ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription drugs in Voronia rose by fifteen percent or more annually. In order to curb these dramatic increases, the ministry of health prohibited drug manufacturers from raising any of their products' prices. Even though use of prescription drugs did not expand after this price freeze, per capita expenditure for prescription drugs continued to increase by a substantial percentage each year.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the ministry's action did not achieve its goal?

正确答案: A

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 5596|回复: 12
打印 上一主题 下一主题

旧prep逻辑:政府控制处方药价那道。 我深深觉得A也不好呀!!!

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-9-22 21:12:36 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription drugs in Voronia rose by fifteen percent or more annually.In order to curb these dramatic increases, the ministry of health prohibited drug manufacturers from raising any of their products' prices.Even though use of prescription drugs did not expand after this price freeze, per capita expenditure for prescription drugs continued to increase by a substantial percentage each year.



Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the ministry's action did not achieve its goal?

(A) After price increases were prohibited, drug manufacturers concentrated on producing new medications to replace existing products.

(B) The population of Voronia rose steadily throughout the period.
(C) Improvements in manufacturing processes enabled drug manufacturers to maintain high profit levels on drugs despite the price freeze.

(D) In addition to imposing a price freeze, the government encouraged doctors to prescribe generic versions of common drugs instead of the more expensive brand-name versions.

(E) After price increases were prohibited, some foreign manufacturers of expensive drugs ceased marketing them in Voronia.

题干说的是问处方药继续上涨的原因,而A却说的是普通药物额,基本是无关的呀????
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2011-9-23 18:43:48 | 只看该作者
up
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2011-9-23 23:51:33 | 只看该作者
up
地板
发表于 2011-9-24 01:44:44 | 只看该作者
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_CR/thread-529769-2-1.html
5#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-9-24 11:29:23 | 只看该作者
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_CR/thread-529769-2-1.html
-- by 会员 杀G敬猴 (2011/9/24 1:44:44)



还是不清楚额, 明明计划是遏制处方药价上涨的,A只是说商家制造了新的药,也许可以定更高的价格,这不能说明处方药的情况啊。。。 甾丘,再求
6#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-9-24 12:39:30 | 只看该作者
7#
发表于 2011-9-25 06:07:29 | 只看该作者
我试着说说我的理解吧,

你不让我对现有的药涨价,那我就直接出新药,标高价,这样,我也符合了政府的要求,同时人均在处方药的支出依然高涨

一起讨论吧,正在学习中
8#
发表于 2011-9-25 21:18:09 | 只看该作者
不矛盾啊,题目说的是处方药人均花费上涨15%或以上,而政府要求要上所有的药产品都不能涨价,所有的药产品就包括了处方药。但是处方药人均花费依然上涨,因为药商用新药代替旧药,可以标高价啊,没有矛盾啊。
9#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-9-26 00:03:20 | 只看该作者
我总算明白了, 难道是因为medications 包含了 prescription drug, 因此 medications的上涨, priscription drug也可能上涨。...
10#
发表于 2011-9-26 07:21:31 | 只看该作者
原文只说不让提价(prohibit from RAISING price),来让per capita expenditure 维持在现有的水平,但是per capita expenditure还是increase了,在人数不变的情况下,说明有   定价高  的新药进来太高了total expenditure。
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, 2024-11-23 01:08
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