Argument 62 猛攻Argu中， 请大家狠拍！ 先谢过了~~~
The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.
"In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of UltraClean at our hospital in Workby, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in our group. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout our hospital system."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
1. 只知比例不知总量，实验不能证明UC效果好
2. 错误比较，医院差异（患者数量、防护措施）
3. 草率推广，地区差异->菌种差异
The suggestion that UltraClean should be supplied at all hand-washing stations throughout their hospital system seems at first glance to be helpful. After all, the tests of UltraClean both in laboratory and at the hospital in Workby show good results. However, the argument is flawed by a series of unwarranted assumptions, which may result in a wrong chose for hospitals to prevent serious patient infections.
Firstly, the director assumes that the 40 percent reduction is a sharp decrease of bacteria population. However, this may not be the case. With the absent of the total number of bacteria population took as a sample and that reduced by the liquid hand soaps, the actual effect can not be sure. For example, if 10000 bacteria are taken as a sample and only 1 percent is reduced by the liquid hand soaps, then the number of bacteria killed by the liquid hand soaps to UltraClean is 100 to 140. Considering the surviving bacteria, the increment is too little to be ignored. In this case, we can hardly draw a conclusion that UltraClean is much effective than liquid hand soaps from the test in laboratory.
Secondly, the director compares the effect of UltraClean at the hospital in Workby with other liquid hand soaps at other hospitals. However, the director fails to consider the differences between different hospitals which may greatly influence the result of the test, for example, the number of the patients and other protective measures in the hospital. If the hospital in Workby is the smallest one in the hospital system with few patients and frequently disinfection everyday, it is more likely that infections there are less than at other hospitals. In such case, it is unfair to claim that UltraClean works better than other liquid hand soaps.
Even if UltraClean does show a better effect in the test at the hospital in Workby, the suggestion is also badly injured by the assumption that the situations of all other hospitals are same as the hospital in Workby. As we know, the bacteria in different areas always have different characteristics because of the local weather and even the habits of the locals. But the argument provides no evidence which can confirm that UltraClean is effective on all the bacteria in all hospitals. Without powerful evidence, it is hasty to supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout the hospital system.
In sum, the recommendation of the director is unconvincing with the assumptions mentioned above. To improve the argument, the director must provide complete data of the tests and more information about the hospitals. What is more, only after a comprehensive study can we make a final choice between UltraClean and other liquid hand soaps. | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-5-15 22:27:39
收藏
收藏
