[求助]LSAT-2-4-12

G-CRACKER

两个疑问： 一是CANCEL OUT做何解释？取消/补偿似乎都不通。。。另一个是此题答案A看不出与题干有多少关系？

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

lawyer_1

1.CANCEL OUT是抵消，取消的意思。

2。如果病人将（be going to）没有此要求（第二个理由），则第一个理由不存在（既然病人没要求看病历了，当然不存在看记录浪费时间的问题）所以CANCEL OUT

3。当写病历和病历随时让病人看成为医生的义务时（A选项），第二个理由的情况不一定存在。当然第一个理由的情况就有可能讨论。反正第二个理由不能CANCEL OUT第一个理由了。因为病人有可能看病历了。

G-CRACKER

重新看看医生的两个理由，理由2本来就是cancel out理由1的；所以问题问does not establish...理由2 cancel 理由1...就是对原文论证的消弱，我的理解对吗？IF SO, 我觉得以下的解释也OK.

选项A是新法律要求医生主动出示病例给病人，而不是让病人有一个LEGAL RIGHT来要，这与原文要驳斥的“PATIENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO SEE THEIR MEDICAL RECORD" 是背道而驰的，自然原文驳斥的理由就不成立，原因2就不CANCEL OUT 原因1。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-14 12:26:37编辑过]

Bensontuo

G-CRACKER 发表于 2004-10-14 00:12
两个疑问： 一是CANCEL OUT做何解释？取消/补偿似乎都不通。。。另一个是此题答案A看不出与题干有多少关系 ...

Spot the question type: Discrepancy

認真看, 第一句極為結論

” Though they will - 雖然他們將會... 啊幹, 將會什麼？ “

” Patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records - 病人不應該有法律的權利去看他們的醫療紀錄“

所以結論為何？  結論就是他們雖然會有但是醫生不同意啦！

為什麼醫生不同意？

1. Give 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

所以邏輯練怎麼畫？＝> Give them access ---> waste time ---> reduce time on important duties ---> force them to retrieve and return files.

2.  Experience must be true ---> Patient ---> No going to ask the records.

題目問什麼？  題目說, 如果上述都為真, 那如果下列那一個選項成立的話, 第二個理由跟第一個理由所產生的矛盾不會讓第二個理由取消掉第一個理由?

白話一點啦, 啊都沒病人要他們的紀錄的經驗, 那你又知道這樣很花時間？騙鬼啊？ 重點來了, 醫生假使沒唬爛, 啊叫醫勤人員準備檔案再放回檔案真的很花時間, 而新法令又要通過的話, 那很簡單, 你要跳過 ” 拿檔案在歸檔的步驟啊 “ 意思就是, 拿檔案在歸檔的確浪費時間, 然後醫生也的確沒說謊因為他真的沒有看過病人來問過檔案, 換句話說, 這個法令一定要跳過浪費時間的必要條件- ( retireve and return the file )

來, 我們來看其他答案

B. 這個跟最低薪資的醫勤人員有什麼關係？八竿子打不著關係

C. 原文有說要解釋還是不解釋嗎？  如果浪費時間的必要條件有一個為 ” 解釋給他們聽 “ , 這個會完全變成削弱選項

D. 又來了, 這個跟花費以及費用沒有任何關係

E. 迷惑選項, 如果有些醫生的病人不會利用取的醫療紀錄的政策, 那就代表會取得醫療紀錄政策的病人, 一定屬於某些醫生, 如果為真, 那不就代表" 醫生唬爛？ ” 那如果醫生唬爛, 你等於在直接質詢文中第二個理由的真實性, 那題目講得很清楚 “ If true ", 所以這個不會是答案。