渴望GRE作文argument修改偶第一次写作文,很烂,Byconductingtheexperimentincomparingtherecuperationtimeofthetwomuscle-strainedgroups,oneofwhichtookantibioticsandtheothernot,theresearcherssimplydrawaconclusionthat

Question

渴望GRE作文argument修改 偶第一次写作文,很烂,
By conducting the experiment in comparing the recuperation time of the two muscle-strained groups,one of which took antibiotics and the other not,the researchers simply draw a conclusion that all such patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.However,we have to point out that there are several flaws that may make the result not so cogent.For example,the patients of the first group may have other treatment that plays a key role in the recovery.
From one side,Dr.Newland,who is a specialist in sports medicine,maybe worked out a practical scheme with an experiential series of massage which had a strong efficacy that lead to the quick recuperation,while the other group didn't have this treatment.From the other side,we are not informed of the patients' conditions.Perhaps the first group were not very severe that medicine can simply ease their illness,while the second group are so severe that only through operations can they be cured but medicine has nothing to do with it.In short,the two groups didn't have comparability because of the lack of concrete details.And it is said that the recuperation time of the first group is 40 percent quicker than typically expected,but is this time shorter than the recuperation time of the second group?We still don't know.
In addition,we all know that all medicine has its sideeffects.So another fallacy that weakens the conclusion of the argument is that the researchers ignore that some antibiotics are fatal to some patients.For example,people who are allergic to penicillin can only take other approaches to heal the muscle strain.For those who can take antibiotics safely,if he is in the condition of slightly muscle strain,he may just have enough rest instead of medicine,whereas if his condition is extremely severe,he must need an operation.
Overall,that people try to find the efficacy of medicine is a good way of thinking.However,when researchers are studying medical issues,they should consider the aspects of people as many as possible,such as whether they are suitable to this treatment,or whether there is a better way to healing the illness.After all,patients are keen to adopt sound suggestions instead of hasty conclusions.
希望能够指出我文中具体有哪些不妥~
51.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."

Answer 1

主要漏洞找得还可以,语言也比较平实准确,看得出作者功底比较扎实.
这是我的一篇习作,水平一般,希望能给你点参考.
The argument is undoubtedly well-presented but unfortunately not that well-reasoned.By making a comparison of the recuperations of two groups of patients treated for muscles injuries,one of which with antibiotics and the other with placebos,the author just believed that the hypothesis——secondary infections keeping patients from healing quickly after sever muscle strain——had been proved,and therefore drew the conclusion the use of antibiotics should be well-advised to whoever were diagnosed with that .The argument,surely brilliant in its intention and organization,failed to be cognet and convincing since the writer overemphasized some of the relevant factors such as the experimental results and overlooked the rest of what it takes.
Therefore I got some vital questions about the whole argument.Is the experiment well-designed?Suppose it is,is the hypothesis really proved?Even if it is,is the conclusion well-supported?
Given that we have no access to the detailed statistics of the expeiment,then its reliability and generalizibility are open to question.We have abosultely no idea whether the researchers taking some the alternative explanations rather than antibiotics into consideration,for example the ages ,tenders and professions of the patients,their constitution,and their conditions of the injury.I don’t really think some young male atheletes such as LeBron James injuried with their toes would recover any slower than some middle-aged female white collar officer with hamstring injuries with or without the antibiotics.Therefore,we need more specific information,by the way none of which is given,to rule out of that possibility despite its rarity.Besides there still remains some flaws in the experiment.For example these patients are treated by doctors specializing in different area,subsequently with different methods of treatment.
Assuming that the experiment is well-designed,is the hypothesis rigrously proved?I hardly think so.As the author himself mentioned,the experiment is just a preliminary one,which means its results should just be some reference to determine a focus of scientific inquiry rather than to vertify or falsetify a complicated long-existing theory.Beacuse any premilnary experiments including the antibiotic one ,as we haven’t got enough backdrop will be effected by some potenial alternatives which haven’t been taken into accout,thus not explicite as expected.
To make it straight,even if the theory is somehow vertified by the experiment,shall we take the risks to abuse drug?Any drug has its side effect,not to mention that of the antibiotics is worse,such as endocrine disturbance and drug resistance.
Nevertheless at least the spirit of discovery and longing to konw should be amired and it is,but I really won’t be that positive when it comes to whether the experiment is well-designed,whether the point is well-developed and whether the argument is well-reasoned.After all,it is the public health that we are talking abouthow could one be too cautious and conscious about that?