【寄托No.1】杀G小组 第8次作业 A122

ylhchdUID：3055726

常规训练，
目的是为了增加大家的解题速度，打字速度，句式词汇应用
大家一起加油

题目如下
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.

作业要求：
（1）331的同学3月15晚上之前完成，其他同学16号晚上之前，大家在这个帖子里，每人占一楼，把自己的作业贴上去
（2）具体的内容要求：
    A、写作题目为 新122
    B、一定注意文章的要求，可以参照一下我的那篇word的观点
（3）提交作业之后，请互改的伙伴尽快修改好，一天时间，最多两天，特殊原因跟我说明。
（4）大家要一鼓作气解决G！！！

846136085UID：2987171

作文是现在最大的瓶颈了，感觉没什么可写的，随便说两句就都说完了。
3.5万岁！！！！


In this memo, the author claimed that theUltraClean hand soap reduces 20 percent in patient infections, according to acontrolled lab study and a recent test in Worktown. The argument seems somewhatconvincing, by providing the result of a lab study and the recent test in oneof their hospitals, however, once more details are taken into consideration,some flaws are obvious, since alternative explanations do exist for thephenomena the author has referred to. We can never reach the real explanationand conclusion until more information is procided.

Firstly, the comparability of the resultsin controlled lab study has been affected, since a concentrated solution ofextra strength UltraClean hand soap is used. The performance of the regularregular-strength UltraClean is unknown, since the concentration can increasethe ability of reducing harmful bacterial so much. What's more, it varies somuch from the lab environment to the real working environment in the hospital,where the hand soup itself can be a breeding ground for bacterial if notchanged regularly. So the competency of the extra-strength UltraClean inreduction of harmful bacterial doesn't make much sense, since we will use the regular-strengthUltraClean in a regular environment, but not the extra-strength UltraClean in alab environment.

Secondly, the argument is also based on therecent test of regular-strength UltraClean in Worktown, which has the lowestpercent of patient infection among all the hospitals in this group. But thereare many factors, other than the UltraClean, can lead to the low percent ofpatient infection, such as the climate, the health situation of local people,and the working habit of doctors and nurses. Maybe Worktown is in a place witha clement climate and full of sunshine, and the local people all have goodhygiene habitat, those factors can also lead to much lower percent of patientinfection than a hospital in some moisture and rainy place. So the lowestpercent cannot be explained by the use of UltraClean until more specificinformation is provided.

In addition, one example, which can be arandom result, is far from enough to provide a cogent argument, so more testsin more various place should be done to convince us of the competency of theregular-strength UltraClean.

To sum up, it is our hope to have aneffective way to reduce the percent of patient infection, but the authordoesn't provide enough information to convince us the better effectiveness ofUltraClean as he claims. The author should be more prudent to make explanationsand conclusions from what is observed.

leijerry888UID：3143968

哭了，写完不见了:mad:

琼央UID：3236722

In this memo, the author owes the 20 percent reduction in patient infections to the use of ultraclean soap, having concerned it reduced more than 40 percent harmful bacteria than the current hand soaps. It surely provides some valuable information in making such an explanation, but still some other factors may also lead to the same result.

First, the liquid hand soaps currently used in the hospitals may come from a below-average company of which the products just can't compete with any other kinds of liquid hand soap in the market, including the Ultraclean .Very likely a bribe or something exist in the supply department of these hospitals, helping to choose the below-quality liquid soaps and put them into actual use. In this way ,the extra strength UltraClean showed its great competitiveness in reducing bacteria compared with the not-qualified current ones, no matter UltraClean really works out great or not.

Second, the current-used liquid hand soaps may suffer from polution during the delivering period and obviously, nobody was informed of the changes. For medical use, even a minor change will lead to severe outcomes.In this case, the liquid hand soaps may
tragidically turned out to be the perfect cradle for bacteria to grow and no way to kill them, thus, any other functional liquid hand soaps shall beat the current-used ones. So the result of the study, say using the UltraClean lowered
the
level of bacteria like 40 percent was not cogent enough to convince us the supreme quality of it.

Last, the hospital in Worktown may be so well constructed that ensured a 20 percent lower chance of patient infection itself, with or without the UltraClean. To guarantee the low infection rate of a hospital not only depends on the cleaning and nursing supplies, but also the hard wares of a hospital. For example, with the precisely equipped and managed air-conditioning system, the polluted air can find its way out fluently while the fresh air keeps coming in, building a healthy-breathing environment for people in the hospital. It thus makes sense that the hospital in Worktown enjoy fewer cases of patient infection say 20 percent, and UltraClean is not the ultimate reason.

