Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expenses by preventing
strokes and heart disease. Yet any money so saved amounts to only one-forth
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?
(A)The many fatal strokes and heart attacks resulting from untreated
hypertension cause in significant medical expenditures but large economic
losses of other sorts.
(B)The cost, per patient, of preventive treatment for hypertension would
remain constant even if such treatment were instituted on a large scale.
(C)In matters of health care, economic considerations should ideally not be
dominant.
(D)Effective prevention presupposes early diagnosis, and programs to ensure
early diagnosis are costly.
(E)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.
答案是Ａ
有沒有大大可以幫我解釋第二句跟原文的關係？
無論如何我都讀不懂第二句
姑夠神也不知道我在說什麼
--
buda buda buda buda
buda buda buda buda
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.112.115.226