我的第一篇习作，ARGU 51，敬请大家批改

zzdjnUID：2495446

51.The following appeared in a medicalnewsletter.
"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 weretaking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would bewell advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
1.两组不一定有可比性，没有考虑其他影响病人的因素
2.即使在平均尺度上有效，也不一定适合每一个患者，有些人体质不适合使用抗生素或疗效不好
3.严重的病人不能推广到所有的病人，轻度伤可能没有二次感染
4.没有考虑到抗生素的副作用，以及价格问题。
In this article, the author recommends that doctors would advise their patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics for partial treatment. This recommendation is based on a study of two groups of patients. The group given antibiotics regularly throughout thetreatment recuperates 40 percent more quickly than typically expected while the other group of patients, who only take placebo instead, did not have asignificantly reduce on recuperation time. Logically problematic in some certain respects, this argument, however, is therefore unconvincing.
To begin with, the cited study comparing the two group of patients relied on the unsubstantiated assumption that health and medical conditions of the patients were similar except for the use of antibiotics.As no supporting evidence was provided for the assumption, it is entirely possible that the quick recuperation in the first group was because patients of it were not injured so badly as the members in the other group, or perhaps they were given some extra special treatment which helps recuperation. Without ruling out other possibilities, the author cannot conclude that the antibiotics really work on the basis of the study.
On the other hand, even if the use of antibiotics did give rise to quick recuperation on average scale in the study,the author assumes further that antibiotic is helpful and safe for EVERY patient suffering severe muscle strain. Lacking certain evidence supporting the assumption, it is entirely possible that the side effect of the antibiotic is very harmful for some hypersensitive patient. What is more, it is common sense that patients who is suffering kidney or liver failure would risk poisoning if they take some antibiotics. If this is the case, the author's recommendation would run to unacceptable.
Finally, even if the antibiotics are safe and effective on curing secondary infections after severe muscle strain as it seemed in the cited study, the author offered no evidence supporting the assumption that all extent of muscle strain patients would suffer secondary infections. Perhaps in a low-grade way, the probability of secondary infectionsis so low that it can be medically overlooked, in which event the use of antibiotics as the author recommended would be a waste of money.
In sum, the recommendation is based on adoubtful study and certain unsubstantiated assumptions which make it unconvincing. To consummate the argument, the author must give supporting evidence that the patients suffering from muscle strain are  really prone to suffer from infections, and antibiotics actually help treating that. More considerations should be taken for individual's particularities, such as the sensitivity against the side effects of the antibiotics and the extent of theinjury. (432 words)