ChaseDream

标题: og v 45 [打印本页]

作者: abc791201064 时间: 2013-6-5 20:35
标题: og v 45
这个题目木有看懂。。。求逻辑链谢谢

45. Often patients with ankie fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-rays
because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. When a
number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were
found to have healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fractures
initially judged stable.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge
the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.
(B) Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the x-ray not to involve any fracture
of the ankle.
(C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.
(D) The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always checked by means of a
follow-up x-ray.
(E) Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bones other than ankle bones.
Argument Evaluation
Situation Often patients with ankle fractures that their orthopedists have judged not to require
surgery are given follow-up x-rays to check whether the fracture healed correctly. An
examination of a sample of those x-rays found that the ankle had, in each case, healed
properly.
Reasoning The question is which of the options, iftrue, would most strengthen the argument. The
argument is based on data concerning follow-up x-rays, each of which revealed no
problem with the orthopedist’s initial judgment that the ankle fracture was stable (and
would heal without surgery). This invites the question whether the follow-up x-rays
are really needed. The argument concludes that they are a waste of money. But
was the x-ray data truly representative of orthopedists generally? After all, some
orthopedists—perhaps more experienced, better-trained, or employed at a facility with
better staff or facilities—may be much better than others at judging ankle fractures. If
we add the information that the data for the conclusion comes from many orthopedists
working at many different hospitals, we have greater assurance that the x-ray data is
representative, and the argument will be made much stronger.
A Neither the study nor the conclusion that is drawn from it concerns general practitioners, so this
point is irrelevant.
B Naturally many ankle injuries do not involve fractures—x-rays may sometimes be used to
determine this—but the argument concerns only cases where there have been ankle fractures.
C Correct. This shows that the sample of x-ray data examined was probably sufficiently
representative of cases of ankle fracture judged to be stable by orthopedists.
D The argument does not concern cases of ankle fracture that have been surgically repaired.
E The argument concerns only x-rays of ankles. From the information given here, we cannot infer
that orthopedists are generally wasteful in routinely ordering follow-up x-rays.
The correct answer is C

作者: maestri 时间: 2013-6-6 08:31
题干大概意思是：
前提1：被鉴定为stable的angle要求做follow up X光以免误判
前提2：当看了很多的X片后，发现这些被照的angle都恢复得很好
结论为：最初被鉴定为stable的angle没必要照X光后续跟踪

这个题的解体思路应该是：题干中调查的样本量正确且充分的
C答案就是这一个思路：不同医院不同医生的病人的X光片都被看了（肯定了调查样本的可支持性）

举个例子：
看到一个学校的大量女生的照片都是美女，就判断这个学校的女生都是美女。这个判断是不科学的；
但是如果这个照片范围涉及到不同年级不同班级，则增加了样本的可信度，就能起到正面支持作用。

作者: abc791201064 时间: 2013-6-6 17:22

maestri 发表于 2013-6-6 08:31
题干大概意思是：
前提1：被鉴定为stable的angle要求做follow up X光以免误判
前提2：当看了很多的X片后， ...

正确您这么以后所我倒是懂了我对survey incestigation 这种词比较敏感但是对review这种词语不明感哈哈谢谢！！！

作者: abc791201064 时间: 2013-6-6 17:25

maestri 发表于 2013-6-6 08:31
题干大概意思是：
前提1：被鉴定为stable的angle要求做follow up X光以免误判
前提2：当看了很多的X片后， ...

review  [re·view || rɪ'vjuː]
n.  再检查; 批评, 评论; 复审; 评论杂志
v.  再检查, 重新探讨; 批评, 评论; 复审; 回顾, 回忆; 写评论, 写书评; 复习功课, 温习功课

作者: Vivian1091 时间: 2013-8-2 15:07
看了这么多帖子，就这个说到点子上了

作者: M猫Fishoo 时间: 2013-8-30 20:52
原来是调查样本的原因, 都没想到那块去

作者: abc791201064 时间: 2013-8-31 00:13

Vivian1091 发表于 2013-8-2 15:07
看了这么多帖子，就这个说到点子上了

给你说最近想了很多关于helr 感觉这个helr的因果果因还有因果相关还是有点不好操作
我想了还是用这个办法读题仍然按照Bible那个方法读仍然是找逻辑链判断是不是方案类比或者枚举就行了如果是用helr的办法如果不是那就不要再分什么了直接用相关做吧TAT helr讲的让我感觉很好的就是类比枚举和方案你感觉呢？

作者: Vivian1091 时间: 2013-8-31 08:46

abc791201064 发表于 2013-8-31 00:13
给你说最近想了很多关于helr 感觉这个helr的因果果因还有因果相关还是有点不好操作
我想了还是用 ...

是啊，因果方案果因这三种，确实判断出来推理类型以后，就不太好做了，只用helr的话。那我也看看bible

作者: 啊不抓抓 时间: 2013-10-9 20:24

Vivian1091 发表于 2013-8-31 08:46
是啊，因果方案果因这三种，确实判断出来推理类型以后，就不太好做了，只用helr的话。那我也看看bible ...

vivian 我刚开始用helr 你说判断出来推理类型之后为啥就都不太好做了？

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)