LSAT一逻辑题

米可可

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.

 

The answer is A. What is the meaning of the question. Totally confused.

Matrixrl

考,根本看不懂

gonghao

虽然病人将很快有权力看自己的病史记录，但是医生还是不赞成这一点。有两个原因1.会因为要花在索要资料的时间上，从而减少的看病的时间。因此是浪费时间。2.如果是走访的话，病人也不会问我要这样的资料。（因为医生会当场检查，并告知病人的。）

问第二个原因不会抵偿第一个原因。

即第二个原因是不能代替第一个的。

A说法律要求，在办公室看病的人，必须在看病的时候马上有检查记录，这样的话医生就不要再去问病人索要了。因此第二个go by的原因不能代替在office看病的原因

open to discuss