OG12-105请求解惑

pennmou

Line    Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical
research could be improved by a move toward
larger, simpler clinical trials of medical treatments.
Currently, researchers collect far more background
(5)information on patients than is strictly required for
their trials—substantially more than hospitals
collect—thereby escalating costs of data
collection, storage, and analysis. Although limiting
information collection could increase the risk that
(10)researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study,
Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never
entirely eliminable from research, would still be
small in most studies. Only in research on entirely
new treatments are new and unexpected variables
(15)likely to arise.

Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that
researchers limit data collection on individual
patients but also that researchers enroll more
patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more
(20)representative sample of the total population with
the disease under study. Often researchers restrict
study participation to patients who have no
ailments besides those being studied. A treatment
judged successful under these ideal conditions can
(25)then be evaluated under normal conditions.
Broadening the range of trial participants, Frazier
and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to
evaluate a treatment’s effi cacy for diverse patients
under various conditions and to evaluate its
(30)effectiveness for different patient subgroups. For
example, the value of a treatment for a progressive
disease may vary according to a patient’s stage of
disease. Patients’ ages may also affect a
treatment’s efficacy.

105.  It can be inferred from the passage that a study
limited to patients like those mentioned in lines 21–23
would have which of the following advantages over the
kind of study proposed by Frazier and Mosteller?
(A)  It would yield more data and its fi ndings would
be more accurate.
(B)  It would cost less in the long term, though it
would be more expensive in its initial stages.
(C)  It would limit the number of variables
researchers would need to consider when
evaluating the treatment under study.
(D)  It would help researchers to identify subgroups
of patients with secondary conditions that might
also be treatable.
(E)  It would enable researchers to assess the value
of an experimental treatment for the average
patient.

正确答案是C，
我想问的是为什么E不对，文章line23-25说到："can then be evaluated under normal conditions"，不就是表明这个study最终可以assess the value of an experimental treatment for the average patient?
请求解惑，谢谢！

ozymendias

仔细看一下E选项，意思是：21-23行里所说的研究方式，能够对一种治疗手段的疗效做出评价。

从文中看，F和M这俩人从来没说传统的研究方式不能对疗效做出评价，而是说他们提出的研究方式更容易得出结论，从而减少时间和精力的浪费。因此，无论是否对参与的病人做出严格的限定，都会得到对疗效的评价。因此，E选项并没有明确说明21-23行的限制有什么真正的好处。

明白了？

acrophobia

我觉得是 A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then evaluated under normal conditions.是对上一句解释传统取样的承接，即取样好以后，如果treatment被判断为成功，就可以用在一般情况下来治疗了。只是说明了一个过程，没有重要的意思。E中主要是"average"那个词错了， 因为average是一个非常广泛和普遍的病人，而传统方法取样的病人都是只有一种病的，非常的specific.这个og解释里有说。

songxuebest

Line    Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical
research could be improved by a move toward
la ...
pennmou 发表于 2011-4-28 06:38

    我觉得楼主是看错题了，要不就是文章大意没弄明白。
F和M有两个建议：1，是认为传统的对于病人背景的收集过于系统，浪费人力财力，所以建议减少背景信息收集。2，是建议扩大病人的样本容量，即扩大病人样本的数量。
原文是这么说的：
Broadening the range of trial participants, Frazier
and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to
evaluate a treatment’s effi cacy for diverse patients
under various conditions and to evaluate its
effectiveness for different patient subgroups.
即扩大样本容量可以让研究者更有效地评估治疗，这是你选的那个选项。
而题目问的是，传统的限制病人数量的方法有什么优势，注意区别于引用文的扩大样本容量的好处，那当然就是可以减少要研究的量啦。

suners

我分析这道题时，被advantage这个词绕住了，后来姑且把它当做“特点”、“效果”而不是什么“优势”。

第一段，FM都是建议要limit/restrict，这样可以减少cost，虽然会忽视对研究有关的事实，但是这样的risk很小。最后提到variable只在全新的研究中会增加。

第二段，（Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that researchers limit data collection）on individual patients but also that researchers enroll more
patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more (20) representative sample of the total population with the disease under study. Often researchers restrict
study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied.

之后，又提到Broadening实验范围的作用。

根据第一段的limit/restrict可以减少cost，导致研究的variables少，可以对应地分析第二段restrict的效果。

只不过是不是优势，就不好说了，在在第一段里，limit/restrict是个优势，到了第二段的实验，对于 to evaluate a treatment’s efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its (30) effectiveness for different patient subgroups，broadening更好，restrict显得不是个优势。

A limit data了，data少才对。
B 对于cost全文都没有对比long-term和short-term。
C 由于variables在之前出现，limit data了，处理的variables就少了。
D 对subgroup的照顾是broaden了的效果，不是restrict的。
E 不是average，是ideal（A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can (25)then be evaluated under normal conditions.），最理想情况下的患者，不是什么subgroup的，不受其他因素（如age）影响的患者。