注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

Bioinformatics home

 
 
 

日志

 
 

argument  

2008-08-04 11:26:22|  分类: GRE |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |
People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective

人们不应该被任何人不用医生处方就可以买到的OTC药品Coldex和Cold-Away之间的广告战所误导。每个牌子都指责另一种药会导致某种众所周知的不良副作用:Coldex导致血压升高而Cold-Away导致嗜睡。但对于多数关心健康的人来说选择是明显的:Cold-Away比Coldex上市时间更长而且被更多的医院所使用。显然,Cold-Away效果更好。
Though there is some known information that Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness, the author draws the conclusion that Cold-Away is more effect to human disease than Coldex since Cold-Away exists much longer on the market and is used by more hospitals compared with Coldex. In my opinion, however, the argument lends little credible support to the conclusion for following reasons.
To begin with, no function information about Cold-Away and Coldex mentioned in the argument is provided and we can’t make a judgment which one is more effective. For example, perhaps Cold-Away is responsible for ameliorating sweep and Coldex favor high brood pressure. Clearly, it is nonsense and absurdly to distinct their function effect unless the two medicines have same function. Further, even if they have same function, we would need to know the group which is suitable to use the corresponding medicine as age restriction. It is highly possible that the two medicines have different suitable object. Without these information mentioned above, we can’t simplify to make a judgment about their function.
The author unfairly assumes that Cold-Away is better than Coldex by their time on market. There is no relevance proof that indicates time on market determine a medicine function effect. It is entirely possible that Coldex was produced basing on Cold-Away and conquered much Cold-Away disadvantage, when Cold-Away has not been substituted completely by Coldex. Moreover, it is also possible Coldex is a novel innovation and is on the market recently. Without providing that information, the author can’t convince me to agree the opinion that Cold-Away is more effective.
Similar, the proof that Cold-Away is used by more hospitals than Coldex is so weak that we can’t simplify to believe that Cold-Away is more effective. Perhaps the company who produces Cold-Away makes a more popular advertisement than the company who generates Coldex and more people were misled to use Cold-Away, though Coldex’ function effect is prior to Cold-Away. Or the time on market for Coldex with good function effect is so short that many hospitals haven’t adopted it.
In sum, the author does not provide enough cogent evidence to enable me to believe that the Cold-Away is more effective. As consumer, they would know the information that including medicine function, applying group, scientific clinic data and response from hospitals and patients. Only through the information, we can make a objective judgment about their function effect.
  评论这张
 
阅读(501)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017