我是如何肉身翻墙,从国内直接来美国工作的?

一亩三分地论坛

 找回密码
 Sign Up 注册获取更多干货
查看: 644|回复: 0
收起左侧

[G作文-求改] 新GRE Argument 62 医院换洗手液

[复制链接] |试试Instant~ |关注本帖
我的人缘0
蝙蝠 发表于 2014-9-16 14:50:16 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
  此人很可信:
 
0% (暂未有人投票) 【我投】
  此人瞎逼逼:
 
0% (暂未有人投票) 【我投】

注册一亩三分地论坛,查看更多干货!

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?Sign Up 注册获取更多干货

x
[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." [Specific Task Instruction: 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.]

------------------------RESPONSE--------------------
While it may be true that they need supply another liquid antibacterial hand soaps at all hand-washing stations throughout their hospital system to prevent patient infections, the conclusion drawn by the director of the large group of hospitals does not make a cogent case for UltraClean based on current evidence. This argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to the conclusion.

The author reports the reduction of bacteria in a study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, but there are no further explanations of the killed bacteria, such as the number of all the tests in this study, the specific environment of each test, the accurate population of bacteria in the preparations, and most importantly, the relevance between the bacteria killed by UltraClean and serious infections of patients. We don’t know what types of bacteria cause serious patient infections in the entire hospital system. And we don’t what’s UltraClean’s capability of killing these bacteria when medical workers are performing cleaning processes. Unless more details are revealed, this study can not be used to effectively back the author’s arguments.

UltraClean might not be the only factor to affect the result of the subsequent test at their hospital in Workby, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in their group. Is it possible that stuff worked in Workby cleaned longer and more careful than they usually do during this test, since they were aware of they were testing whether UltraClean would be used after? And it would be reliable if comparing in the same hospital the rates of the cases of patient infection during the test and before. We don’t know whether the hospital in Workby did report fewer cases of patient infection than others for a long time when the same soap is used, or the patients are significant fewer in the hospital than others.

And the patient infections reported in the subsequent test are not representatives of the serious infections mentioned in the director’s conclusion. We don’t know whether it is the same bacteria to cause infections in the tested hospital and the others, and we don’t know whether there is a kind of bacteria, which can be killed by the current liquid hand soap but not by UltraClean, is a main reason of serious infections in a specific hospital. UltraClean might be associated with a reduction of infections in Workby, but it does not follow that, as the author wishes, UltraClean will lead to a significant reduction of serious infections in all the hospitals in their group.

We all hope infections in hospital can be reduced to the most. However, this author’s argument is not likely remarkably persuade the entire system that UltraClean is a better choice for them all.

上一篇:一道数学题
下一篇:PP2 2.0准吗?
游客
请先登录

本版积分规则

提醒:发帖可以选择内容隐藏,部分板块支持匿名发帖。请认真读完以下全部说明:

■隐藏内容方法: [hide=200]你想要隐藏的内容比如面经[/hide]
■意思是:用户积分低于200则看不到被隐藏的内容
■可以自行设置积分值,不建议太高(200以上太多人看不到),也不建议太低(那就没必要隐藏了)
■建议只隐藏关键内容,比如具体的面试题目、涉及隐私的信息,大部分内容没必要隐藏。
■微信/QQ/电子邮件等,为防止将来被骚扰甚至人肉,以论坛私信方式发给对方最安全。
■匿名发帖的板块和方法:http://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/thread-405991-1-1.html

关闭

一亩三分地推荐上一条 /5 下一条

手机版|小黑屋|一亩三分地论坛声明

custom counter

GMT+8, 2018-5-28 18:03

Powered by Discuz! X3

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. Design By HUXTeam

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表