With the existences of these three alternative explanations and maybe more not mentioned in this passage, more strong details are needed to support the author in
order to make a convincing conclusion.

写恶心了==我真是不想再写作文了==些了i就忘了a怎么写的

cinkieUID：2933620

30min 429words
这篇argument写的实在是很纠结啊。。。

In this argument, the director claims that UltraClean soap is superior to the liquid hand soaps presently used. To buttress his conclusion, he cites several facts that both in laboratory and hospital in Worktown, UltraClean soap appears to have more reduction in infection. The conclusion seems plausible at first glance, nevertheless, close scrutiny reveals that certain alternative explanations might undermine the result.

To begiin with, the director informs that the controlled laboratory study shows better cleaning skills of UltraClean hand soap. What we know is merely the result of the research, and it is entirely possible that the study is not precise in itself. On the one hand, the director does not inform us of the scale and quantity of the samples. Shortage of sample quantities might prove the study imprecise and unconvincing because minor variances would strongly undermine the results and thus the conclusion. On the other hand, we also lack the information that whether the target objects are fundamentally the same. Chances are high that the objects used in the UltraClean group have less bacteria in itself, and therefore the misleading 40 percent greater reduction. Besides, the fact that the experimental hospital uses the regular-strength UltraClean soap rather than extra-strength UltraClean soap in the laboratory is extremely suspicious. The laboratory desires more intelligible effects and uses the extra-strength one that might be dangerous if used in hospital. Each scenario, if true, would rival the explanation and conclusion that UltraClean soap is better.

Moreover, different situations of different hospitals would lead to diverse conclusions. The director wrongfully assumes that all the hospitals in the group have exactly the same sanitary conditions and that UltraClean soap used in hospital in Worktown have a satisfying effect. There is a possibily that the hospital in Worktown is the cleanest among the rest of the hospitals and thusly reports fewer infections. Without detailed information of the sanitary conditions in different hospitals, the director could not reach the conclusion.

In addition, the sincerity of the reports of the Worktown hospital is also dubious. It is likely and reasonable that the hospital wants to cover its real situation and leave better impressions in the mind of the headquarters and consequently reduces the cases of patient infection.  

To sum up, well-intentioned as the argument is, the director could not make the hasty generalization that UltraClean hand soap is better than the liquid hand soap from the results above. Several alternative explanations would severely emaciate the justification of his conclusion. To further establish his discovery, the director should make cautious and careful observations of these facts.

良药重口UID：3214270

The director recommends that we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout our hospital system. To support this conclusion, the director points out that a concentrated solution of UltraClean kills more bacteria population than the liquid hand soaps currently used, and that there are fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals. However, if we were to examine this conclusion more closely, there seems to be a great deal of assumptions built up in this argument that make us reconsider the director's proposal.

To begin with, the arguer claims that the concentrated solution of UltraClean produce a percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than that currently used in a laboratory study. Nevertheless, the arguer makes a naive assumption that only a single laboratory report could prove that the concentrated solution of UltraClean is necessarily more effective and efficient. Common sense tells us that the result of an experiment could never be valid or representative unless the experiment was implemented several times. The conclusion would never be cogent until the arguer could prove the validity and representativeness of the result of the laboratory study.

In addition, even if the arguer could substantiate the validity and representativeness of the result of the laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, the conclusion might remain unacceptable. The director assumes that the concentrated solution of UltraClean would certainly be effective and efficient in realistic condition while that solution might be advantageous in lab condition. However, it might turn out to be the case that the concentrated solution cannot work well in real hospitals instead of lab condition because the effective constituent of the solution might be destroyed by something like strong light. Unless the arguer could rule out the possibilities that may weaken his or her conclusion, we can never accept his or her proposal.

Finally, even if the director could provide evidence that the concentrated solution of UltraClean is effective even in realistic condition, the arguer still have to provide additional evidence to support his or her conclusion. By assuming that the concentrated solution of UltraClean is the only effective hand soaps on current market, the director achieves his conclusion that we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout our hospital system. However, it is entirely possible that there exists a sort of hand soaps, which might be much more effective in contrast with that of UltraClean. In that case, we should choose that hand soaps instead of the UltraClean one. Without furthermore investigations, it is impertinent to make that conclusion that we have to supply the UltraClean hand soaps for our hospitals.

