argument51 永不言弃小组 by 花生peanut 1号

花生peanutUID: 2487804

51. 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."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。


提纲：
1．假说是指拉伤后会二次感染，研究没有证明这些人都二次感染，也没有证据说明拉伤后一定会二次感染。
2．研究没有提供两组人的情况，年龄，性别等，可能是本身的身体素质，受伤的严重程度，治疗方法的差别决定了恢复的快慢。
3．两组的医生不一样，采取的方法也可能不一样，运动医生可能更了解这方面的情况。
4．糖片由无可能影响恢复。
5．抗生素会不会有副作用，有的病人可能会过敏。
6. 结论：为加强说服力，论者还应该进一步提供有关肌肉拉伤的病人中二次感染的概率有多少，并提供一份科学的研究，证明在相同医生、相同病征、相同病人生理条件以及其他治疗手段、环境相同的情况下，抗生素是能使病人早日康复。
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: 494

DATE: 2009-2-2 17:30:47

In this argument, the arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate the recommendation, the arguer cites the result of a study that two groups of patients being treated for different doctors have different results. One of the group of patients who took antibiotics throughout their treatment shorten ,on average,40 percent
of their recuperation time than the other group of patients who were just given sugar pills, but believed they were taking antibiotics. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between secondary infections and muscle strain. Even if secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain according to a recent study, the arguer can't recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics. Recommend patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotic on the premise that secondary infections will happen on them. However, the arguer provides no evidence that patients who suffer muscle strain must or may get secondary infections.

Secondly, the fact that the first group of patients recuperate quickly than the second group does not necessarily indicate that antibiotics have much effect on muscle strain. The arguer does not present any information about the two groups of patients. For instance，their age, gender and other physiological characteristics, and so forth. Possibly, the first group of patients who take antibiotics are young and have good physiological conditions, but by contrast the second group of patients are old and weak. Thus, it can't conclude that antibiotics make the patients recuperate quickly rather than other reasons.

Thirdly, the difference about doctors between the two groups can't be ignored. Generally speaking, doctors who specialize in sports medicine know more about muscle compared to general physician. So it is possibly that the targeted therapy makes patients recuperate quickly but not antibiotics.

In addition, without ruling out the influence of sugar, the arguer cannot convince me on the assumption that antibiotics play a important role in recuperation. It is likely that sugar influence the recuperation.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to take into account several other factors that might weaken the reasoning in this argument. For example antibiotics possibly have side effects. Even if antibiotics have the function of sterilization and prevent infections, some patients may be allergic to them. The arguer hence cannot recommend all patients to take antibiotics.

To sum up, the recommendation lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide information about the happening rate of secondary infections. Besides, the arguer should provide a scientific report to prove that antibiotics can make patients recuperate quickly under the same condition, such as doctors, symptoms, therapy, and so forth.