gwd-7-17

还是想不明白这T啊！5555

Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery—a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease—only 75 percent benefited from the surgery.  Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A.   Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.

B.   ossible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.

C.   Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.

D.  The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

E.   The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

结论是医生看practise skills 和FEE ，E 怎么WEAKEN啊！E说手术前，觉得无关啊！当时选的时候排除就觉得DE 是答案，然后就选了D

1。如果你能排除ABC，说明一定程度上明白了有关无关。

2。D的意思为收益和没收益的的两批人都被告知手术的危险性。而结论是医生对没受益的动机不纯。显然DWEAKEN不了结论。医生完全可以说一套做一套。

3。E的意思为：收益和没收益两批人手术前在医疗上是分不出的。既然分不出，医生就无法对一批人动机好，另一批人动机不好。

哦 文章说其实是在暗示本来医生知道那批人做了手术也白做 但为了锻炼自己 而且还有收入 所以就做了手术

而E 说 之前医生也分不出来哪些人会有利哪些人没利  就WEAKEN 了！

是看了LAWYER 的分析很感觉出来的 谢谢LAWYER 啊！

BTW - 转一圈回来就感觉LAWYER 会解答我的问题 感觉准确 呵呵 谢谢

刚开始我也是为DE困惑，解释的真不错。

謝謝，謝謝，現在懂了，見到同類型題目的時候可以分的出來。

其实这也还是一道方法不达目的的题，不过刚开始没能理解！

以前总以为方法不达目的就一定是某个方法怎么怎么地，然后weaken德时候说，根本方法就不可能实现，这道题其实也是一样呀！

不过d还是很伤脑筋！

A：55无关

B：Possible benefits的内容无关

C：感觉像是一个假设，或者文中本来就有的信息；我第一次选的就是C

D:直接思考很不爽，不如加一个not,如下

The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were not as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

没受益的并没有像受益的病人一样获得足够的危险性通知，那么……是不是有点意思呢？

加了not才weaken，这原来的就不好说了吧？

歪门邪道，勿见笑

E：其实E就是原文推论的一个假设加了一个not；原文假设医生可以区分这些病人，不然怎么说医生有其他动机

这道题目，E确实正确。可是偶对D有一个疑问：

D的意思为收益和没收益的的两批人都被告知手术的危险性，既然这样，可不可以推断到底做不做心脏搭桥手术都是这些病人自己决定的，因而医生没有责任呢？这不也是weaken吗？

（btw, 现在医疗界这样的情况好象还是很多的吧，选择保守治疗还是手术疗法最终由病人及其家属决定的现象。)

lawyer_1nn可不可以帮忙看一下啊？谢谢了。

E从根本上否认了医生在判断上的作用,动机如何根本就无从谈起.所以是正确答案.

而D我们想一下烟草公司的广告就可以了:表面上来一句警告:吸烟有害健康.(其实也就是做做样子) 但实际上诱导已经给出.即"欲擒故纵".医生完全有可能先对病人及家属说,你是有必要做手术的(这个时候,医生的引导已经起作用了),然后再轻描淡写来一句,当然,手术是有一定风险的,你看着办吧.因而,不能排除医生动机不纯的可能.属于WEAKEN不力.

有道理！mm厉害。谢谢哦。