ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2816|回复: 6
打印 上一主题 下一主题

lsat 2-IV-12

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2003-8-23 11:21:00 | 只看该作者

lsat 2-IV-12

lsat 2-IV-12

以前作错的题, 现在回头看还是不懂

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
不明白这题在问什么. what means "the doctor’s second reason does not cancel out the first"? under what condition can the doctor’s second reason cancel out the first?
沙发
发表于 2003-8-23 19:08:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用merlion在2003-8-23 11:21:00的发言:
lsat 2-IV-12

以前作错的题, 现在回头看还是不懂

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
不明白这题在问什么. what means "the doctor’s second reason does not cancel out the first"? under what condition can the doctor’s second reason cancel out the first?

the doctor’s second reason does not cancel out the first?的意思就是医生的第二个理由和第一个理由相矛盾.
例如: 在D选项中, 法律没有不允许对提供病人查阅资料服务收费.
在这一情况下两个理由不矛盾.
A选项中: 说法律规定, 医生在办公室见了病人就必须马上处理病人的病例资料.
这一规定使得医生的第二个理由和第一个理由相矛盾.
板凳
发表于 2004-9-19 07:03:00 | 只看该作者

这题题干不明白,最后一句话 Secondly, if my experience is anything to go by, ……是什么意思?

另外,楼上版主的解释也让我很晕。我理解题目问的是“哪个选项使第二个理由与第一个理由不矛盾”,可是我没看出为什么A让两个理由不矛盾呢?

地板
发表于 2004-9-23 11:21:00 | 只看该作者
顶一下!
5#
发表于 2004-9-23 11:53:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用gmat700+在2004-9-19 7:03:00的发言:

这题题干不明白,最后一句话 Secondly, if my experience is anything to go by, ……是什么意思?


这是说,评此医生经验判断,没有病人来要过病历。


所以呢,一旦出现A的情况,也许以前他说两句就可以搞定了,但是现在根据法律要求而不得不花费时间现找病历,这符合他所提到的第一个原因(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),即,与第一个原因共存


[此贴子已经被作者于2004-9-23 12:01:16编辑过]
6#
发表于 2004-9-23 11:56:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用merlion在2003-8-23 11:21:00的发言:
lsat 2-IV-12

不明白这题在问什么. what means "the doctor’s second reason does not cancel out the first"? under what condition can the doctor’s second reason cancel out the first?

我认为问的就是如何使两个原因不互相排斥,即,共存

7#
发表于 2004-9-28 10:07:00 | 只看该作者
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, 2024-11-27 01:38
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部