看完以前所有关于这一题的帖子,还是有点不懂。
答案是A。 文章结论是:在那五周适用emergency procedure却停止elective surgery的这段时间之前,es的risk经常被不必要地导致。 是什么意思呢?是说如果在那五周以前就使用emergency,那么elective surgery就不会有risk了(我是从unnecessarily角度分析的)?
A选项意思是 那些做elective手术的病人的情况从长期来看可能会是致命的,随着时间的推移,给他们做的手术的risk就会越大。 这不正是加强了结论吗??
21. In response to high mortality in area hospitals, surgery was restricted to emergency procedures during a five-week period. Mortality in these hospitals was found to have fallen by nearly one-third during the period. The number of deaths rose again when elective surgery (surgery that can be postponed) was resumed. It can be concluded that ,before the five --week period, the risks of elective surgery had been incurred unnecessarily often in the area.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion above?
(A) The conclusions for which elective surgery was performed would in the long run have been life-threatening, and surgery for them would have become riskier with time.
(B) The physicians planning elective surgery performed before the five-week period had fully informed the patients who would undergo it of the possible risks of the procedures.
(C) Before the suspension of elective surgery, surgical operations were performed in area hospitals at a higher rate, per thousand residents of the area, than was usual elsewhere.
(D) Elective surgery is, in general, less risky than is emergency surgery because the conditions requiring or indicating surgery are often less severe.
(E) Even if a surgical procedure is successful, the patient can die of a hospital-contracted infection with a bacterium that is resistant to antibiotic treatment.
|