Argument51

51The 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.'
(361 words)
This argument suggested that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To convice reader, the author cited a survey which appeared that the patients who took antibiotics regularly has their recuperation time 40 percent less then another group of patients who took sugar pill instead. However, this argument is flawed in several critical respects.First, close scrutity appears that the samples for the survey aren't statistically reliable.
Acctually, from the survey we find little sign of such procedures for sampling, thus doubting whether the respondents constitute a sufficiently large sample so as to be representative of the overall population of the patients who took muscle injuries. We can also suspect such procedures as random sampling, and if this is the case, the results of the survey will be unconvicing.
Secondly, the author make a "faulty of analogy" fallacy. Since Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, it is highly possible that he is more skillful and experienced then Dr.Alton, who is just a general antibiotics, thus the first group may receive better treatment on other recuperation process expect the pill, or gets more efficiency guidence to recover. And the author can't not rule out the chance the first group's wounds are not that as the second group, that means they are healthier, then their sooner recover is natural and easy to understand.
Finally, even if the antibiotics can surely prevent the secondary infection, thus the patients have fewer possibility to heal more fastly. The author didn't substantiate that the pill also has anything to do with the diagnosation of aptient who already have muscle strain. Moreover, lacking scientific evidence that the antibiotics don't have any sideeffects to the patients with an exsiting wound, the author can't convince me that it's necessary to let such patients take the pills.
In sum, the conclusion reached in this arrument is invalid and misleading, to make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to substantiate that the antibiotics is the only reason for the quicker recuperation, and he must give out some prove that the pills will di something good to the guys with a muscle strain.