ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2223|回复: 4
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GMAT-LSAT-CR上的一道LSAT(LSAT-2-4-12)

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2003-12-8 17:12:00 | 只看该作者

GMAT-LSAT-CR上的一道LSAT(LSAT-2-4-12)

“Though they soon will, patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records. As a doctor, I see two reasons for this. First, giving them access will be time-wasting because it will significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties, by forcing them to retrieve and return files. Second, if my experience is anything to go by, no patients are going to ask for access to their records anyway.”
Which one of the following, if true, establishes that the doctor’s second reason does not cancel out the first?
(A) The new law will require that doctors, when seeing a patient in their office, must be ready to produce the patient’s records immediately, not just ready to retrieve them.
(B) The task of retrieving and returning files would fall to the lowest-paid member of a doctor’s office staff.
(C) Any patients who asked to see their medical records would also insist on having details they did not understand explained to them.
(D) The new law does not rule out that doctors may charge patients for extra expenses incurred specifically in order to comply with the new law.
(E) Some doctors have all allowing their patients access to their medical records, but those doctors’ patients took no advantage of this policy.
答案是a,不明白怎么推断出来的,请指教

沙发
发表于 2003-12-9 03:28:00 | 只看该作者

医生的话是自相矛盾的:先说拿病例浪费时间,又说没病人要求拿病例。

题目的问题要你找一个原因使得医生的话不再自相矛盾(cancel out):结果找到A选项说,法律要求医生见到病人时就一定要拿病例,言下之意就是即便没人要还得拿,让医生说的两句话不再矛盾,都成立了。

这道题以前有讨论,你可以搜一下。
板凳
发表于 2003-12-9 14:16:00 | 只看该作者
呵呵,回答真经典,就是我以前问的这题呢
小云加油!
地板
 楼主| 发表于 2003-12-9 15:47:00 | 只看该作者
谢谢云姐姐,kunkun明白了
5#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-12-9 15:47:00 | 只看该作者
谢谢云姐姐,kunkun明白了
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-10-20 06:11
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部