Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expanses by preventing strokes and heart disease.Yet any money so saved amounts to only one-fourth of the expenditures required to treat the hypertensive population.Therefore, there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension. Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the conclusion above? (a) The many fatal strokes and hearts attacks resulting form untreated hypertension cause insignificant medical expenditures but large economic losses of other sorts. (b) The cost , per patient, of preventive treatment for hypertension would remain constant even if such treatment were institute on a large scale. (c) In matters of health care , economic consideratioins should ideally not be dominant. (d) Effictive prevention presupposes early diagnosis, and programs to ensure early diagnosisi are costly. (e) the net saving in medical resources achieved by some preventive health measure are smaller that hte net losses attibutable to certain other measure of this kind. 我對題目不是很懂 第一句說 預防高血壓的治療減少一些防止中風及心血管疾病的開銷 那第2句要怎麼解釋比較順阿 我的想法是 然而,只有1/4節省下來的錢被去治療高血壓的人口 <--字面上翻譯 可是我還是不懂 題目想問我什麼 請牛人解釋一下吧 謝謝 答案是A -- 日情蒐點名--郭勇志︰會怕就好 〔記者羅惠齡／台中報導〕今年日本出版的新球季日本職棒球員名鑑，在分析亞錦賽議 題中，將郭勇志列為台灣隊注目投手之一，郭勇志不好意思地表示，大概是去年成績不錯 ，被注意到了。將郭勇志列入要特別注意的球員，是因為他去年獲得聯盟救援王，控球 、直球速度及壓制能力都不錯，有機會獲國家隊青睞。看到自己被日本人注意到，郭勇 志意外之餘也表示︰「會怕就好。」 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 203.70.94.224 ※ 編輯: lovekyoko 來自: 203.70.94.224 (04/15 18:23)