LAST-2-4-12

yiyang

LAST-2-4-12

“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.（A）

(E) Some doctors have all allowing their patients access to their medical records, but those doctors’ patients took no advantage of this policy.

不明白"second"什么意思,为什么选A?

谢谢

chelseayang

the second reason means: according to my experience/if my experience is reliable, no patient would request the medical record anyway.

根据STIMULUS可以看出, 如果REASON2 是对的话，REASON1 是否对就无关紧要了

但如果医生在看病的时候就能马上出病历(as stated in A),那就没有RETRIVING 耗时的问题了, 因为反正医生已经把这工作在见病人的时候就做完了, 这个时候，REASON1是否是真的就变的很重要了

不知道我表达清楚没有, 呵呵

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-4 13:37:43编辑过]

yiyang

白了,解释得非常清楚,感激涕零.

dalunzi

我同意“根据STIMULUS可以看出, 如果REASON2 是对的话，REASON1 是否对就无关紧要了”

但是正因为如此，我就不同意“但如果医生在看病的时候就能马上出病历(as stated in A),那就没有RETRIVING 耗时的问题了, 因为反正医生已经把这工作在见病人的时候就做完了, 这个时候，REASON1是否是真的就变的很重要了”   因为这和大前提是自相矛盾的，“REASON1 是否对本就无关紧要”，讨论它正确与否有什么意义？reason2此时还是能cansel out 它。

这题没想明白，请继续指点！

iyell

我理解CHELSEAYANG 的意思是:

如果有了A所说的原则， REASON1就可以成为反对让病人看病历的理由， 同时，REASON2即使是对的，也没用，因为A说了，医生就必须准备好，不管病人要不要看. 所以说，2没有CANCEL OUT 1

不知道我对斑竹的理解是否正确

chelseayang

没有A的时候，R2可以CANCEL OUT R1;

加了A这个原则之后，R1就可以成为反对让病人看病历的理由，也就是，不能再被R2给CANCEL OUT了, 因为: A要求医生必须GET READY, 也就是说，不论病人要不要看，医生都得事先最好准备

dalunzi

恍然大悟，呵呵！原来想的角度有误！谢谢！

lawyer_1

chelseayang版主解释的很清楚，透彻。大NN。赞一句。

zenger

本题是否也可以理解为它因。

按题干逻辑，second本来可以cancel 1, A给出了1存在的它因--legal requirement

xjlv128

原来如此！真是迷迷糊糊的！