ChaseDream
标题: [求助]T-3-Q13 新问题 [打印本页]
作者: TheSolution 时间: 2009-4-25 23:02
标题: [求助]T-3-Q13 新问题
The traditional treatment of strep infections has been a seven-day course of antibiotics, either penicillin or erythromycin. However, since many patients stop taking those drugs within three days, reinfection is common in cases where these drugs are prescribed. A new antibiotic requires only a three-day course of treatment. Therefore, reinfection will probably be less common in cases where the new antibiotic is prescribed than in cases where either penicillin or erythromycin is prescribed.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Some of people who are allergic to penicillin are likely to be allergic to the new antibiotic.（排除了削弱因素）
B. A course of treatment with the new antibiotic costs about the same as a course of treatment with either penicillin or erythromycin.
C. The new antibiotic has been shown to be effective in eradicating bacterial infections other than strep.（削弱了）
D. Some physicians have already begun to prescribe the new antibiotic instead of penicillin or erythromycin for the treatment of some strep infections
E. Regardless of whether they take a traditional antibiotic or the new one, most patients feel fully recovered after taking the drug for three days.（就是patients只吃3天，当然新药好了，只吃了结论的）
这道题目lawyer的解释是
2。B错的原因同joe11兄。D错的原因是结论是比较病人有吃新药的情况，所以医生没开新药从而病人没吃新药的情况不在结论讨论范围。其实该题用排除法很容易排除剩下E。
3。E的支持较复杂。原文说旧药疗程7天，有些病人才吃3天，所以reinfection较普遍（这句话要表达的意思reinfection是没完成疗期之故），新药疗程只要3天（言下之意吃完3天药，reinfection就少，加强不需要充分性，所以这点意思不需要明确从原文说出）。得出结论说吃旧药reinfection比吃新药普遍。E说不管吃旧药新药，多数病人吃三天就觉得好了。言下之意就是多数吃三天就不吃啦，这样就导致结论情况的出现，所以加强结论。
我想问的是为什么A 不对，我觉得很对，还有一道support也是这么加强的
GWD-10-Q29：GWD-2-14（A）
Smithtown
University’s fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.
Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?
A. Smithtown
University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people. （削弱了）（很好的一个加强的例子，要导一部，在新的方面和其他的一样，那么80%的高很多都是来自于旧的donators，这样的话就加强了）（这题注意同级比较的话也可以加强的，一方面一样，这样的话，另一方面就不一样了）
B. This year the average size of the donations to Smithtown
University from new donors when the university’s fund-raisers had contacted was larger than the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before.（削弱了）
C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown
University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.（加强了结论）（对于old donators 是否需要contact对结论没什么影响，无关，而关心的是
这个80%中有多少是来自新的，有多少来自旧的，这里无法体现，无关）
D. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown
University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before.（削弱了）
紫色的是我看了帖以后的理解，红色是我原来错误的理解
我想问的是 这两道的A 选项很像，为什么一个选，一个不选呢
请各位NN赐教
作者: TheSolution 时间: 2009-4-26 00:31
自己顶
作者: crystal007 时间: 2009-4-26 20:45
第一题
我觉得A是无关选项，题目结论围绕在服用traditional antibiotic和new antibiotic的人里面，前面一组reinfection的几率会大于后面一组的。而A选项说对p过敏的人当中有一些有可能对new antibiotic过敏，完全是无关选项。并不是在讨论用traditional antibiotic和用new antibiotic的人哪个多。
第二题
不明白为什么两题的A选项很像 不觉得很像
另外有个小问题请教： good fund-rasiers应该expand doner base是指扩大doners数量还是扩大new doners的donations占总的比例 ？
作者: TheSolution 时间: 2009-4-26 22:29
对于 good fund-raisers要扩大的是 new donations所占的比例，这样的话才是成功的fund-raiser
我自己仔细看了一下，这2个选项是不怎么像，也不知道我怎么想的
哎
对于第一题，我觉得 如果 new antibiotic are more likely allergic 比 penicillin 大的话，是否能够削弱了结论呢，这样的话，选项A就是排除这种情况 ，不是排除他因的加强吗
请教
作者: crystal007 时间: 2009-4-26 23:29
你是说用new antibiotic比用p更容易过敏，所以削弱结论对吗？
我不太理解，过敏并不是再感染，如果换成再感染，可能就削弱结论了。过敏最多是就停用了，题目在用new 和用traditional的人里面比较，应该是在两组subjects都可以正常使用的情况下吧 我猜
作者: TheSolution 时间: 2009-4-27 16:02
终于明白了
谢谢crystal007
原来的A 是与排除削弱项很像的格式
但是这个无法allergic无法对结论造成什么影响，所以是无关的
O(∩_∩)O~
作者: 毛妖妖 时间: 2009-7-17 16:39
作者: pwss 时间: 2009-7-27 19:50
up
作者: 阳光小捷子 时间: 2010-8-10 15:50
T-3-Q13. 排除法+推论
The traditional treatment of strep infections has been a seven-day course of antibiotics, either penicillin or erythromycin. However, since many patients stop taking those drugs within three days, reinfection is common in cases where these drugs are prescribed. A new antibiotic requires only a three-day course of treatment. Therefore, reinfection will probably be less common in cases where the new antibiotic is prescribed than in cases where either penicillin or erythromycin is prescribed.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A.Some of people who are allergic to penicillin are likely to be allergic to the new antibiotic.（有些人两种药都过敏，没有偏重，无效支持；且部分人是否对药过敏与新药的抗reinforce能力无关）
B.A course of treatment with the new antibiotic costs about the same as a course of treatment with either penicillin or erythromycin.（这里只与新药是否比旧药的抗reinforce能力更强有关，与疗程的成本无关）
C.The new antibiotic has been shown to be effective in eradicating bacterial infections other than strep.（无关）
D.Some physicians have already begun to prescribe the new antibiotic instead of penicillin or erythromycin for the treatment of some strep infections（一些医生已经开始开新药而非旧药给病人只是一个事实，有很多原因导致这个结果的发生，比如新药更便宜或者病人指明要等等，不能直接支持新药的抗reinforce能力更强的观点）
E.Regardless of whether they take a traditional antibiotic or the new one, most patients feel fully recovered after taking the drug for three days.（因为大多数人无论新药旧药都是吃了三天后就觉得自己好了，那么有两种可能：一个是吃旧药，reinforce没有发生；还有就是吃新药，reinforce可能是要发生而被新药抑制了，也可能是没有发生。显然吃旧药reinforce发生的概率是50%，而吃新药的概率就是接近0%。从而证明了新药的抗reinforce能力更强）
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |