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?_每日一题出国考试答疑器_GMAT

[Critical Reasoning]

试题详情

题目：

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?

选项:

A、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.

B、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.

C、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.

D、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.

E、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.

提问：

每日一题

解答：

阅读7845

解答：小智

提问：

每日一题

解答：

阅读6919

解答：郭培月老师

提问：

每日一题

解答：

阅读7846

解答：小智老师

提问：

题干是：老年人由于摔跤导致受伤产生的急救费是11000，有一种新的治疗方案能够显著的减少老年人摔跤的机会。尽管在某些原因上是可取的，但是这个方案要花费12500，因此是不合理的。问削弱 A说参见救助方案几个月的老人比参加一年的摔跤多。无关，排除 B说住疗养院的老人比独自一人在家的摔跤少。无关，排除 C说摔跤的结果是长期的疼痛，而治疗长期疼痛的药费用并没有计算在老人摔跤所产生的急救费中。说明方案花费更高，不好，感觉是加强。就错杀了 D说新方案更关注治疗而不是药，过量用药会导致摔跤的可能性更大。无关 E说新方案的成本主要是由于专业人员的更多Visit产生的，这种成本的增长比其他因素更快。由于其他都被我肯定地排除了，就选了E 这题我花了四五分钟后还是做错了，请英老师帮我分析下思维的问题，及如何练习及改正。

解答：

阅读6990

解答： sysadmin老师

提问：

这道题讲过很多次，但是还是不明白。我的做题思路是，A讲得是follow program与不follow跌倒的人数的对比，原文有提及，留。B讲的是住所的不同导致的跌倒人数对比，无关，杀。C讲得是medication包不包括的问题，无关，杀。D讲得是therapy和medication导致跌倒的问题，无关，杀。E讲得是program represented by whom的问题，无关，杀。想知道为什么A不对和为什么C比A好？

解答：

阅读6959

解答： sysadmin老师

问个问题

注册太麻烦？点这里查看免费答疑吧！

出国考试答疑器，
解决你的问题

在这里你可以:

[Critical Reasoning]

试题详情

题目：

选项:

答案:

提问：

解答：

提问：

解答：

提问：

解答：

提问：

解答：

提问：

解答：

问个问题

学长故事

免扫码试听

24小时随身答疑小程序

GMAT每日一题

出国考试答疑器，解决你的问题

在这里你可以:

[Critical Reasoning]

试题详情

题目：

选项:

答案:

提问：

解答：

提问：

解答：

提问：

解答：

提问：

解答：

提问：

解答：

问个问题

学长故事

免扫码试听

24小时随身答疑小程序

GMAT每日一题

出国考试答疑器，
解决你的问题