求讲一道OG逻辑题

08060328

Sparva, unlike Treland’s other provinces, requires automobile insurers to pay for any
medical treatment sought by someone who has been involved in an accident; in the
other provinces, insurers pay for nonemergency treatment only if they preapprove the
treatment. Clearly, Sparva’s less restrictive policy must be the explanation for the fact
that altogether insurers there pay for far more treatments after accidents than insurers
in other provinces, even though Sparva does not have the largest population.
Description
The passage tells us that in Sparva automobile insurers pay for far more medical treatments
after accidents than they do in Treland’s other provinces. The passage concludes
that the explanation is to be found in the difference in legal requirements for insurers
in Sparva as compared to other provinces.
7. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A Car insurance costs more in Sparva than in any other province.
B The cost of medical care in Sparva is higher than the national average.
C Different insurance companies have different standards for determining
what constitutes emergency treatment.
D Fewer insurance companies operate in Sparva than in any other province.
E There are fewer traffic accidents annually in Sparva than in any of the
provinces of comparable or greater population.

Explanation
The question asks you to identify among the answer choices a fact that would support
the passage’s argument. The explanation offered in the passage can be supported by ruling
out other explanations that might, given the information presented in the passage,
appear likely. One obvious explanation for there being more medical treatments in
Sparva is that there are more accidents there. Choice E rules out that explanation. So
Choice E strengthens the argument in the passage and is the correct answer. Choices A
and D each present consequences that are likely results of insurers in Sparva having to
pay for more medical treatments. But neither bears on the cause of insurers having to
pay for more treatments. Choice B does not strengthen the argument and may weaken
it. A higher cost of medical care provides additional motivation for people to seek insurance
payments to cover whatever post-accident care they receive. So Choice B might
weaken the argument by providing an alternative explanation for insurers paying for
more medical treatments in Sparva. According to the passage, whether treatment is
emergency treatment is, in other provinces, an important criterion in determining insurers’
responsibility. But since this criterion does not apply in Sparva, Choice C is not
directly relevant to the point that the passage is trying to establish.

看不懂啊~~崩溃啦

竹林中人

文章的结论是S省的保险公司支付了相对于其他省更多的赔偿金，这要归因于S省的宽松的政策。那么我们的方向就是找具有同样多的交通事故或者更多交通事故的地方，保险公司赔偿的费用比S省还低，这就可以说明是由于严格的政策限制了
选项里面：A说S省的汽车交的保险费更多些，这个没半毛钱关系，整个文章没提到交保费。
B.S省的医疗费用贵。这个不对吧
C.不同的保险公司有不同的赔偿标准。这个也不对
D.S省的保险公司数量少，这个跟赔偿的费用多没啥关系吧
E.就是的了，其他人口相当或者更多的省发生交通事故的数量跟S省相当或者还多，但赔偿的费用要少

llz0717

我当时选的B，也错了。这个做题点主要是看结论，不是背景或者条件。

michaelriver

这道题的事实是s省保险公司确实付了更多笔数的保险金，论点是s的宽松政策肯定是高笔数保险金的的解释，或者原因。（注意，没有讲钱付的多少，只是付了多少笔）

要加强的不是：s省保险公司确实付了多笔数的保险金
而是S的宽松政策确实是高笔数保险金的原因。

如题：别的地方一般都只支付紧急性车祸，非紧急性车祸需要手续才行。而在S，无论紧急或非紧急都可以无条件付给出车祸的人。
假设S年均发生紧急性车祸100，非紧急性车祸300.而其他地方也差不多。这时候其他地方保险公司一般只支付紧急性的100次车祸。而S除了要付紧急性的100次外，对于非紧急性车祸的索赔也是有求必应的。所以这样看来，似乎是由于政策的关系，S地保险公司的赔偿次数要大于其他地方。当S的平均车祸量变多时，就会出现这样的情况，月均紧急性车祸300，非紧急性车祸800，而其他地方紧急性车祸100，非紧急性车祸300。在这种情况下，即使没有政策，仅仅是紧急性的事故的赔偿次数，S地也大大高于其他地方,这对于题目的论点“s的宽松政策肯定是高保险金的的解释”是削弱的。
反过来，如果S地的年均车祸量很小，那么。。。

proheart

我觉得应该这样理解：
最后一句：显然，S的宽松的赔付政策导致了S的保险公司要支付更多的赔偿金。
找支撑这个论断的论据，文章中最后说了 “即使S的人口少的情况下，S的保险公司要支付的赔偿金也那么高，可见是宽松的政策所致”， 再找选项中的论据，E说S的年平均事故也少。   则得出：人口少， 平均事故也少，都这样了赔偿金还高，可见真实宽松的政策所致啊！

leyang9269

同意4楼逻辑

fergusonshuai

michaelriver 发表于 2011-12-23 09:52
这道题的事实是s省保险公司确实付了更多笔数的保险金，论点是s的宽松政策肯定是高笔数保险金的的解释，或者 ...

赞！这才是最正确的解释！
之前一直以为是赔偿钱数的多少，我就想不通了，题干中没讲是单人赔付额呢还是赔付总额