In sum, due to the obvious holes and dubious assumption above, the conclusion reached in this argument is unwarranted and misleading. In order to make the arguer's recommendation more logically acceptable, the arguer would have to verify that the UltraClean hand soaps would work well as it does in laboratory situation and prove that the UltraClean hand soaps is the only available hand soaps on the market. Moreover, if the hospitals were to seek for more effective hand soaps, they would benefit from a norm survey among a wide range of hand soaps and then determine which to choose.

babyenochUID：3153670

(30min, 454 words)
In the memo, the arguer advocates that the explanation for the 20 percent reduction in patient infections is the use of UltraClean soap. He offers several evidences to back his conclusion. A close scrutiny about the argument, however, will reveal that it is rife with a series of holes and poor assumptions, and thus is wholly unpersuasive. Several alternative explanations could rival the proposed explanation.

The first point, the arguer cites a study to back his explanation which indicates that a concentrated solution of extra strength UC hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacteria than did the liquid hand soap currently used in their hospital. An assumption being made is that the study is reliable. He, however, fails to offer evidence to back this assumption. Perhaps the program of this study is not rational; or perhaps the process of this study did not go exactly according to the program, though the program is reasonable; or perhaps the researchers were influenced by the stakeholders, thus the result of the study is untenable. In short, without evidence of the study's reliability, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusion based on this study.

Then, given that the study is reliable, the result of the laboratory study may not properly apply to normal hospital environment. Perhaps the UC soap is degradable easily under light or room temperature, and in the laboratory the UC soap can be stored stably, but may not in the hospital. Thus the soap would be not as effective in the hospital as in the laboratory.

Moreover, it is unfair to infer that it is the use of UC soap which leads to the reduction in patient infection based solely on the evidence that the hospital which uses UC have fewer cases of patient infection than that of other hospitals. The inference relies on an assumption that it is the use of UC soap, rather than any other factors, was responsible for result. It is untenable. Many alternative explanations can explain this result. Perhaps the hospital used UC soap takes many other measures to decrease the reduction in patient infections. Or perhaps the patient infections in the Worktown are always fewer than that of other hospitals even before using the UC soap in that the climate in Worktown is pleasant. In short, without accounting for these and other possible factors, the explanation is unconvinced.

In sum, the paragraph given only scratches the surface of what should be done in order to making the argument powerful enough to substantiate that the only explanation for the 20 percent reduction in patient infections is the use of UltraClean soap. Much more work is needed done by the company before the explanation is accepted.

我居然在30min内写完了。。。看来训练还是有效果的。。不过有几个词敲错了，发上来之前修改过了
觉得这种explanation真心不好写，题库里要求写explanation的题目一共只有十道左右吧，貌似每题的信息含量都要比其他题少一点。。然后就没话可写了-。=

zlatan9UID：2458066

Concerning the memo from the director of a large group of hospital, the writer made the conclusion that using the Ultraclean soap has a positive effect to reduction in patients infection. However, his explanations are limited, and the memo needs more explanation to support its convincing.
First, the analogy between laborary and hospital is absurd, and we must state that the two has a same background of study. It is surely that the environment of the laborary and hospital is different, and in common sence, the bacteria in hospital has a variety of spieces than that of the laborary. So, to make the analogy more convincing, we must state out that the two has a same background of study, such as type of bacteria, temperture and so on.
What is more, we need to provide the total number of harmful bacteria among this investigation. The author states that in the laborary study, the new hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacterial, and we do not know thet total number of bacteria, For instance, if the number is 10, and after the use of new wahser, 4 is cut, so, I do not think such data is convincing, and I do not think such minimal effects in reducing bacteria is useful in daily work.
Second, to support the argument more sufficient, whether the new type of the hand soap is the uique factor to produce the reduction is required. We need to mentioned that every hospital has a same effect facor that is the new hand soap. Without mentioned that there has no other factor in this test, it will be ridiculous to make the conclusion that the UltraClean hand soap is the key factor in reducing the bacteria.
Then, in this study, we should show out evidence whether the people who join the investigation has a same condition, such as health, the ability of immuning, and environment of every hospital. As there has different condition  of the test taker, the result is surely to be difference. In this investigation, I think we need to clarify that everyone who joined has a equal condition of study, so that the result will be more convicing and trustful to readers.
Above all,  the explanation of the argumnent is limited. To convince readers, the author is due to have other powerful explanation to support his ideal, such as mentioned above.  So that, the statement will be much more trustful.

写的很匆忙，大家狠狠批。36min, 409 words

greenbeanmeimeiUID：2854957

写了40min~~~速度有待提高，拼写有待提高~~小央 狠狠批吧:D
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.

