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.
P:因为预防跌倒的项目花费比治疗跌倒的花费贵->C:没有合理的经济理由去推广预防跌倒项目
choice a, 参加预防项目几个月的老人跌倒次数比那些参加了至少一年的老人跌倒次数要多。讨论的是预防项目的效果,无法反驳economically disadvantage
choice b, irrelevant
choice c,跌倒引起长期疼痛,疼痛治疗费用一般不会记入跌倒的药费中。correct,说明实际跌倒产生的医药费用高于$11,000
choice d ,irrelavent
choice e,新预防项目的一部分费用倾向于增加。加强了结论
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论