※ 引述《buda (逆趨勢者套)》之銘言： : Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expenses by preventing : strokes and heart disease. Yet any money so saved amounts to only one-forth : 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 heart attacks resulting from untreated : hypertension cause in significant 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 instituted on a large scale. : (C)In matters of health care, economic considerations should ideally not be : dominant. : (D)Effective prevention presupposes early diagnosis, and programs to ensure : early diagnosis are costly. : (E)The net savings in medical resources achieved by some preventive health : measures are smaller than the net losses attributable to certain other : measures of this kind. : 答案是Ａ : 有沒有大大可以幫我解釋第二句跟原文的關係？ : 無論如何我都讀不懂第二句 : 姑夠神也不知道我在說什麼 第一段說治療高血壓可以預先阻止中風和心臟病 第二段就反駁說這樣只能減少四分之一的錢用在治療高血壓的花費上 因此也沒啥值得讚揚的 (A)解釋了原文反駁的缺陷 因為雖然在治療高血壓的花費這項目指省了四分之一的花費 但是預防了中風和心臟病, 減少了這方面的開銷 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 218.175.181.175