最近不少考生都在考试的SWT中遇到了一篇关于Double Blind的新题，专业性较强，以至于没有办法在考场短短的10分钟之内读懂，最终导致信息的提取，以及逻辑梳理出现了一些问题。今天我们就给大家分析一下这篇SWT的内容和逻辑，并为大家提供了参考答案。
首先附上这篇考题的原文：
The feature of being double blind, where neither patients nor physicians are aware of who receives the experimental treatment, is almost universally trumpeted as being a virtue of clinical trials. Hence, trials that fail to remain successfully double blind are regarded as providing inferior evidential support. The rationale for this view is unobjectionable: double blinding rules out the potential confounding influences of patient and physician beliefs.
文章的第一段的信息首先给出了double blind的定义以及影响，红色为定义，蓝色为影响。其实整体表达的意思是一致的，也就是doubleblind是非常重要的，它排除了实验中，参与者的本身想法对于实验结果的潜在影响。
Nonetheless, viewing double blind trial as necessarily superior is problematic. For one, it leads to the paradox that very effective experimental treatments will not be supportable by best evidence. If a new drug were to make even the most severe symptoms of the common cold disappear within seconds, most participants and investigators would correctly identify it as the latest wonder drug and not the control (i.e. placebo) treatment. Any trial testing the effectiveness of this wonder drug will therefore fail to remain double blind. Similar problems arise for treatments, such as exercise and most surgical techniques, whose nature makes them resistant to being tested in double blind conditions. It seems strange that an account of evidence should make priori judgments that certain claims can never be supported by best evidence. It would be different if the claims at issue were pseudo scientific untestable.
转折词之后的信息需要高度关注，所以这里提出的新观点是与第一段强调doubleblind的好处和作用的一个相反的观点，也就是说doubleblind也是会有问题的。而接下来的一句话，就点出了问题所在，也就是对于前面所定义的problematic 的一个具体的解释。
再接下来的内容，提到了具体的drug，明显是例子的解释，只需要粗略阅读一下就可以跳过了。而红色的文字，就是对于例子的总结，正好也呼应到了前面对于problematic原因的解释。
But so far as treatments with large effects go, the claim that they are effective is highly testable and intuitively they should receive greater support from the evidence than do claims about treatments with moderate effects.
最后这段文字，是对这么现象所出现的问题的建议：对于具有较大影响的实验，需要更多的证据来帮助检测试验的结果的可行性。
由此总结，这篇文章提及了double blind的定义，好处，问题以及解决措施。因此逻辑可以梳理为：尽管double blind有好处，但是它也是会有一些问题的，因此需要…
参考答案如下：
Although double blind may help remove the potential confounding influence caused by patients’and physicians’ beliefs in order to guarantee the objectivity of the experiments, it might be problematic to view double blind as necessarily superior, since it may lead to the fact that very effective experimental treatments are not supported by the best evidence, so greater support should be provided to treatments with larger effects.
