иCόĿԎͬW(xu)˽߷ֵԭҲ܉ҽԼČĿ(bio)СռP(gun)иCόľxP(gun)(ni)gӭҵx
ˎƷV(drug advertisement)
reading
}ˎƷVṩϢǿ^ȫҲˌ(du)ˎ˽ԽԽ
1.˿Ը˽̎ˎP(gun)Ϣ(information)
2.t(y)_ˎr(sh)˿cVM(jn)б^xˎ
3.ͨ^V棬˿˽ˎİl(f)չt(y)
lecture
(zhn)}˲Ҫ(du)ˎ˽̫࣬?yn)Еr(sh)˽̫(hu)(du)njI(y)IJˮa(chn)_ҏVṩϢҲȫ
1.Vֻͨ̎(du)(side effects)һP^˺yД
2.ˌ(du)ˎĜ(zhn)_÷˽ܕ(hu)e(cu)
3.Vֻˎ(du)fˎ]ᘌ(du)ͬIJ飬ҲSfˎm(appropriate)
: The speaker raises serious counterarguments against the reading paragraphs by providing drastically different evidences regarding the effects of the advertisement, the impact of self-selecting medication, and the impact of trends in the pharmaceuticalˎ industry.
First, knowing more information from the ads will not necessarily help the patients make better-informed decisions, as the reading argues. On the contrary, patients, without professional training and knowledge, will be more susceptibleӰ푵 to misunderstanding information. For example, they would focus only on the positive sides of a certain medicine while ignoring the serious side effects.
In addition, if the patients bear the responsibility of prescribing_ˎԸˎ their own medication, they assume more responsibility to their own health. This makes doctors less liable for potentialڵ risks and undesirable consequences.
Lastly, as for the new trends' benefits to the patients, the speaker does not challenge the reading directly. Instead, he argues that the new medicine, which will count for most of the ads may not necessarily be the best medicine, even though the patients can inform their doctors about the new products.