argument51 决战830 请兄弟们狂拍！

cruiserjiaUID: 2102784

Argument51: 491 words   30 minutes
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.'

The arguer in this argument recommend that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify his recommend, the arguer cited a study involve two groups of patients, one group of patients were treated by a doctor who specialize in sports with antibiotics, the other group of patients were treated by a general physician with sugar pills. The result of the study shows that the recuperation time of the first group is shorter than the second group. Close scrutiny of this argument reveals it lend little support to the arguer's claim.

To begin with, a threshold problem with the argument involves that whether the study's results are statistically reliable. The argument does not provide enough information on how the study was conducted. Without information concerning the randomness and size of the sample, we could not put the results of the study to all the population. It is possible that patients in the first group are young, on the contrary, patients in the second group are old and have a weak physical condition. If it was the case, then the conclusion that the recuperation time of the first group is shorter than the second group is unpersuasive.

Secondly, it is unreasonable to conclude that the two groups of patients are treated under the similar condition. The first group of patients were treated by a doctor who specialize in sports medicine, and the second group of patients were treated by a general physician. The differences in the doctor of the study may contribute to the results of the study for a doctor who specialize in sports medicine may be more experience than the doctor who is a general physician. What is more, by referring the second group of patients were given sugar pills although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics, the arguer overlooks the possibility that sugar pills may have negative effect on the treatment of the patients and the differences in the recuperation time might be resulted by psychologist effect. Without ruling out the possibilities mentioned above and other possible explanations to the differences in the result of the study, the claim that all patients should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is dubious.

Thirdly, the arguer made a hasty generalization that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. It is highly possible that some people show a strong allergy toward the antibiotic. And it is also possible that some patients refused to use antibiotics as part of their treatment. Therefore, the claim that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is unfounded.  

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument lacks credibility for the evidence cited in this argument lend little support to the claim the arguer made. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide information about the sample of the study .To better evaluate the argument, we need to know whether the differences of doctors in the study contribute to the differences of the result. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-23 at 12:09 ]