ChaseDream
标题: [求助]prep2-35 [打印本页]
作者: sandy07627 时间: 2008-8-5 08:17
标题: [求助]prep2-35
35. (31595-!-item-!-188;#058&006404)
It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals. A proposed law would allow general advertising of prescription medications. Opponents object that the general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications. But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?
(A) Whether advertising for prescription medications might alert patients to the existence of effective treatments for minor ailments that they had previously thought to be untreatable
(B) Whether some people might go to a physician for no reason other than to ask for a particular medication they have seen advertised
(C) Whether the proposed law requires prescription-medication advertisements directed to the general public to provide the same information as do advertisements directed to physicians
(D) Whether advertisements for prescription medications are currently an important source of information about newly available medications for physicians
(E) Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demand for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired
answer is E.
想问一下，答案D 为什么不对啊？
如果医生也被广告误导了呢？当医生的inforamtion 也是来源于广告的，医生可能也会给出inappropriate medications 啊！
作者: stavan 时间: 2008-8-5 14:03
楼主想多了...D选项只是说, 广告是否是医生了解新药物的重要来源, 并没有引申出医生一定会被误导啊...
如果D选项改成, 医生是否会被广告所误导,那么就可以是答案了...
再用评价题目的方法分析一下, 如果选项的真或假,可以对结论起到加强或削弱, 那就是答案
结论简单说就是广告不会导致inapproprate
D: 是重要来源为真, 可能削弱,也可能不削弱,因为如削弱需要一个前提,就是医生会被误导..
反之如果为假, 可能加强, 也可能不加强...理由同上, 所以这个不能起到评价作用
在看看E选择, 楼主体会一下
如果为真, 那么广告就会导致inapproprate,削弱
如果为假, 那么广告就不会导致inapproprate, 加强
所以可以对结论起到评价作用
gmat逻辑要基于原有信息,不要擅自进行推理引申
作者: sunnysea920 时间: 2008-11-29 17:46
请问B为什么不对？
作者: sunnysea920 时间: 2008-11-29 17:49
不理解B噢。。如果是肯定，那就是加强，支持医生会帮病人把关；如果否定，那病人根本不去找医生，自己决定吃药，那不就是inappropriate prescription?
作者: pinkpinkpink 时间: 2008-12-14 12:40
标题: 侧重点不一样。
我觉得是因为题目说的是会不会inappropriate prescription，应该重视的是医生的主动性吧。
B的是否都取决于病人自己，所以不对。
作者: maimai2009 时间: 2008-12-14 13:32
重点好像是but since后面那句,所以就E了.
作者: Dancy123 时间: 2009-5-19 23:10
可不可以给解释一下E是什么意思啊，一直没看懂。
作者: zcool 时间: 2010-4-18 21:06
E的意思：
“医生会不会因为，这个病人说：“以前你开的药方没有作用，这次最好听我的意见（如，看到广告上的药）”，而屈服于病人的意见”。
如果是，则：会增加不合理处方的几率，削弱结论；
如果否，则：support。
而关于B选项，说是：
病人只是看到广告（而不是其他原因）去询问医生，和是否看处方没有关系，所以是无关项。
一点愚见，供参考！
正好做到这题，前面也不小心选了B，当时E没太懂。
作者: xuanwuxiaoxian 时间: 2016-7-29 13:58
同意！
作者: Jupiter1994 时间: 2016-10-1 16:04
Mark一下！
作者: Jupiter1994 时间: 2016-10-1 16:16
本题结论是 inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common
因为inappropriate prescription这个动作的施加者是医生，所以b选项病人怎么怎么样与此无关，不能病人去医生或不去医生那里，inappropriate prescription就减少了
作者: 闭眼看书 时间: 2017-7-19 16:54
这道题简单看感觉是个who has the final say的问题，文中说physicians have the final say,所以patients have the final say可以削弱。
作者: 奥兰多铁杆球迷 时间: 2017-11-1 16:55
看到上面有人说B
B首先就能被排除，因为它说的是some people，这种无意义的概率，立刻就能被排除。
看到minority，some的选项基本一眼就能杀掉
作者: 不是咸yu 时间: 2019-7-24 11:39
这题我也错了T T不过后来好像找到问题所在了。
重点是注意前一句！！！不要只看最后一句
论断是：病人会要求医生开不合理的药，但是医生的职业能力会组织病人开不合理的药
B无关
D医生的职业能力和从哪获取广告无关，就算广告误导，他们也应该能够判断的出来
E当自己的药方无效时，医生是否会屈从
作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-7-24 14:33
P1: Beside directly advertise prescription medication in Hedland to physicians either by mail or medical journal, it is illegal.
P2: law would allow general advertising of prescription medication
P3: Being objected that general population lacks the knowledge to evaluate the advertisement and might ask for inappropriate medications,
P4: Physicians have the final say whether to prescribe a medication for a patient
C: Inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
What is the possible point at issue ?
1. Argument presumes for those general population " with " specialized knowledge to evaluate advertisement, they still would ask for inappropriate medication, since they do have other purpose intended the matter that does not exist.
2. Argument also presumes that there is no way patient could do anything they could to either entice or threat, or both entice and threat their physicians for getting the inappropriate medications.
So, the above 2 points are necessary assumptions that must be happened if the original argument must be correct.
All we have to just looking for the answers of options that if yes, could logically be legally established, if no, it could work just as how we do at necessary assumption questions ( Negate the logical stand )
If original argument is correct ( Physician has final say ---> No become more common ), then both point 1 and point 2 mentioned must be existed.
So, if negate point 1 or negate point 2, original argument must be refuted.
A. Yes, they could be alert - well, being effective or not does not logically relevant to being inappropriate. No, they could not be alert - Well, then they just do not know if the effective treatment is on the market. It also does not mean they would get the inappropriate treatment.
B. Yes, they will - Well, it does not mean physician would give to them even if they ask, remember, physician does have " final say " . No, they wont - If they wont go to physician for asking for the inappropriate treatment, then there is no way for them to get it.
C. Yes it does - It only means that there might be more marketing channels to have general public receive the infos, but it does not mean that physician would say yes to the patients even if they have different ways of knowing inappropriate treatments. No, it does not. - Well, its not really relevant. is it ?
D. Whether it is an important sources does not mean physicians does " not " know whether the treatment for the patient is inappropriate.
As long as I could receive the information about the new drugs, and I know its not appropriate for the patients, I would not prescribe the drug for him or her.
" It is not important does not mean the physician can't not receive the infos of new drugs, and if physician still can receive the infos of new drugs, they still do have the final say to prescribe the drugs to the people.
E. Correct answer. It perfectly match our point 2.
Regardless of the fact that whether the original is effective for not, as long as the physicians would give in to the demands from the patients, then it would be inappropriate, which is, there is no final say for them.
If they wont give in, then the original argument would not be refuted.
* Work it as the way you work in the necessary assumption questions, then it would be super easy.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |