扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2016-RC-104
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 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 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 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 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 then be evaluated under normal conditions. Broadening the range of trial participants, Frazier and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to evaluate a treatment's efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its 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.
It can be inferred from the passage that a study limited to patients like those mentioned in the highlighted text would have which of the following advantages over the kind of study proposed by Frazier and Mosteller?
It would yield more data and its findings would be more accurate.
It would cost less in the long term, though it would be more expensive in its initial stages.
It would limit the number of variables researchers would need to consider when evaluating the treatment under study.
It would help researchers to identify subgroups of patients with secondary conditions that might also be treatable.
It would enable researchers to assess the value of an experimental treatment for the average patient.
题目分析：
文章推断题：限制高亮里提到的病人数量的研究，比FM提议的研究有何优点？
选项分析：
A选项：它会产生更多数据，结论会更准确：这个实验限制了病人数量，所以并不会产生更多数据。
B选项：长期来看它成本更低，尽管在初始阶段会比较贵：文章没有提成本问题。
C选项：正确。它会限制研究员需要评估的变量。
D选项：它会帮助研究员辨别需要被诊治的亚群体：限制数量并不会帮助研究员辨认亚群体。
E选项：它帮助研究员评估 这个实验针对普遍病人的价值：限制数量会是研究结果有局限性，所以它针对的是特定群体，而不是“average”。
rc
注意看题干！！infer！！注意看前几个词，每个都认真读！！推断题 It can be inferred ；注意审题；不要选重词的，慎重。
错选，是因为定位错了，把这句也连着看了A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions.其实无关的。。。又看到d中的secondary conditions 就选了
又犯了这个错误，注意边读边思考不要侥幸心理觉得词都match了就对。。。好好读选项，其实d是在画线在后面在后面的内容，用于混淆和作为陷阱
限制数量也是一种advantage。。
是inference题！原文没有直接给出好处，但要通过和proposal 对比的角度来推理出。
控制变量法
A. 反了，这是F&M的观点
B. 与cost无关
C. 先restrict，之后在从该ideal condition推广到normal condition，控制变量法
D. subgroup是F&M的观点
E. average patient：普遍病人，但该方法是局限于特定群体，即：只患有该病、没有其它病的病人群体
题目问的是，选择没有其他病症的好处是什么？那是c，因为唯一的好处就是医生省了很多麻烦，不要考虑其他变量，，e选项不对，这不是advatange over fm的提议，就算fm的提议也可以得到针对avergae的value，只是这个提议是想要borden这个value，所以不算是adv
rc
推断题 It can be inferred ；注意审题；不要选重词的，慎重。
错选，是因为定位错了，把这句也连着看了A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions.其实无关的。。。又看到d中的secondary conditions 就选了
又犯了这个错误，注意边读边思考不要侥幸心理觉得词都match了就对。。。好好读选项，其实d是在画线在后面在后面的内容，用于混淆和作为陷阱
病人除了被研究的病之外没有其他的ailment（小病），就是在排除其他变量----C
flip it! 因为后面提到新方法需要考虑更多的变量， 即旧方法需要考虑更少的变量
Frazier and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to evaluate a treatment's efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for different patient subgroups.
错选a，并没有在文中直接表达前者更准确，都是自己发散的！
c
因为有正常人做对比，所以在现实条件中研究的时候可以控制变量。
E) This option also describes an advantage of F&M rather than the current method, although this option clouds that distinction a little bit better by using the paraphrase “average” instead of the “diverse” sample language used in the passage. The current method attempts to uncover value for patients with a specific set of criteria. 还是关于"average" 约等于"diverse"在这个context下理解的不够深刻。和老方法比，新方法由于加入更多变量才更有普遍适用性也就是更能够assess value for "average patient"
错选E。Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied.(ailment = illness）。
A) 明显错误，增加更多病人才会有此效果
B) n/a。原文没有提到。
C)正确。 因为typical experiment只考量疾病这一个变量而忽略诸如年龄，疾病阶段这些变量。
D) 错误原因同a。
E选项不是average patient吗？为什么楼上都说average people？？
如果是average patient的话，那E选项是不是正确的了？
求解答啊
同问
我觉得是因为文章提出的第二个改良建议（增加range）是并没有否认之前的研究方式的，而是在其基础上做出的提升，所以老方式的特点是能够传承下来的。而本题让我们找老方式对比新方式的优点，也就是二者的不同之处，那就是老方式的变量少，变量上带来的优势就是需要考虑的因素少一些。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
average people = normal people 文中说normal conditions （得病的人中）
E The average people 是说普通人，文章中很明显就是指特定的病的那部分人。
A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions.－只在普通情况下被评估，也就是说会限制变量。