Medicine critical thinking Term Paper

Medicine critical thinking
             Medicine critical thinking

Medicine critical thinking

Order Instructions:

Suppose that you are attending a conference for physical therapists. You listen to a speech by Dr. John Russell, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Russell is speaking about a new, experimental procedure to repair torn ligaments in the knee. After listening to the 30 min. conference talk, one of the attendees sitting next to you, Harold, tells you, “Dr. Russell claims that the procedure is effective at reducing pain 3 months post-surgery. Dr. Russell would, of course, hold a favorable view of this new procedure because he only recently finished his orthopedic surgery fellowship, and plus he went to medical school on the West Coast. Therefore, this procedure could not be as effective as Dr. Russell claims it is.”

This is a two-part assignment:
A. Identify the type of logical fallacy in the argument that Harold just made. Justify your selection.
B. Respond to Harold with a different set of statements containing a separate fallacy. State the type of fallacy that you committed in responding. Then, justify why the fallacy you made is of the type that you purport it to be.


Medicine critical thinking

Question 1

The type of logical fallacy that Harold made was a fallacy of Hasty Generalization. In this type of fallacy, the individual makes a conclusion that is advised by insufficient evidence or evidence that is biased. The first sign of hastiness in his argument is the fact that he makes his comment after only 30 minutes of listening to the doctor speak. It is impossible for Harold to have gathered all the information about the doctor’s bias in favor of the procedure being discussed within 30 minutes which is such a short time. While it is possible that Harold may have known the doctor from outside the seminar, the statement he made is being discussed with respect to context. His confiding in me is an indication that he is basing his assessment of the doctor’s point of view on the events that have taken place in the seminar (Facione and Gittens, 2015).

The originator of a statement will be said to have made a logical fallacy of hasty generalization by concluding a matter too soon without taking into consideration the relevant facts. Harold’s statement fits in well with the description of this fallacy. Half an hour is clearly not adequate to appraise a person’s point of view or the entire collection of his knowledge. Furthermore, this is a medical conference and any support for a point made or opposition to a point made, needs to be based on medical facts and not mere opinions. Harold believes that the doctor’s estimation of the healing process is inaccurate. So far there is no problem with this; however his justification for his point of view is in no way related. He does raise facts such as the doctor being recently back from an orthopedic fellowship and also that the university the Doctor studied in being in the West Coast (Fisher, 2011).

Harold’s reference to the doctor’s has studied in the West Coast introduces another fallacy in his argument. This argument is known as the Straw Man. It is so called because the speaker acts by overly simplifying the viewpoint that the opponent has. Their contradicting points of view makes the doctor his opponent, Harold refers to the location of the doctor’s previous learning institution as sufficient grounds to disqualify the experimental procedure being advocated for. The West Coast may not be perfect and there may be very real and tangible reasons why Harold has problems with the place but the fact that he does not mention them greatly weakens his argument. The ambiguity leaves it completely open and this means that Harold’s qualms with the West Coast are related to weather or culture. He does not clearly state what the problem is with the West Coast leading to the Doctor’s inaccuracy

Question 2

Response: I disagree with you on that matter, the fact that he has the title ‘Doctor’ before his name and his presenting this information before a panel of medical experts is proof that he knows what he is talking about with respect to the post-operation recovery process.

I have used two fallacies in the above statement. The first fallacy that I have used is the Genetic Fallacy. This type of fallacy is manifested in a statement when the originator makes use of the institution a person belongs to as a means of determining the character they have. In this case I have used the prefix of ‘Doctor’ as a justification for my belief that he has to be an expert in medicine. This statement is fallacious because while medical doctors do have the suffix, they tend to be either specialists or general doctors. There are also people who have the title by virtue of a PhD being awarded to them. The title does signify the qualification that a doctor has but if it is to be considered, it needs to be considered in full as even for medical doctors, there are several categories. There are those who are general practitioners, there are others who are surgeons and others may have specialized in dentistry. As such, it is not sensible to simply use his title to appraise the content of his presentation, which greatly waters down the significance of the discussion and shifts the focus from what he has worked on to a general image of the profession. The argument may have been stronger if I mentioned a title that was relevant to the work that he has done in orthopedic surgery or the position he holds within the organization of physical therapists (Bowell and Kemp, 2014).

The second fallacy that I have used is the circular argument. In this fallacy, the speaker restates an argument instead of proceeding to prove it. In this case I have stated that the information he is giving has to be accurate and medically sound because his audience is made up of doctors who are giving him attention. Circular fallacies are so called because they tend to go back and forth with the first part justifying the second part and the second part justifying the first part yet there is no significant substance being discussed or elaborated upon. The argument is circular because the content and its quality are determined by taking into consideration only the speaker and the audience while leaving out the particulars about the findings that doctor has presented. His expertise cannot be solely judged on the fact that he is speaking to doctors at the seminar. While this was definitely taken into account in his selection as a keynote speaker, this cannot justify my point of view. I essentially stated that their being doctors makes it impossible for them to get the wrong information in a forum or his being the speaker in a medical forum made it impossible for him to give inaccurate information. What I essentially did was peg my thoughts on his being correct about the experimental procedure because of the existence of the seminar where the talk took place. The presentation he gave being a part of this project, does not in any way automatically translate to it being accurate (Admanti et al, 2011).

The statements that Harold made as well as my hypothetical response are all fallacies because they demonstrate a mistake or mistakes that were made in the thinking process followed during the making of our respective opinions about the doctor’s presentation on the experimental procedure. They are all errors in reasoning because the originator of the statements circumvents or avoids the most important facts that can be used to validate the conclusions that are being made. The authors of the statements instead pick on irrelevant aspects of the subject and use them to support the conclusions given (Gardner, 2012).


Admati, A. R., DeMarzo, P. M., Hellwig, M. F., & Pfleiderer, P. C. (2011). Fallacies, irrelevant facts, and myths in the discussion of capital regulation: Why bank equity is not expensive. MPI Collective Goods Preprint, (2010/42).

Bowell, T., & Kemp, G. (2014). Critical thinking: A concise guide. Routledge.

Facione, P., & Gittens, C. A. (2015). Think critically. Pearson.

Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, M. (2012). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Courier Corporation.

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

Unlike most other websites we deliver what we promise;

  • Our Support Staff are online 24/7
  • Our Writers are available 24/7
  • Most Urgent order is delivered with 6 Hrs
  • 100% Original Assignment Plagiarism report can be sent to you upon request.

GET 15 % DISCOUNT TODAY use the discount code PAPER15 at the order form.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page: