Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expenses by preventing strokes and heart disease. Yet any money so saved amounts to only one-fourth of the expenditures required to treat the hypertensive population. Therefore, there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension. Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the conclusion above? (A) The many fatal strokes and heart attacks resulting from untreated hypertension cause insignificant medical expenditures but large economic losses of other sorts. (B) The cost, per patient, of preventive treatment for hypertension would remain constant even if such treatment were instituted on a large scale. (C) In matters of health care, economic considerations should ideally not be dominant. (D) Effective prevention presupposes early diagnosis, and programs to ensure early diagnosis are costly. (E) The net savings in medical resources achieved by some preventive health measures are smaller than the net losses attributable to certain other measures of this kind.
答案是：If the results of untreated hypertension cause large economic losses, as choice A claims, then the treatment of hypertension may well be economically justifiable. Therefore choice A is most damaging to the conclusion and is the best answer.
不好意思，题干都看不大懂，哪位nn能在解答的时候给翻译一下Yet any money so saved amounts to only one-fourth of the expenditures required to treat the hypertensive population.
The net savings in medical resources achieved by some preventive health measures are smaller than the net losses attributable to certain other measures of this kind.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-12-5 09:03:00
楼主
