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.
因果
治疗方法cost得更多 →这个方法不合理
削弱,此题中不用一因多果,最好引入干扰因素CQ2扰乱因果联系
A、治疗效果与时间长短对比,与cost 无关
B、住家与住院fall的影响对比,NM cost
C、fall是长期病,一些cost没有算进去(可能会cost很多很多,干扰因素),不用这个治疗方法可能会导致cost更多,CORRECT
D、新治疗方法的细节,优点及原因,NM cost
E、提到cost,但说的是新方法中cost的比例问题,与多少无关,且说治疗方法的cost有可能会涨,增强
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论