题目

GRE作文 写了一篇ARGUMENT求教啊~
"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."
下面是我写的,可能放不下,分开贴
In this argument,the arguer concludes that all patients suffering from muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.To strengthen this conclustion,the arguer cites a study of two groups of patients of muscle strain.Also the arguer provides the statistics indicating that patients taking antibiotics recovered more quickly than those taking sugar pills.At frist glance,the argument might be somewhat reasonable,however close scruntiny reveals that it contains several logical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive.
First of all,there's a false causal relationship between the hypothesis and the study.Although the hypothesis and the study are both related to muscle strain,the former claims that secondary infections could prevent patients from healing quickly while the latter investigates the active effect of antibiotics on those patients.
Second,the arguer fails to consider the possible differences between those two groups of patients,thus causes an unconvincing comparison.For example,perhaps patients of the second group primarily consist of young people while the other group of old people on the contrary.Common sense informs me that the former recovers much faster than the latter in the case of muscle strain because of hermone secretion and metabolism.Without ruling out all the other possibilities,I cannot accept the arguer's contrast of those two groups.
Third,even assuming that the study of patients from those two groups is based on the identical background,the arguer unfairly indicates a causal relation between the antibiotics and the shortend recuperation time for the first group.However,there could be some other factors such as the special rehabilitation training or some unique substance from food,only the combined application of which will lead to a quick recovery.Similarly,the potential efficacy of sugar pills could also be counteracted by other medicine.
Finally,even if the shortened recuperation time is attributalbe to the use of antibiotics for patients of the first group,the arguer overlooks the negative effects that antibiotics would bring to those patients.For instance,perhaps antibiotics might cause dizziness and influence the digestive function of patients.Or perhaps antibiotics would kill immune cells,therefore patients are more vulnerable to disease during the treatment.Without accounting for these possiblities,the arguer cannot convince me that the use of the antibiotics is a benefical recommendation.

提问时间：2020-12-23

答案

第一段有三个拼写错误：conclusion,first,scrutiny.
第二段个人认为分析不到位,可加上这样一段：Without the evidence showing that antibiotics have the effect to prevent patients from secondary infections,the arguer fails to support the causal relationship between the hypothesis and the study.
第三段拼写错误：first； 且倒数第二句话because of 部分个人认为语义含糊,可改为：because of the former's higher efficiency of hormone secretion and metabolism.
第四段拼写错误：shortened；另外,本段缺少一个总结句,如：Since all these cases not clarified,the conclusion that the antibiotics are the key to the shortened recuperation time of the first group.
第五段拼写错误：attributable,possibilities,beneficial；另外,该段论证的观点很好,但个人以为在写法上有些偏了,如首句可改为这样：Finally,even if the shortened recuperation time is attributable to the use of antibiotics for patients of the first group,the arguer emphasizes too much on the use of antibiotics by drawing the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics,since antibiotics may have side effect on patients and cause anaphylactic reactions.
另外,原题还有一个漏洞就是两组的主治医生不同,一个是运动医药医生,而另一个是全科医生.当然,不写这一点可能也差不多了.
最后,少了一个总结段,应该补上,如：To sum up,the argument is unconvincing as it stands.To support the causal relationship between the hypothesis and the study,the arguer have to give evidence that antibiotics have the effects to prevent patients from secondary infections.To better assess the argument,it's necessary for me to know that the two groups are innately and externally identical.Also the arguer should reckon with the side effects and anaphylatic reactions of antibiotics when advises the use of antibiotics on muscle strain,which will make the conclusion more persuasive.
这样一来,全文结构就很完整了,而且字数也能达到五百以上.
希望对你有所帮助.