- UID
- 744311
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-4-2
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
122 The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.
In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps, a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacteria than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During our recent test of regular-strength UltraClean with doctors, nurses, and visitors at our hospital in Worktown, the hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection (a 20 percent reduction) than did any of the other hospitals in our group. The explanation for the 20 percent reduction in patient infections is the use of UltraClean soap."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
提纲：
1. 实验室结果不具备说服力。实验室与医院菌种可能不一样。用到医院可能由于环境影响失效。
2. W医院的病人人数未知，如果显著少于其他医院则无意义，而且W可能接受病人类型与其他的不一样。
3.没有考虑到大面积推广的副作用。
At first glance, it might appear rational to concur with the author’s suggestion that UltraClean should be widely applied within the group of hospital. And, objectively, we do cannot rule out the possibility that UltraClean is effective in preventing infection. Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes obvious that too many alternative explanations may be responsible for the result reported and, therefore, render the argument a less cogent one.
Using data from a laboratory study, the author implies that UltraClean is of stronger cleaning effect than soaps now used in their hospitals. Remarkably little, however, is known about the bacteria used in the lab and the one in the hospital. If, for example, the two are sharply different, then UltraClean’s performance might not be as good as reported in the lab. In addition, it is not clear whether the result of lab study can be used as an accurate indicator about UltraClean’s performance in the hospital. The composition of the air in the hospital may be far more complicated than that in the controlled lab. Thus, the possibility exists that some chemical in the air of the hospital might react with UltraClean and neutralize the substance against bacteria. Unless the author can eliminate, beyond any doubt, the two possibilities above, UltraClean’s bacteria-killing ability in the hospital is open to question.
Furthermore, the author states that, in the recent test, UltraClean explains the few cases of patient cases reported from their hospital in Worktown. Although the introduction of a new kind of soap would likely to reduce infection, an exact casual relationship fails to be definitely established. We don’t know, for instance, the number of patients in the group of hospitals. The hospital in Worktown may accept far fewer patients than does any other hospital and therefore the infection rate of patient may still higher than other hospitals. Or perhaps Worktown hospital is special hospital whose patients mainly suffer from heart diseases which are unlikely to spread infection, while other hospitals are general hospital whose clients contains more patients with epidemic diseases. Without providing addition information to exclude these alternatives, UltraClean’s real effect is suspicious.
Granted that UltraClean has a crucial role to play in the test, the author fails to consider its side effect—one thing that is of vital importance in judging whether one substance is suitable to be introduced to the hospital. If a later study shows that the percentage of common people who are allergic to UltraClean beyond the standard set by the hospital, then its apply should be strictly controlled. Or, albeit UltraClean can successfully contain the growth of some bacteria, it may play a positive role in cultivating other kinds of bacteria. If at all, a more careful scrutiny is indispensible before the extensive application of UltraClean. Only if the argument covers the potential problem of UltraClean can it rationalize UltraClean’s application.
Certainly, it is reasonable for a hospital to curb infection by bringing in new cleaning soaps. The author’s argument, nevertheless, is unlikely to justify his assertion. There are, at least, three pieces of information needed to be added in ruling out alternative explanations: the composition of the bacteria in the hospital; a more concrete comparison between Worktown hospital and other hospitals; the potential side effect of UltraClean.
542字。请各位指教，这篇写的模板痕迹重不重？是否还要更深入的攻击？多谢！ |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-6-24 23:50:09
收藏
收藏
楼主
