Critical Reasoning

ssgmatter wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:The text states that reinfection is common when patients use the former treatments because they interrupt the 7-day treatment early (i.e. after 3 days). E makes it clear that with the new treatment, patients will likely take the new drug for the entire 3 days that the drug needs in order to clear the infection. This fact removes the following objection:

What if patients stop taking the new drug prematurely because they feel better before the infection is fully cleared? Reinfection may still be common

But how does it strengthen the argument????...

kevincanspain wrote:It eliminates the possibility that people will stop taking the new drug before the infection is fully cleared, as we are told that the new drug takes three days to get rid of the infection completely

ssgmatter wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:It eliminates the possibility that people will stop taking the new drug before the infection is fully cleared, as we are told that the new drug takes three days to get rid of the infection completely

I understand this pretty well. My concern is that what does it mean in the conclusion of the argument that says "reinfection will probably be less common in cases where the new antibiotic is...."blah blah!!

why will reinfection happen with new one when people will take it for three days?????.....i mean why the conclusion is discussing the probability of having a reinfection with new one???? when it is know that infection will go with new one as it is only for 3 days