Argument51请您批改，谢谢

colettUID: 2463706

Argument51
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."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。【提纲】（中文或英文）

1. 第二组平均康复时间没有明显缩短不一定和二次感染有关，实验中未提到继发性感染------作者将因果关系与单纯的关联关系混淆。

2. 任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗-------康复缩短是平均值，不代表任何人都这样

3. 两组患者的大夫不同，一组明显更专业

4．两组的损伤严重程度也未说明

【正文】
The report concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment against the secondary infections. To support the conclusion, the report cites an experiment of the patients. However, careful scrutiny/(a careful analysis) of the study  reveals that it accomplishes little toward supporting the report’s conclusion, as discussed below.
To start with, the etiological reasons of the different recuperation time of the two groups of patients can not definitely considered to be related to the second infection, which is only the composer’s subjective opinion owing to even in the experiment there is no evidence about the secondary infection. So we mustn’t easily make a conclusion that average recuperation time of the 2 group was not significantly reduced.  
What’s more, the composer mislead the readers severely by writing that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment according to average recuperation time of the 2 group was not significantly reduced. Logically speaking, the mean dates can not deputy the whole population which is equal to the composer’s all patients. So I argue that this conclusion is so definite.
Last but not the least, the background of the 2 groups are so different that the result of the contrast experiment is little valuable. Firstly we don’t know the damage degree of the 2 groups, which is absent in the experiment but significantly effecting on the result. Secondly the doctors of the 2 groups are different, especially unequal when comes to the level of treatment skill. Obviously we easily find the levels of the 2 doctors are different like the earth and the sky. In the field of treating severe muscle strain, the first doctor who specializes in sports medicine must have giantlike advantage but the general physician lack of experience in this kind of treatment. So this contrast is unjust. Even there is no the factor of the second infection.
In sum I hold the opinion that this report has serious errors which makes it even no value owing to the following reasons. The background, including the doctors and the degree of the damage, of the report is not the same which let the result absolutely far from the supposed main factors and the opinion of the composer is over subjective according to the mean date. Finally the composer still have a lot of work to do to improve the report to be perfect.   

阿狸UID: 2587762

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=910913&extra
可把阿狸累坏了捏……