argument 处女作，同是高频51，求教

迅坦UID: 2789955

51、The followingappeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were takingantibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced.Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be welladvised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."


In this argument, the author recommends that in order to optimizetheir treatment all patients should be given antibiotics as part of theirtreatment when they are diagnosed with muscle strain. To justify hisrecommendation, the author cites a study of two different groups of patientsshowing that the recuperation time of patients who took antibiotics regularlythroughout their treatment was quicker than that of patients who were givensugar pills instead. The argument is specious in several aspects, rendering theargument unconvincing as it stands.
In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that antibiotics arethe reason why patients recuperate more quickly. It is equally possible thatDr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine gave a serial of comprehensivetreatment involving body exercise, massage and several kinds of medicinesinstead of mere antibiotics that heal the muscle strain. Since the author hasfailed to rule out the other possible explanations for this quickerrecuperation, I remain unconvinced based on this evidence that antibiotics isvital to the treatment of muscle injuries.
In the second place, the mere fact that the recuperation time ofpatients who took antibiotics was quicker proves nothing about the immediaterelationship between the recuperation time and the function of antibiotics. Itis entirely possible that the muscle injuries of the second group are moreserious leading to the longer recuperation time. Besides, the assertion ignoresthe possibility that the patients of the first group are stronger than thepatients of the second group. Without considering this possibility the authorcannot justifiable rely on recuperation time to draw any conclusions about thefunction of antibiotics.

In sum, this argument not only is logically unsound but also relies onseveral doubtful assumptions. To strengthen this argument, the author mustprovide more details of the patients and the therapy method. To better assessthe recommendation I would need to know how effective antibiotics are comparedto other medications in treating muscle injuries.

迅坦UID: 2789955

刚又修改了一下
The author of this article recommends that in order to optimize their treatment all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics. This recommendation is based on the study showing that the recuperation time of patients taking antibiotics is quicker than group of people who were given sugar pills. The argument is specious in several aspects, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

In this argument, the author recommends that in order to optimize their treatment all patients should be given antibiotics as part of their treatment when they are diagnosed with muscle strain. To justify his recommendation, the author cites a study of two different groups of patients showing that the recuperation time of patients who took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment was quicker than that of patients who were given sugar pills instead. The argument is specious in several aspects, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.
In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that antibiotics are the reason why patients recuperate more quickly. It is equally possible that Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine gave a serial of comprehensive treatment involving body exercise, massage and several kinds of medicines instead of mere antibiotics that heal the muscle strain. Since the author has failed to rule out the other possible explanations for this quicker recuperation, I remain unconvinced based on this evidence that antibiotics is vital to the treatment of muscle injuries.
In the second place, even two groups of patients were given the same kind of treatment the mere fact that the recuperation time of patients who took antibiotics was quicker proves nothing about the immediate relationship between the recuperation time and the function of antibiotics. It is entirely possible that the muscle injuries of the second group are more serious leading to the longer recuperation time no matter what kinds of medication was given. Besides, the assertion ignores the possibility that the patients of the first group are stronger than the patients of the second group. Without considering this possibility the author cannot justifiable rely on recuperation time to draw any conclusions about the function of antibiotics.
In the third place, even antibiotics are useful to the cure of the patients studied, the author cannot recommend that all patients should be given antibiotics because someone may have unwanted reaction when taking antibiotics and someone need not take antibiotics because their injuries are too slightly.
    In sum, this argument not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions. To strengthen this argument, the author must provide more details of the patients and the therapy method. To better assess the recommendation I would need to know how effective antibiotics are compared to other medications in treating muscle injuries.

但感觉时间紧张，30分钟能写到400字吗？