argument98 香皂防止感染 欢迎派砖

comingsoonUID: 175137

ArgumentX 额外题库 第9篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：28分8秒     429 words
从2005年2月26日10时30分到2005年2月26日10时28分
------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------
In the argument, the author argues that Nadasept should be supplied to all hand washing stations throughout our hospital system based on the result of a study and a subsequent test in the hospital in Saluda. The argument seems to be logical at the first glance, but a careful scrutiny, however, would reveal many unproven assumptions as discussed below.

To begin with, the author assumes that Nadasept would be of great use and help in that from the result of the study cited in the argument a concentrated solution of Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used. However, this is not necessary the case at all. Since the result might be attributed to the particular environment or other distinct factors in the lab, the effect of Nadasept to kill bacteria may not be as efficient as in the lab because the process of killing bacteria might be affected by physical or chemical factors in the outer environment which could severely reduce its effective effect of killing bacteria. Without evidence about the environment in the study, the applicability of the study result is open to doubt.

Furthermore, even if we concede that Nadasept is also of the same efficiency in killing bacteria in reality, the argument remains doubtful. The author wrongly assumes that its high efficiency would undoubtedly lead to its effect of preventing serious patient infections. However, it is highly possible that the 40 percent more bacteria killed by Nadasept are less harmful ones instead of those that cause serious infections. In addition, perhaps Nadasept has no advantages over other types of soap in killing such harmful bacteria. Lacking such evidence concerning the kind of bacteria Nadasept kills, the author's assertion is however groundless.

Even if sufficient information is found to support Nadasept’s efficiency of avoiding serious infections, it could not necessarily explain the fact of fewer cases of patient infection in the hospital in Saluda. Since the argument does not provide any information concerning specific condition about this hospital such as environment or doctors in this hospital, it is entirely possible that fewer infections are indeed the result of better hygiene or more advanced instruments of killing bacteria. Or it also might be the case that few patients go to this hospital considering its poor skills of doctors and relatively bad hygiene that lead to fewer serious infections than any of other hospitals in the group.

In sum, the argument has several flaws as it stands and thus is not believable at all. The author should provide more specific evidence concerning the relationship between the high efficiency of killing bacteria of Nadasept and the fact of fewer serious patient infections in the hospital of Saluda to make the argument more convincing.

mariaUID: 197971

In the argument, the author argues that Nadasept should be supplied to all hand washing stations throughout our hospital system based on the result of a study and a subsequent test in the hospital in Saluda. The argument seems to be logical at the first glance, but a careful scrutiny, however, would reveal many unproven assumptions as discussed below.

To begin with, the author assumes that Nadasept would be of great use and help in that from the result of the study cited in the argument a concentrated solution of Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used. However, this is not necessary the case at all. Since the result might be attributed to the particular environment or other distinct factors in the lab, the effect of Nadasept to kill bacteria may not be as efficient as in the lab because the process of killing bacteria might be affected by physical or chemical factors in the outer environment which could severely reduce its effective effect of killing bacteria. Without evidence about the environment in the study, the applicability of the study result 改为Nadasept 或许更好吧 is open to doubt.

Furthermore, even if we concede that Nadasept is also of the same efficiency in killing bacteria in reality, the argument still remains doubtful. The author wrongly assumes that its high efficiency would undoubtedly lead to its effect of preventing serious patient infections. However, it is highly possible that the 40 percent more bacteria killed by Nadasept are less harmful ones instead of instead of? 应该是than 吧？those that cause serious infections. In addition, perhaps Nadasept has no advantages over other types of soap in killing such harmful bacteria. Lacking such evidence concerning the kind of bacteria Nadasept kills, the author's assertion is however去掉在这儿没有转折的意思仅仅是总结而已 groundless.

Even if 重复了，可以换成granted thatsufficient information is found to support Nadasept’s efficiency of avoiding serious infections, it could not necessarily explain the fact of fewer cases of patient infection in the hospital in Saluda. Since the argument does not provide any information concerning specific condition about this hospital such as environment or doctors in this hospital, it is entirely possible that fewer infections are indeed the result of better hygiene or more advanced instruments of killing bacteria. Or it also might be the case that few patients go to this hospital considering its poor skills of doctors and relatively bad hygiene that lead to fewer serious infections than any of other hospitals in the group.我觉得在逻辑上讲这一段遇上一段换换位置更顺畅一些

In sum, the argument has several flaws as it stands and thus is not believable at all. The author should provide more specific evidence concerning the relationship between the high efficiency of killing bacteria of Nadasept and the fact of fewer serious patient infections in the hospital of Saluda to make the argument more convincing.
总体来说还不错啦，楼主加油！其实还有一个攻击点就是throughout our hospital system

comingsoonUID: 175137

谢谢maria,不过我还没想到throughout our hospital system应该怎么攻击?

mariaUID: 197971

其实我原来写过这篇别人给的建议是
你可以说医院种类不同，消毒方式肯定不一样程度也有区别，即使他对serious infections 有效，用在神经医院是不是有点浪费了 不过这个攻击点可能涉及具体专科医院时名称不好写 但觉得还是应该攻击一下