically expected is thanks to another reasons. For example, there are 2 patients in first group only and the one who recuperate quicker injured very lightly. Therefore, it is hard to say that the data is persuasive. In addition， in the second group, their average recuperation time need not be significantly reduced. If their recuperation time is all quicker than the first group, which the argument is not presented but can be infer, we certainly can settle the answer that sugar pills do more efficient to muscle injuries. If it is so, how can we believe that antibiotics is helpful?

In sum, there are still a lot of illogical reasoning in the argument. The time of the study, the georgic condition of each group and the daily action of each group would contribute to all of the result. However, the speaker fail to consider them and make them into consideration. Therefore, if we want to find out a very sound and convince and helpful conclusion, we must pay all our attention to the alternative facts that can be involved in the different result. Again, the argument is not well-reasoned.