第一段
custom-made medical illustrations 是否具有法律效应具有争议。
反对者（opponent）的观点：反对者认为 尽管它在 physical details of a personal injury 上有用（ invaluable = 无价的珍贵的），但其实 illustrations from medical textbooks 就足够了。
请问反对者给出的证据是哪一句？
Most injuries, such as fractures and whiplash, they say, are rather generic in nature—certain commonly encountered forces act on particular areas of the body in standard ways—so they can be represented by generic illustrations.
第二段
对 custom-made medical illustrations 的第二个反对：partisan interests of litigants（偏袒诉讼当事人 = 不公正）
请问有针对这个反对的反驳吗？如果有，标出来。
But this is mistaken. Even if an unscrupulous illustrator could be found, such illustrations would be inadmissible as evidence in the courtroom unless a medical expert were present to testify to their accuracy.
第三段
请问 It has also been maintained that custom-made illustrations may subtly distort the issues through the use of emphasis, coloration, and other means, even if they are technically accurate. 是作者的观点还是作者引用的观点？
引用的。
后面有反驳吗？
有。
But professional medical illustrators strive for objective accuracy and avoid devices that have inflammatory potential, sometimes even eschewing the use of color.
作者认为在 illustration 中details 多好还是 details 少？
少好。
作者认为 custom-made illustrations 比较好还是 illustrations in medical textbooks 比较好？
作者认为 custom-made illustrations 比较好。
第四段
作者认为 Custom-made medical illustrations 在哪方面更有优势？对 medical professionals 更有用还是普通人 ？
普通人 。
回答以下问题
generic illustrations 等于上文的 custom-made medical illustrations 还是 illustrations from medical textbooks？why ？
illustrations from medical textbooks.
反对者观点中的“illustrations from medical textbooks can be adequate”与随后给出证据中的“can be represented by generic illustrations”相对应。
Another line of complaint stems from the belief that custom-made illustrations often misrepresent the facts in order to comply with the partisan interests of litigants. Even some lawyers appear to share a version of this view, believing that such illustrations can be used to bolster a weak case. 这两句话哪句更重要？它们是什么关系，递进还是相反？
第一句更重要。
递进。
改错：
第一段：CMI是否具有法律效益?反对者认为I from textbooks（IFT）已足够。
第二段：另外，反对者认为会被不当利用造成偏袒。但其实实际情况并没有不当利用的条件。
第三段:有一种说法是复杂的CMI会对案子有错误的引导。但其实CMI会减少细节来突出重点，反而是IFT更复杂更具有误导性。
第四段：CMI比数据更直观易懂，适合普通人。
关系：第一段提出主题+反方总论点；第二段反方分论点1+正方分论1驳倒；第三段反方分论2+正方分论2驳倒；第四段正方分论3直接肯定。
作者支持CMI
