扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E1-CR-2
Economist: On average, the emergency treatment for an elderly person for injuries resulting from a fall costs $11,000. A new therapeutic program can significantly reduce an elderly person's chances of falling. Though obviously desirable for many reasons, this treatment program will cost $12,500 and thus cannot be justified.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion of the argument?
Among elderly people who had followed the program for only a few months, the number of serious falls reported was higher than it was for people who had followed the program for its recommended minimum length of one year.
Falls resulting in serious injuries are less common among elderly people living in nursing homes than they are among elderly people who live alone at home.
A frequent result of injuries sustained in falls is long-term pain, medication for which is not counted among the average per-person costs of emergency treatment for elderly people's injuries from such falls.
The new therapeutic program focuses on therapies other than medication, since overmedication can cause disorientation and hence increase the likelihood that an elderly person will have a serious fall.
A significant portion of the cost of the new therapeutic program is represented by regular visits by health care professionals, the costs of which tend to increase more rapidly than do those of other elements of the program.
结论是什么？
C选项是emergency treatment，对应题目
题目指出：On average, the emergency treatment for an elderly person for injuries resulting from a fall costs $11,000.
答案：A frequent result of injuries sustained in falls is long-term pain, medication for which is not counted among the average per-person costs of emergency treatment for elderly people's injuries from such falls. 意思是治疗长期疼痛的人均费用没有被算在内，即成本可能不止$11,000.
这个结论是thus cannot be justified就是这个program不合理，但是要undermine就是削弱，所以就是要找说明这个项目是合理的。
还是看不懂结论是什么，是说就不做这个项目了吗？thus cannot be justified 这个是结论吗？不合理，说的是这个项目是不合理的？
结论是说这种治疗方法消费更高，所以是不合理的。题目要求削弱结论，就是证明这种方法的消费并不高。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
A.用了治愈项目的人们严重摔倒的数量上升，加强了结论。
B 讨论住在哪摔得更轻（无关）
C 摔倒导致长期病痛，这部分的医疗费并未算到老年人摔倒的人均急诊费里。（取非，如果算进去了，可能超过治愈项目，因而不是最便宜的，削弱结论正确）
D 新的治愈项目关注点在于治疗不在于医药（并不能证明新的治疗项目更便宜，无关）
E 新的治疗项目的一大部分是专家的定期会诊，这部分比项目的其它部分还要上涨（并不能证明比急诊便宜，反而可能更贵），加强了结论。
因果推理。前提（因）：（现在）摔倒的治疗费比治愈项目的购买费低。 结论（果）：（如果）摔倒了去治疗更合理。（谁便宜谁合理） 问题：如果证明摔倒了去治疗不合理？