Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expenses by preventing strokes and heart disease. Yet any money so saved amounts to only one-fourth of the expenditures required to treat the hypertensive population. Therefore, there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension.
Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the conclusion above?
The many fatal strokes and heart attacks resulting from untreated hypertension cause insignificant medical expenditures but large economic losses of other sorts.
The cost, per patient, of preventive treatment for hypertension would remain constant even if such treatment were instituted on a large scale.
In matters of health care, economic considerations should ideally not be dominant.
Effective prevention presupposes early diagnosis, and programs to ensure early diagnosis are costly.
The net savings in medical resources achieved by some preventive health measures are smaller than the net losses attributable to certain other measures of this kind.
读错题目,没看见最后一句话的no
因果。他因削弱。
因果
高血壓治療可以防止中風和心臟病帶來的醫療費用,但是省的錢只有高血壓治療費用的1/4,所以在經濟上是不划算的
weaken複因
A 由沒治療高血壓導致的致命中風和心臟病造成不太多的醫療費用,但是在其他部分有很大的經濟損失
yet any money so saved amounts to only one-fourth of the expenditures required to treat the hypertensive population.
怎麼翻譯?
但是省下的錢只有必須要用在治療高血壓患者身上花費的1/4
这句话要是在SC里面,一定是病句...
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论