- 最后登录
- 2016-7-17
- 在线时间
- 358 小时
- 寄托币
- 633
- 声望
- 21
- 注册时间
- 2010-12-4
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 138
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 675
- UID
- 2969217
- 声望
- 21
- 寄托币
- 633
- 注册时间
- 2010-12-4
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 138
|
本帖最后由 tesolchina 于 2015-7-26 11:17 编辑
Argument 62 进一步研习
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.
==========================
Study result:
(1) The lab study showed that UltraClean (UC) can render 40% greater reduction in the bacteria population than that of the currently used liquid hand soaps in the hospital group. (comparison: lab conditions vs hospital conditions)
(2) Subsequent test of UC at a hospital in Workby, just one branch in the hospital group, reported fewer cases of patient infection than any other hospitals in the group.
Recommendation:
To prevent serious patient infections, we should supply UC at all hand-washing stations throughout the hospital group.
Paraphrase of the logic:
A 和 B在 C 情景中对比发现 A很牛逼,有具体的数据支持 (可能是调查,可能是实验结果,可能是建模分析,有等等可能);
然后,继续演绎:牛逼的A在 D情景中的D1幕中(注意D情景中有N幕)被证实确实是很牛逼。于是牛逼的A就应该在D情景中的N幕中都演女一号
这个过程,已经悄无声息地偷换了很多概念:
(1) C情景中证明A很牛逼,首先这个不一定成立;退一步讲,即使成立,那也是在C情景中,这可不能随随便便就推演到D情景。 C和D的差异需要点出来,点破!
(2)C 和D可能存在逻辑关系,但这种逻辑关系合理的前提是什么?在有些前提下是不合理的。这种逻辑关系也需要点出来,点破!
结合本文分析如下:
(1)lab study的condition 和真实的hospital 的condition不一样,lab study 中证明UC 牛逼,但是在hospital 中不一定牛逼。UC 在lab study 中被证明牛逼这件事本身也不一定就靠谱,比如,在lab study中,大家知道lab 中的实验条件control 做得好,各种灭菌措施每天都搞,可能是UC 和某一种灭菌措施有协同作用使得UC 比 currently used liquid hand soaps 的antibacterial effect 要好,这样其实就不能说明是单独的UC比 currently used liquid hand soaps 牛逼。这其实是指出可能的hidden assumption以达到weaken the argument 的目的。
(2)causes of fewer cases of patient infections at the hospital in Workby?
a. 可能这家分支医院病人就少,case 少就不足为怪;
b. 也可能他家让病人经常洗手,这样降低了infection的chance, case 少也不足为怪;
c. 来他家的patient 免疫力很猛,case 少也不足为怪;
d. 他家经常做定点定时消毒,病房基本无死角,case 少也不足为怪;
e. 他家用的抗菌药是最新组合配方,对病菌杀伤力很有效,case少也不足为怪
反正possible causes 有一堆,只要对这方面的知识有足够的了解,能举出好多.
这么多理由为什么偏偏就说是用了UC的功劳呢?显然这是不能让人信服的!
另一方面有一个硬伤就是,UC 在Workby 这家牛逼,推广到所有的hospital group 就一定照样牛逼吗?水土不服怎么办?
(3)即使UC很猛,杀菌效果很好,但是,请注意,杀菌效果好(只根据bacteria population 多少来定其杀菌效果好坏实也很牵强,这个就不喷了,展开就太多了!)和 chances of patient infection 不是正相关的逻辑。简单地分一下bacteria 的类别,可以分为致病菌和非致病菌(非致病菌又可以分为对人有好处的和对人没有好处也没有坏处的),下面开始喷了:
a. 如果UC是对infection-free bactera 有response, 又如果这些bacteria 对人没有多大坏处也没有多大好处。那你UC 多杀40% 有什么用呢?反正杀多杀少和infection 没有一点联系。
b. 如果UC是对infection-free bacteria 有response, 又如果这些bacteria 比如像肠胃中有些促进消化作用的细菌被UC给干掉了,那其实不仅不会降低infection, 反而会对人的健康产生负面影响。(有点像是倒打一耙!)
感觉arguer 要哭了!
你上面的分析锚地没有提到serious infection这个概念 这明显是原题的一个重要切入点
总的来说 你的分析很好很认真 能找到做这种题的乐趣显然是最理想的效果了
Rewrite:
Grounding on a lab study of UltraClean (UC), a kind of soap, and the subsequent test of UC at the hospital in Workby, the director of the hospital group believes that the UC can reduce the bacterial population by 40%, hence lowering the chances of patient infections. Moreover, the director recommends that all the branches of their hospital group should introduce the UC to replace the currently used liquid hand soaps. Yet the director fails to make a sound recommendation when overlooking kinds of assumptions. Among the assumptions are the reliability of the study, the causes of fewer cases of patient infections at the hospital in Workby, and the relationship among bacterial population, antibacterial effect and patient infections.
