一题加强逻辑想不通

Xiaotongdi

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 those 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?

1. Some of the people who are allergic to penicillin are likely to be allergic to the new antibiotic.
   
2. A course of treatment with the new antibiotic costs about the same as a course of treatment with either penicillin or erythromycin.
   
3. The new antibiotic has been shown to be effective in eradicating bacterial infections other than strep.
   
4. Some physicians have already begun to prescribe the new antibiotic instead of penicillin or erythromycin for the treatment of some strep infections.
   
5. Regardless of whether they take a traditional antibiotic or the new one, most patients feel fully recovered after taking the drug for three days.
   

答案是E，怎么解释呢？C不可以吗？还是我根本没读懂意思？

Kb24

The passages discusses about treatment of strep infections. Comparison between new antibiotics and 2 old ones.
Conclusion: The new antibiotics requires shorter course (3 days) - new antibiotics is superior, with less chance of reinfection.
But what if the new antibiotics is not as effective as the other 2 old antibiotics? (a logic gap)

C is irrelevant: we are discussing strep only.
E fills the gap mentioned above: new antibiotics is no less effective.

cdwayne

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 those 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?原文說因為病人常常三天自動停藥導致需時七天的傳統治療失敗(再感染)，現在有個只要三天的抗生素，故推論會效果比較好(再感染下降)。問支持。

Some of the people who are allergic to penicillin are likely to be allergic to the new antibiotic.

有兩種藥可以選擇，P過敏可以換另一種。

A course of treatment with the new antibiotic costs about the same as a course of treatment with either penicillin or erythromycin.
價錢無關，原文想表示因為七天療程變三天所以有效，我們要支持這個因果。

The new antibiotic has been shown to be effective in eradicating bacterial infections other than strep.
同上，況且這邊和原文都沒說舊藥藥效差，說不定更威但耗時。

Some physicians have already begun to prescribe the new antibiotic instead of penicillin or erythromycin for the treatment of some strep infections.
一樣，some太弱先不說，醫生的判斷依據也沒交代，無法支持。

Regardless of whether they take a traditional antibiotic or the new one, most patients feel fully recovered after taking the drug for three days.

(E)因為病人自我感覺良好故三天自行停藥，若用新藥等病人停藥時已完成療程，支持三天藥比較好的論述。

答案是E，怎麼解釋呢？C不可以嗎？還是我根本沒讀懂意思？

-- by 會員 Xiaotongdi (2011/4/25 16:38:47)