求助LSAT argument一题，苦思不得其解

lawseeker

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，为什么呢？

若老爷

我也没看懂。看了半天了。。。。。

若老爷

应该是first和second中间需要A答案才能解决医患之间的病例处理的矛盾吧。

xu5205

A? C不对吗？

wwwcom

If doctors, when seeing a patient in their office, must be ready to produce the patient’s records immediately,

then giving patients access will not significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties.

jameshoo

First, let's look at the stimulus. 

The "first reason" actually makes a hidden assumption that the doctor will be requested by the patients or otherwise triggered to show the medical records.  The "second reason" then defeats part (but not all of) such assumption by saying that the patients will not make such requests.  So, in order to prevent the second reason to totally cancel out, or in other words to discredit, the first reason, we have to establish that the assumption of the first reason still stands, i.e., patients' request does not constitute the SOLE trigger for the doctor to show the medical records. 

"A" is the right answer because if it is true, then the law, instead of or in addition to the patients' request, is a trigger for the doctor to show the med records.

iamxin

第一次回答问题，如有不对请原谅！本人是菜鸟。

看到有英文的解释，觉得没说到问题本质（也可能是我没理解），试着解答一下。

该题的问题是：在那种选项下，医生的第二个理由不会与第一个理由冲突。因为如果第二个理由成立，即没病人要记录，那么第一个理由中的所谓浪费宝贵时间就不成立了。所以选项A正确，因为如果医生必须提前准备病人记录（不论病人是否提要求），那么时间就浪费掉了。

以上看法欢迎指正。

另，本人在北京，预考今年12月的lsat，希望结交志同道合的战友。

谢

catreek

如果A成立，病人在看病的时候就能拿到病例，这样就没有病人过后会去要病例，即第二条理由成立，但是第一条理由也没有被推翻

crusoecrusoe

这道题似乎问的很多。

题型是解释题，出题是根据“二律背反”。

两条规律都各自必然成立，但二者却又不可避免的相互矛盾。

本文是解释题中的解释矛盾（还有的是解释现象），只要在不同的情况下（层面），进行逻辑的配置，矛盾便是自然解除。