Grounding on 没见过这么用
fails to make a sound recommendation when overlooking kinds of assumptions 这个问题我在其他地方反复说过 不要说原论证错了 而要说可能有问题 需要进一步调查
overlooking kinds of assumptions 搭配 这个overlook的使用说明你对assumption这个概念理解不够好
Among the assumptions are 这里的搭配也有问题
To begin with, the reliability of the study is open to kinds of questions. The lab study showed that the UC can reduce the bacterial population by 40% compared with the currently used liquid hand soaps, yet alternatives to such a gap are not ruled out. Maybe the UC together with some kind of antibacterial measure conducted in the lab almost every day does render such a positive result. Under such conditions, the UC alone may not cause the 40% reduction. Moreover, considering the different conditions between labs and hospitals, the positive effect of UC demonstrated by lab may not be applied to the real case in hospitals at all.
open to kinds of questions 不懂你的意思
主题句要指出assumption
alternatives to such a gap 不懂你的意思
some kind of antibacterial measure conducted in the lab 这个不是很靠谱 如果是为了测试soap的杀菌效能 不太可能另外做杀菌处理
Also, it's assumed that fewer cases of patient infections at the hospital in Workby are due to the better effect of UC. While it's highly possible that the branch hospital can only attract very few patients, the fewer infection cases would make sense accordingly. Or the hospital in Workby takes some special measures to guide their patients to wash hands more frequently than any other branch hospital in the hospital group; maybe patients coming to the hospital have a relative stronger immune system to prevent them from the infection cases; maybe the hospital clears their patient rooms with antibacterial agents regularly as to leave little room for the infection cases; maybe the hospital introduces the latest antibacterial drugs to the unlucky patients to make them less vulnerable to the infection cases. Under the scenarios above, the infection cases all can be controlled reasonably; yet it's not necessary owing to the UC's goodness.
it's highly possible that the branch hospital can only attract very few patients 这里讨论病人的绝对数量的思路是对的 但是措辞有问题 怎么可能只能吸引很少的病人呢 你直接说这个医院规模比较小就完了嘛
It is possilbe that Workby is a smaller hospital serving fewer patients on a daily basis than the other hospitals latest antibacterial drugs to the unlucky patients (unlucky?)
感觉这段提出的可能性太多 可以考虑减少一点 多一些解释和展开讨论
Finally, the arguer assumes that by reducing the bacterial population the infection cases will be suppressed. Yet the relationship between bacterial population, antibacterial effect and cases of patient infections can be very complicated. Generally, the bacteria can be divided as infection-related and infection-free. Only to the infection-related conditions, controlling the bacterial population can have a positive relationship with the antibacterial effect hence the infection cases. While as to infection-free conditions, if the UC had a positive response to the bacteria which do no good or no bad, the 40% reduction rendered by UC actually have nothing to do with the infection cases at all; if the positive response was oriented to the bacteria beneficial to our dynamic healthy status, such a 40% reduction just poses a negative effect to our health.
Generally, the bacteria can be divided as infection-related and infection-free. 这个分类放在这里可能把问题搞复杂了 你要注意看题目讲的是serious infection 这个词你需要在文章里处理
To sum up, the recommendation proposed by the director of the hospital group should be reevaluated to rule out possible negative effects. The reliability of the study as well as the causes of the fewer patient infections should be checked out carefully. What's more, the relationship between bacterial population, antibacterial effect and infection cases should be gauged according to the scientific research, especially the latest research.
(1)王老师邀请我给老师的范文提点修改意见,我觉得上面的分析已经很透彻了;感觉老师的点都有,就是没有点破。比如说第三段“Whether or not the extra 40% bacteria reduction would actually make a difference in infection control remains an open question. ” 其实就是在challenge "the relationship between bacterial population, antibacterial effect and infection cases ",只是老师的范文只给了一句,而且这个assumption 是很关键的,打蛇选七寸,我个人觉得把这个最核心的assumption 给掰开了,碾碎了,整个逻辑就算是解析清楚了。
(2) 整个工作用了将近四个多小时,我觉得这种时间上的投入还是很值得的,能把一些逻辑思路真正地看透了,这样便于消化。希望大家以后可以对自己特别熟悉的类型给一些详细的解析。
(3) 当时我练习的时候,其实思路都有了,只是时间紧迫,没有完全展开。感觉重写的过程中对整个逻辑的把握更细致了。
(4) 整个重写感觉是写了一篇科技小报告,呵呵!挺有趣的!
(5) 谢谢老师一直以来的指导,以上的产出源于和老师积极的交流、老师辛勤的反馈,还有不停的善意提醒。呵呵,祝好!
|
|