argument 98 请大家帮我看看提提意见，谢谢

jamesprcUID：2119791

Argument98  第1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：38分49秒     444 words
------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 this argument the author concludes that the hospital system should supply the solution of Nadasept in all its hospitals in order to prevent serious patient infections.To support his recommendation he cited the result of a laboratory study and a subsequent test,whose results seem to indicated that Nadasept is more efficient in antiseptic function.After careful scrutiny I find this argument flawed in several aspects.
   
To begin with, the fact that the solution of Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps curently used in their hospitals lends no strong support to the author's conlcusion. As mentioned in the argument this study was made within the laboratory conditions which might be quit different from that of hospitals. Factors like concentration,temperature, air and water condition might affect the outcome of the study.Without strong evidence indicating that Nadasept is actually more efficient than solid hand soapcurrently used in the hand washing stations the argument seems ungrounded.

Secondly, the result of the subsequent test amount to scant evidence to the author's conlcusion as well. The fewer cases of patient infection is not equal to better antiseptic effect. The condition in the hospital in Saluda might be totally different from other hospitals. It is quite possible that the hospital of Saluda has the least patients in all the hospitals or the Saluda hospital has better sanitation condition than that of other hospitals so that patients were less likely to be infected there. These and many other possibilities, if true, would serve to refute the arguer's conclusion.

What's more, even the Nadasept is more efficient than the soid hand soap currently used in the hosptial system, that does not mean that the replacement of solid hand soaps with the solution of Nadasept would effectively prevent serious patient infections. Perhaps the current solid hand soaps is already efficient enough to keep the bacteria at a relatively low level that the patients are not easily infected. Or perhaps the infections in hospitals are mainly cause by low sanitation standard of the patient's room conditions and daily appliances rather than what kind of soap they use. Without a clear causal relationship between the use of hand soap and the infection rates the author can not convince me in this argument.

To sum up, the author reasoning failed to substantiate his conclusion. To strengthen the argument the author has to provide more detailed information about the laboratory study and the subsequent test to prove that Nadasept is indeed more efficient. I also need to know the exact role the hand soap plays in preventing infection. With those listed above I could better assess the author's conclusion.

[ Last edited by jamesprc on 2005-7-23 at 08:18 ]

mvpzhuangUID：205051

我先帮你顶一下，因为没有写也没看过，等我写了一定帮你改

jamesprcUID：2119791

呵呵，先谢了