Argument51

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: 420 TIME: 00:33:27 DATE: 2008-3-11 22:02:17

At first glance, it seems reasonable that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, close scrutiny of evidence unveils that this argument actually suffers from a few critical flaws. For example, the comparison between two groups, undertaken by two doctors, is incomplete and selective. Besides, the arguer mistakenly assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. There are still other subordinate pitfalls. The flaws above would be discussed in detail and respectively.

First of all, the comparison between two groups of patients lacks credibility, as the arguer have not given more details about patients. Perhaps all the members in the first group, who are covered by Dr. Newland, are adolescents, while those in the second group are composed of old men who are among their seventies or eighties. Apparently, young people need much less time to recover than that aging ones need. Thus, the study of two groups is meaningless unless the arguer take enough dissimilarities into account.

Secondly, even if the study is credible, the argument is still questionable. The arguer simply assumes that taking antibiotics will surely reduce average recuperation time after severe muscle strain. However, the speaker fails to provide that antibiotics are appropriate for each individual. It is possible that certain patients are allergic to antibiotics; therefore antibiotics will bring to these patients certain side effects that are harmful for these special patients. In short, it is questionable that everyone should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

Thirdly, the arguer fails to consider alternative possibilities in the analysis. For example, patients in the first group are merely slightly injured, while the second group is made up of persons who are severely injured. Thus, patients of the second group will certainly become healthy much slower than the first group. Furthermore, the doctors of two groups differ in their abilities. The doctor of the first group is an expert in sports medicine, while the second one is merely a general physician. Thereby, the fist doctor undoubtedly has more experiences of treating muscle strain than the second one, and patients in the first group will recover much faster than the persons in the second group.

In conclusion, the argument actually has several flaws as discussed above, and is not convincing as it stands. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to provide evident that patients in the two groups are among the same age period, and further prove antibiotics are suitable for everyone who suffers from muscle strain.