Argument 51- please give me some comment!

[Kaitlyn]

As the title,thank you very much!

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."
===============================================================
The argument presented above is relatively sound. The author concludes that all patients with muscle strain would be welled advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The author cites that this hypothesis have been proved by a study of two groups of patients, treated, treated by different doctors with different medicine. The author also assumes that the patients with muscle injures treated with antibiotics will heal quickly than who treated with sugar pills. However, while a closer examination, we may find how groundless the argument is. It is doubtful for following reasons.

First of all, the threshold problem weaken this argument is that the author attempt to establish the causal relationship between the antibiotics treatment, which were used on patients who are diagnosed muscle injured, secondary infection, which were suspected would prolong the healing time. According to the authors’ recommendation, the antibiotics treatment is the only way to prevent the secondary infection of patients with muscle strain. However, it is often not this case. Actually there may be other fact that would cause the secondary infection. For example, the careless attention, or the cross infection between medicine and patients’ constitution may also contributed to the secondary infection. Thus, the author must provide evidence that all the other facts are no related to the secondary infection.

In the second place, the other problem of the argument is the study itself. The statistical reliability of the study is questionable. That is, the author provides no evidence that the patients involving the study are sufficiently representative of all of the patients who are injured muscle severe. That is to say, the study is merely involves the patients who were treated with antibiotics and the others sugar pills. Thus, lacking the information of the randomness and the size of the study sample, the author cannot analogy the results of the study.

Moreover, the author unjustifiably assumes that the conditions of patient being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, is analogous to the other being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were the same in all respects. The author roughly assumes that all thing s are equal, and the background conditions are the same at sports medicine and general physician. However, it is not clear in the argument whether the current conditions of the groups of patients who went to the spots medicine are the same as of the group of patients went to the general physician. It is entirely possible that the diagnosis from different doctors, or the level of severe injured muscle were different, that would influence the recommendation based of the study.

To sum up, it is the author failed to consider the whole situation thoroughly leading to the conclusion lacks of credibility. Therefore, to better assess the conclusion, the author must provide more detail relationship between secondary infection and antibiotics, and rule out more information about the validity and reliability of the study.

[Kitosdad]

As the title,thank you very much!

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."
===============================================================
The argument presented above is relatively sound. The author concludes that all patients with muscle strain would be welled advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The author cites that this hypothesis HAS been proved by a study of two groups of patients, AND treated by different doctors with different medicine. The author also assumes that the patients with muscle injures treated with antibiotics will heal quickER than THOSE PATIENTS who WERE treated with sugar pills. However, THROUGH DOING a closer examination, we may find how groundless the argument is. It is doubtful for following reasons.

First of all, the threshold problem weakenS this argument IN that the author attemptS to establish the causal relationship between the antibiotics treatment, which were used on patients who are diagnosed muscle injured, secondary infection, which were suspected would prolong the healing time. According to the authors’ recommendation, the antibiotics treatment is the only way to prevent the secondary infection of patients with muscle strain. However, it is often not this case. Actually there may be other factS that would cause the secondary infection. For example, the careless attention, or the cross infection between medicine and patients’ constitution may also HAVE contributed to the secondary infection. Thus, the author must provide evidence that all the other facts are noT related to the secondary infection.

In the second place, the other problem of the argument is the study itself. The statistical reliability of the study is questionable. That is, the author provides no evidence that the patients involvED IN the study are sufficiently representative of all of the patients who are injured WITH muscle STRAIN. That is to say, the study is merely involves the patients who were treated with antibiotics and the others sugar pills. Thus, lacking the information of the randomness and the size of the study sample, the author cannot COMPARE the results of the study.

Moreover, the author unjustifiably assumes that the conditions of ALL patientS being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, is analogous to the other being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were the same in all respects. The author roughly assumes that all things are equal, and the background conditions are the same FOR sports medicine and general physician REMEDIES. However, it is not clear in the argument whether the current conditions of the groups of patients who went to the sports medicine, are the same as of the group of patients who went to the general physician. It is entirely possible that the diagnosis from different doctors, or the level of severity of the injured muscle were different(.) That would influence the recommendation based ON the study.

To sum up, it is the author failed to consider the whole situation thoroughly(,) leading to THEN the conclusion lacks of credibility. Therefore, to better assess the conclusion, the author must provide more detail relationship between secondary infection and antibiotics, and rule out more information about the validity and reliability of the study.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Not too good this time Kaitlyn. A lack of clarity spoiled your work here.

Kits. 8/10
_________________
Keep it simple ... Keep it interesting.

[Kaitlyn]

Thank you~Kits I'll think and try another point to make it more clear.

[Kaitlyn]

Dear Kitos:
What if I change my points into the following reasons:
1.Not all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will suffer from secondary infections.(remaind the first argument point)
2. The statistical reliability of the study is questionable.The author does not inform us about the severity of injuries, physical conditions of the two groups of patients.
3.Not all patients with muscle strain are suitable to taking antibiotics.
would that be more clear?

[Kitosdad]