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.
请问D 新的项目会大大减少老年人严重摔倒的可能性 意思不也是说可以省掉以后的医药费用 只是现在多花钱 但是以后就不用再花钱么?为什么D这个选项不对呢?
C和D犹豫了很久选错了……
结论:因为 therapeutic program的费用12500超过了正常摔倒的治疗成本11000,所以这个program不好。因此要从cost上入手,D的话,推理文段也没有说emergency treatment就一定会导致overmedication,就算会overmedication而导致老人又摔倒,那我也还是宁愿花少的钱治疗,也不用 更贵的therapeutic program
有道理 感觉自己脑补过度了 谢谢回复~
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论