argument51 我们的九月8 18

juzijuntuanUID: 2231815

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: 455          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-8-18

The author claims that all patients who are treated with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics in their treatment, based on the theory that secondary infections keep patients from healing quickly after muscle strain, which has been proved by preliminary results of a study. However, the claim is unpersuasive, for that a careful examination exposes several flaws in some aspects.

First, the basic evidence cited by author is the result of study, which is doubtful. For one thing, the method of study is problematic. The amount of patients and their healthy conditions in two group are not provided. If the amounts are different, the result is unconvincing, for the representiveness rate of the two group are unequal. Besides, if the healthy condition of patient is not similar, it is possible that some patients had been infected while others are not, the result will be questionable.

For another thing, the treatment of the two groups are different, which may be the main factor causing the unconvincing result. It is possible that Dr. Newland, a expert in sports medicine, treat his patient in professional way, contributing to a quick healing, rather than the influence of antibiotics on infection. Apart from that, the recuperation time of the two group are not cited, if the second group are faster than the first one, then the result is contradicted with the hypothesis, and the expected time of healing in first group is quicker than the normal time without antibiotics is uncertain, if the respect one is latter, than the result will be unsupportive for the hypothesis.

For the other thing, the second group is given sugar pills, which is not clearly informed that whether sugar pills affect the recuperation time. Thus, with the three flaws recounted, the result of study is not cogent .

Moreover, even the result of study is valid, and prove the hypothesis that secondary infection keep patient form healing quickly after sever muscle strain, it is over simply to suggest all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics in their treatment. As such fact is not bolstered by any evidence that all patient will be infected after a muscle strain, if some are not infected, the antibiotics in treatment are unnecessary, besides, the abuse of antibiotics will rise several problems, such as the resistance drug of bacteria. As a result, it is unsurely to suggest all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics.

To sum up, the author invalid bases his recommendation on the unconvincing result of a doubtful study, and lack of bolstering of his assumption, thus his claim is unpersuasive and more information and a reasonable method of the study and the assumption should be taken into accout to make the argument more valid.

neworkUID: 2222798