The director of a large group of hospitals announced in the memo that UltraClean soap is a good measure of antiseptic effort. The soap is mentioned in the memo as a powerful antiseptic against bacteria than any other counterpart currently used in the hospital group. However, laboratory success does not mean clinical success. Many alternative explanations can be offered to explain the fact of a large percent of reduction in the single hospital in Worktown.

There is no denying that UltraClean soap produced 40 percent reduction than other liquid hand soaps currently used. While the results of laboratory study cannot tell the whole story of targeted subject unless premiere conditions are offered. Cases are that greater concentration of the UltraClean results in better performances. The controlled laboratory study cannot ensure rigid identical in every aspects of the study group just as the memo implied. There are chances that currently used hand soaps are well soluted in the water, which takes up less than 1% of the whole solution while UltraClean subjects were studied in a raw state. Thus, a densely concentrated solution compared with a sparsely diluted one is no more than a excuse to make better product promotion for UltraClean.

If we take a closer look at its good application in Worktown, fallacies are well above the water as well. The good clinical performance of bacteria battling in the real world cannot necessarily contribute to UltraClean itself. Other factors may also be contributions. For example, the hospital in Worktown might have a more cutting-edge antiseptic system which includes ultravialet ray protection. Perhaps Worktown's hospital was well under supervision of its state's health organization that both the workforce and visitors paid more attention to sanitation. Or perhaps, regulations in this place forced hospital members equipped with all kinds of prevention measures in face of a recently r pendamic bacteria-induced case. All of the explanations might have been the potential factors that answer to the reduction of infected cases.

A step further, another explanation might be ignored. The major components of the soap solution might of volatile properties in both the currently used ones and newly introduced UltraClean. Under such conditions, there are possibilities that the main elements had already volatilized in the currently soap liquid the moment they were used in laboratory as well as in the real world. While luckily, UltraClean's major elements were quiet concentrated at that moment since it were newly produced and put into effect. This fatal reduction of sanitation components could be a very good explanation to the diminishing effectiveness of the antiseptics.

In a nutshell, all of the explanations mentioned above are potential alternative explanations in response to the fact of better bacteria antiseptics. Other factors such as overall surroundings of hospitals and law implements should all be taken into consideration if the director of this health group were to arrive at a cogent conclusion.

greenbean绿豆
自信的孩子不怕苦！

@璐璐UID：3054959

331报到~~

chasedream2012UID：3238888

WORDS: 420          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2012/3/15 21:29:22

In this argument, the speaker draws his conclusion by citing several facts. However, under close examination we can find that his assertion is really ill-founded since other substitute explanations can be account for these facts.

To begin with, the speaker points out that Ultra Clean (UC) soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacteria than their current used liquid hand soap by citing a study. Nonetheless, the speaker provides no detail about this research about the UC soap, chance is that the researchers do not perform the research well and the study is incredible. Moreover, it is entirely possible that this research is performed by the manufacturer of UC soap and hence the effectiveness of UC soap has been hyped by purpose. Without ruling out these possible explanations, this argument would be great weakened.

Besides, the speaker also concludes that UC soap has produced 20 percent reduction patient infections in Worktown hospital after they have utilized the UC soap instead current one. Nevertheless, it is common sense that the patient infections are also hinge on the conditions of patient, the techniques of doctors, the tender of nurses and the sanitation of hospitals etc. and it is completely possible that those characteristics of Worktown are better than other hospitals and the patient infections of Worktown is also lower than other hospitals in earlier time, while the speaker provide no specific information about the patient infections of these hospitals; therefore these possible explanations would greatly undermine the conclusion of the speaker.

In addition, in the research of UC soap in Worktown hospital, no control experiment has been set up, which can render the research incredible. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the doctors, nurses and visitors would cater the researchers and hype the efficacy of the UC soap. For example, the doctors would try their best to treat the patients, and nurses would spare no effort to tender the patients and visitors would hype the efficiency of the soap purposely. The evidence of these possibilities would great weaken the credibility of the speaker's conclusion.

In sum, since other possible explanations can account for these facts provided by speaker. In order to substantiate the assertion the speaker should provide additional evidence to corroborate that the research is reliable and provide specific evidence of the patient infections of Worktown and other hospitals in earlier time, and the research in Worktown should set up control experiments in other hospitals and  make sure that the liquid soap and UC soap is the only variance.

chasedream2012UID：3238888

发重了,不好意思,明天来修改...

琼央UID：3236722

9# greenbeanmeimei

我觉得你这篇写得很好哎。。还有一个原因是我这次看题目都看得乱七八糟的。。。真是不知道怎么改。。 我不敢乱改啊因为我的理解好像很有问题。。。