English Language Research

The key facts or details, as well as the main point, are likely to be included in any article review. This is due to the fact that each article provides a specific viewpoint on a research subject. Articles may also be biased when it comes to emphasizing those ideas or points of view. The key details in each essay, the main points, the areas of bias in the definitions and viewpoints, and a comparison of the usage of English language in the papers are presented in this document.

Facts in the articles

The papers that make up the topic of this paper offer a lot of facts unique from one another; they also portray arguments relevant to the same topic matter of research. Further, the articles contain the precise use of language differentiating them from each other. As such, the evaluation of the materials, which will form the better part of the following text, will revolve around the above-stated aspects of both items under consideration.

Under the preceding article, quite some facts extracted range from what symptoms indicate that someone is asthmatic, all the way to the forms of testing for asthma. Some of the facts contained therein are as follows:

• For a conclusion to be reached that a patient has asthma, a series of check-ups have to be carried out to ascertain that indeed the patient has asthma
• Asthma-like any other disease comes with some signs and symptoms that do not entirely guarantee its existence in a patient but gives a limelight to the person conducting the diagnosis on what tests and examinations to perform. Some of the widely known symptoms portrayed in patients are wheezing, severe coughing and chest tightness.
• Some allergens trigger asthma attacks. Most common allergies include, exposure to toxic materials (irritants) mostly consisting of tobacco fumes, concentrated fumes from chemicals such as chlorine and the likes. Similarly, animal fur triggers asthma attacks among some patients.
• There are different forms of tests and examinations, this depends on the severity of the asthma attacks and also on the number of times the patient had on the previous occasion visited a specialist for a checkup. There are physical examinations that are carried out by the use of stethoscopes, but in severe cases, the wheezing sound heard indicates the asthmatic condition. A doctor may also look into the patient's history with the aim of finding the odds of the patient who has asthma.

On the other hand, under the superseding article, the facts vividly outlined can be summed up to form the following summarised list:

• In recent times, the health specialist's give a physical diagnosis of asthma to patients who appear to have asthma even though the necessary test has not been carried out for proper ascertainment. As such, cases of asthma misdiagnosis have highly been at a rise.
• From recent researches carried out by different specialists and universities, it indicates that asthma keeps on changing from time to time about its manifestations in a patient. Therefore, the treatment administered also changes from time to time to keep up with the severity of the asthma condition.
• Research has shown that a drug shortly can be developed to replace the inhaler for those diagnosed to be having asthma. Such a drug will have the capability of rapidly reducing inflammations of the lungs and hence ease the breathing of the patient.
• Most doctors in the better part of the United Kingdom diagnose patients to be having asthma, basing their diagnosis entirely on symptoms, which is not medically correct.

The main argument

Both the articles have a distinct argument, different from each other even though both of them are rooted in the facts and studies carried out on asthma as a widespread disease. Article number one bases its argument on the methods of detection and diagnosis of asthma in a patient. It elaborates on the physical examination of a patient with a goal of giving a diagnosis as well as the full range of tests that need to be carried out to reach a well detailed and correct diagnosis. Physical examinations may involve the use of a stethoscope and also analysis of passages that head past the nose cavity for any congestion.

Article number two, on the other hand, dwells more on the need for proper testing and ascertainment before giving a diagnosis of asthma. Diagnosis should not be entirely on symptoms and signs exhibited by a patient. Basing a diagnosis solely on symptoms may lead to misdiagnosis of asthma and results may end up being hazardous. The argument explicitly advocates for intense testing of patients before coming up with the required medication. Specialists and well-known universities carry out real studies and research relating to asthma. It further outlines the risks that may come with improper diagnostics and therefore avoided at all costs.

Evidence of bias

Under both the articles, there has been some level of bias about the researchers carried out and the findings stated therein. The evidence of the existence of bias is overwhelming in both the articles even though the subject matters may differ in a way. Indicated by the points of reference in each, in both the articles intense tests have been advocated for over physical examination before the diagnosis of asthma in patients. Each of the items reaches a consensus that physical examinations and basing diagnostics on signs and symptoms may prove to be fatal, either leading to under-diagnosis or even misdiagnosis both of which results end up being fatal as stated by the articles.

On a practical scenario, however, basing diagnosis on signs and symptoms may not be entirely misleading. From time to time, patients who have asthma have exhibited similar symptoms that are substantially unique from all other diseases. Studies carried out by the different organization have reached similar findings of signs and symptoms and as well all the conditions that may trigger asthma attacks and its development. Such results have outlined similar allergens and have all advocated for the need of looking into the history of a patient while coming up with a comprehensive diagnosis. As such, it would not be correct to state that basing diagnosis on signs and symptoms is entirely incorrect and out of play and therefore should be implemented to discard the level of bias evidenced by both the articles.

The language in each article

The explicit use of language in both articles cannot go unnoticed. In the preceding article, there has been a good command of medical terms that are understood well by those in the related field. The terms used may not be suitable for a 'layman' kind of reader. The use of scientific terms that have been incorporated to describe the various methods of tests carried out before a diagnosis given has been eminent. On the other hand, the superseding article uses simple language less complex rather. The simple language used can easily be understood by a broad population of readers even those not in the medical fields. The language incorporated does not take much effort to grasp the meaning and subjects discussed. The points given are vivid and self-explanatory with no need for further elaboration on the part of the reader.

Conclusion

The facts in the first article are: a person can be diagnosed with asthma by looking at certain symptoms such as allergic reactions such as wheezing, sneezing, coughing, and chest tightness but one can get check-ups using a number of available methods such as physical examination or Peak Expiratory flow rate (PEFR), Pulmonary testing Function (PTF), and Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PEFR). The facts in the second article are that there have been cases where people are diagnosed with symptoms of diagnosis but they do not show clinical characteristics of the disease. It also states that one can use pills in management of asthma thus preventing the challenges associated with the use of inhalers. The main argument of the first article is that there asthma can be understood in terms of the contributing factors and the methods of diagnosis which are likely to give accurate results. The main argument in article two is that despite the fact that one may be perceived to have cancer, it may not be the case since certain symptoms do not result into clinical characteristics of asthma. The bias in the first article is that it examines the methods of diagnosing asthma without examining their limitations. The bias in the second article is that it focuses on the ineffectiveness of asthma diagnosis while only a few cases have been inaccurate in providing information about cancer infection. There is the use of medical terms while presenting the methods of testing asthma in the first article while in the second article, the author uses simple and general English that can be understood easily by the general population.