Argument98 第1篇 ------题目------
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 Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of Nadasept at our hospital in Saluda, 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 Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout our hospital system.'
------正文------
Before accepting the auger’s recommendation of supplying Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout the hospital system based on the result of the laboratory and a subsequent test, I find this argument is flawed in scant evidence and unfounded generalization.
To begin with, this argument is problematic involves with the laboratory study .Common sense informs us as a study to be accurate, there must be a control group and experimental group.However,the arguer provides nothing about whether there are a control group and the information about the age and health situation about the patient sampled. It is possible that most of the patient sampled in the study are children who are more likely to be infected regardless whether using the hand soap or not Or perhaps that a concentrated solution of the liquid hand soaps currently used in the hospital might kill more than 40 percent bacteria. It is equally possible that the hand soaps now used are not concentrated but might be very effective in killing bacterium. Given without the information about the control group and the efficacy of the hand soap currently used in the hospital system, the assumption that the proposed will be effective is undermined.
Second, the fact that fewer cases of patient infection were reported in the hospital of Saluda does not preclude that there were actually more patient infected. Perhaps the hospital of Saluda want to receive some kind of reward by effectively reduce the number of patient infection. It is also likely that the proposed hand soap Nasadsept has a disastrous effect which might lead to 90 percent of the patients infected. It is also likely that Nasadsept has a lot of side effects which will do harm to health.Futhermore,the arguer provides how soon does the subsequent test was taken, if the interval is too short ,we cannot conclude any informative conclusion in a short time period. For these matters, the assumption that the hand soap Nasadsept will be effective on killing bacteria is weakened.
Last but not least, even assuming that Nasadsept has a better effect on prevent patients infection, we cannot not assume that it could prevent serious patient infections. It is known to us all that infection could not been equal to serious infection, if this were the case, then the conclusion have merits ,however, no evidence is provided to demonstrate this were the case. The conclusion is unconvincing in the definition of serious infection, if it were some kind of lethal infection, then it could never been prevented only by using some kind of soap regardless of the efficacy of the soap .Without giving information about what is serious infection, the arguer could not hastily draws the conclusion.
In sum, this argument is not cogent as it stands. In order to strengthen the argument, the arguer should have provided substantial evidence that the results of the study and the subsequent were statistically reliable. To better assess the argument, the arguer should have given a definition of serious infection.作者: lawrence1984 时间: 2005-4-11 12:13:30
没人理，自己顶了。作者: kekesheng 时间: 2005-4-11 13:09:09
看看作者: kekesheng 时间: 2005-4-11 13:50:01
Argument98 第1篇 ------题目------
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 Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of Nadasept at our hospital in Saluda, 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 Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout our hospital system.'
------正文------
Before accepting the auger’s recommendation of supplying Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout the hospital system based on the result of the laboratory and a subsequent test, I find this argument is flawed in scant evidence and unfounded generalization.（也很简洁，明了）
To begin with, this argument is problematic involves with the laboratory study .Common sense informs us as a study to be accurate; there must be a control group and experimental group. However, the arguer provides nothing about whether there are a control group and the information about the age and health situation （condition or status 可能要好些吧）about the patient sampled. It is possible that most of the patient sampled in the study are children who are more likely to be infected regardless （of ,好像要加，在这里我也不是很确定）whether using the hand soap or not Or perhaps that a concentrated solution of the liquid hand soaps currently used in the hospital might kill more than 40 percent bacteria. It is equally possible that the hand soaps now used are not concentrated but might be very effective in killing bacterium. Given （given 是表假定的，这里建议你换一个表因果关系的连词）without the information about the control group and the efficacy of the hand soap currently used in the hospital system, the assumption that the proposed will be effective is undermined.
Second, the fact that fewer cases of patient infection were reported in the hospital of Saluda does not preclude that there were actually more patient infected. Perhaps the hospital of Saluda want to receive some kind of reward by effectively reduce the number of patient infection. It is also likely that the proposed hand soap Nasadsept has a disastrous effect which might lead to 90 percent of the patients infected. It is also likely that Nasadsept has a lot of side effects which will do harm to health.Futhermore,the arguer provides （that）how soon does the subsequent test was taken, if the interval is too short ,we cannot conclude any informative conclusion in a short time period. For these matters, the assumption that the hand soap Nasadsept will be effective on killing bacteria is weakened.
Last but not least, even assuming that Nasadsept has a better effect on prevent patients infection, we cannot not assume that it could prevent serious patient infections. It is known to us all that infection could not been equal to serious infection, if this were the case,(这句你是针对前面那句known来说的吧，如果是的话，后面的衔接意思好像反了) then the conclusion have merits ,however, no evidence is provided to demonstrate this were the case. The conclusion is unconvincing in the definition of serious infection, if it were some kind of lethal infection, then it could never been prevented only by using some kind of soap regardless of the efficacy of the soap .Without giving information about what is serious infection, the arguer could not hastily draws the conclusion.
In sum, this argument is not cogent as it stands. In order to strengthen the argument, the arguer should have provided substantial evidence that the results of the study and the subsequent were statistically reliable. To better assess the argument, the arguer should have given a definition of serious infection.
第一篇这样很不错了。
不好意思，我不知道怎么变颜色！作者: lawrence1984 时间: 2005-4-11 14:02:14
谢谢！作者: 点点滴滴走过 时间: 2005-4-11 14:18:27
up作者: 点点滴滴走过 时间: 2005-4-11 14:34:29
Argument98 第1篇 ------题目------
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 Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of Nadasept at our hospital in Saluda, 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 Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout our hospital system.'
Before accepting the auger’s recommendation of supplying Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout the hospital system based on the result of the laboratory and a subsequent test, I find this argument is flawed in scant evidence and unfounded generalization.
我觉得还是丛述一下题目比较好
To begin with, this argument is problematic involves with有问题 the laboratory study .Common sense informs us as a study to be accurate, 应多用术语there must be a control group and experimental group.However,the arguer provides nothing about whether there are a control group and the information about the age and health situation about the patient sampled. It is possible that most of the patient sampled in the study are children who are more likely to be infected regardless whether using the hand soap or not Or perhaps that a concentrated solution of the liquid hand soaps currently used in the hospital might kill more than 40 percent bacteria. 应该还有量的问题It is equally possible that the hand soaps now used are not concentrated but might be very effective in killing bacterium. Given without the information about the control group and the efficacy of the hand soap currently used in the hospital system, the assumption that the proposed will be effective is undermined.
Second, the fact that fewer cases of patient infection were reported in the hospital of Saluda does not preclude that there were actually more patient infected. Perhaps the hospital of Saluda want to receive some kind of reward by effectively reduce the number of patient infection. It is also likely that the proposed hand soap Nasadsept has a disastrous effect which might lead to 90 percent of the patients infected. It is also likely that Nasadsept has a lot of side effects which will do harm to health.Futhermore,the arguer provides how soon does the subsequent test was taken, if the interval is too short ,we cannot conclude any informative conclusion in a short time period. For these matters, the assumption that the hand soap Nasadsept will be effective on killing bacteria is weakened.
Last but not least, even assuming that Nasadsept has a better effect on prevent patients infection, we cannot not assume that it could prevent serious patient infections. It is known to us all that infection could not been equal to serious infection, if this were the case, then the conclusion have merits ,however, no evidence is provided to demonstrate this were the case. The conclusion is unconvincing in the definition of serious infection,好，非常棒 if it were some kind of lethal infection, then it could never been prevented only by using some kind of soap regardless of the efficacy efficiencyof the soap .Without giving information about what is serious infection, the arguer could not hastily draws the conclusion.
In sum, this argument is not cogent as it stands. In order to strengthen the argument, the arguer should have provided substantial evidence that the results of the study and the subsequent were statistically reliable. To better assess the argument, the arguer should have given a definition of serious infection.
很好，只有点小问题，在努力拿6分作者: lawrence1984 时间: 2005-4-12 13:07:53