标题: prep1 35 [打印本页] 作者: IVANNA 时间: 2011-6-7 10:32 标题: prep1 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 哪位帮解释一下B啊，我觉得也很有道理。 答案 E作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-7 11:30
Focus on the conclusion: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
If E is right, inappropriate prescriptions by the doctor could happen due to the pressure from the patient.
As for B, even if it is true, the doctor can say NO if the doctor can hold his or her ground.作者: IVANNA 时间: 2011-6-7 22:39
谢谢 每次都能得到你的回复