It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals. A proposed law would allow general advertising of prescription medications. Opponents object that the general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications. But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?
Whether advertising for prescription medications might alert patients to the existence of effective treatments for minor ailments that they had previously thought to be untreatable
Whether some people might go to a physician for no reason other than to ask for a particular medication they have seen advertised
Whether the proposed law requires prescription-medication advertisements directed to the general public to provide the same information as do advertisements directed to physicians
Whether advertisements for prescription medications are currently an important source of information about newly available medications for physicians
Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demand for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired
来自RON大神:从有最终决定权的人的观点出发(假设你是医生)。结论说的是因为医生有最终话语权,所以处方药不会被乱开。(因果联系)
B:即使有人无缘无故问你开药,但你是还是能决定是否开药给他。
E:如果你让步给病人开药,可能就会造成乱开药的情况。
ACD无关。
While you could argue that (B) might make physicians more likely to give out more medications, (E) says that physicians definitely will.
判断选项的优劣。
这个argument提炼出来就是 医生有最终决定权=>可以给大众搞广告 (e)说明了医生有最终决定权【事实上】已经因为大众看广告被影响了,(b)只是可能会有影响。
因:医生有最终话语权
果:不合适的处方药不会流行起来
D题目默认的是医生是懂得这个药不好的,所以D不对,成为信息来源也不会影响医生的判断
E:如果你让步给病人开药,可能就会造成乱开药的情况。 还是没理解
因:医生有最终话语权
果:不合适的处方药不会流行起来
D题目默认的是医生是懂得这个药不好的,所以D不对,成为信息来源也不会影响医生的判断
E:如果你让步给病人开药,可能就会造成乱开药的情况。 还是没理解
DE
这个题其实就是判断哪个情况可以造成乱开药的情况:因为E是一定会造成乱开药的
因为前面有说过这个情况是因为病人没有专业知识而要求医生开药的,所以要从病人这个方向去考虑
再一个就是,因为默认医生有专业知识,所以即使广告是来源,也不见得医生会相信这个广告内容
来自RON大神:从有最终决定权的人的观点出发(假设你是医生)。结论说的是因为医生有最终话语权,所以处方药不会被乱开。(因果联系)
B:即使有人无缘无故问你开药,但你是还是能决定是否开药给他。
E:如果你让步给病人开药,可能就会造成乱开药的情况。
ACD无关。
这题做完点Next的一瞬间就觉得糟糕了
这题结论的要点是,最后开不开还是在医师!!你跑去问他,他不给你开,那还不是卵用没有,所以B的错的。
E这里词汇很重要 succumb屈服,屈服于病人的压力,你不开是吧,老子天天找你闹事,你开不开,如果你开,那就推翻原文结论,如果死不开,那就支持原文结论。
DE
这个题其实就是判断哪个情况可以造成乱开药的情况:因为E是一定会造成乱开药的
因为前面有说过这个情况是因为病人没有专业知识而要求医生开药的,所以要从病人这个方向去考虑
再一个就是,因为默认医生有专业知识,所以即使广告是来源,也不见得医生会相信这个广告内容
general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications. 此处一个assumption应该是,人们就算看到药品广告也不能自己买,而必须通过医生来开药。在这一假设下B是无关的。
conclusion:因为医生对开药有最终话语权,不合适的开药情况不会因直面大众的处方药广告而增加。
e 医生在某情况下give in,药物不合适也会开处方
一项新法律允许药物广告面对大众。反对者认为普通人缺乏判断广告的能力,可能会要求医生开不适合的处方。
但是由于医生拥有最后的话语权,因此误开药方的现象不会变得更频繁。
choice b, 是否面向大众的医药广告和面向医生的广告提供的信息是一样的。irrelevant,医生不一定需要advertisement作出是否开药的判断。同理choice c也是irrelevant
因果。他因。
E 医生是否会因病人的要求而妥协
错选B,脑补得太多,以为病人无任何缘由只是直接来任性找医生开药得话,医生也不会诊断病人的情况需要啥药,也就没法拒绝病人直接的要求了。。。。
不要错选b,即使广告信息不一样,医生也能判决不一定会被误导
) is about the information contained in the advertisements. however, we've already established that, "when it comes to drugs, people don't know what the heck they are talking about" -- so, it doesn't really matter what information is in the advertisements.
Gap 医生拥有决定权≠医生不会开不合理的处方药
give in to 迁就
d 成不成为physicians的信息来源,并不能让我们判断医生会不会按此来开药,会不会开错药
e 能帮助我们知道physicians到底会不会乱开药
E说明了医生会受到病人影响。
give in to 迁就
对啦
因:医生有最终话语权
果:不合适的处方药不会流行起来