GWD逻辑一题，看了解释也不明白~~~求解

sophiagregmat

Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do notrequire surgery, are given follow-up x-rays because their orthopedistsare concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, allthe fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to havehealed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A.Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists areless likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.

B.Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealedby the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.

C.X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in severalhospitals were reviewed.

D.The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired isalways checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.

E.Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of boneother than ankle bones.
答案选C, 虽然通过排除可以选出，但是还是不太懂C项，看解释说是增强了样本代表性，还是不明白，求各位解答，跪谢~~~

pinkking

总觉得我给另外一个楼主也讲解过这道题，长话短说吧，题目意思就是说follow up检查没用啦，因为检查结果全部骨折的都长得好好的，没有意外情况。

可是这个人没有考虑到一个特殊情况，有可能这些是因为这个医院医生水平特别高，所以治疗得好，其他医院可不一定哦。所以这点上就要加强这个sample的代表性。

其实和写AWA似的，这个样本可能不够有说服力啦，要加强。

sophiagregmat

谢谢，懂啦~