Loading question...
You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools
Back to Questions
Prev Next
Practice Listening: Highlight Correct Summary ID: #34842 Short England Journal
Instructions ›
You will hear a recording. Click on the paragraph that best relates to the recording.

Transcript:

All the evidence that is related to palliative care these days demonstrates with absolute certainty people live better and live longer. There was a seminal article out of the New England Journal of Medicine in 2010. A study done at Harvard by friends of mine, colleagues. End-stage lung cancer one group with palliative care, a similar group without. The group with palliative care reported less pain, less depression. They needed fewer hospitalizations. And, ladies and gentlemen, they lived three to six months longer. If palliative care were a cancer drug, every cancer doctor on the planet would write a prescription for it. Why don’t they? This is a space that we will all come to at some point. But this conversation today is not about dying, it is about living. Living based on our values, what we find sacred and how we want to write the chapters of our lives, whether it's the last or the last five.
* Click on the correct answer

Result:

AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Option 2: "Evidence has shown that palliative care can help patients experience less pain and depression. They can also live longer up to six months with palliative care."

Explanation: This option accurately summarizes the main points of the text. It reflects the evidence presented regarding palliative care leading to less pain and depression, and it correctly states that patients can live longer, specifically mentioning the three to six months duration. The phrasing aligns well with the text's emphasis on the positive outcomes of palliative care.

Option 1: "Research has shown that palliative care should be seen as a cancer drug, because it can help patients live at least one year longer. Currently there is no prescription for it written by doctors."

Explanation: This option misrepresents the text by stating that palliative care can help patients live at least one year longer, while the text specifies a range of three to six months longer. Additionally, it incorrectly suggests that palliative care should be viewed as a cancer drug, which is not the main point of the text. The text emphasizes the benefits of palliative care in terms of quality of life rather than equating it to a drug.

Option 3: "It has been proved that palliative care can directly help patients to live their life based on their values and faith, and help them to write the chapters of their lives."

Explanation: This option incorrectly focuses on the idea of living based on values and faith, which is mentioned in the text but is not the primary focus. The text discusses the benefits of palliative care in terms of health outcomes rather than the philosophical aspects of living. Therefore, this option does not capture the essence of the text.

Option 4: "Their is no direct proof that palliative care is able to extend patient's life. However, if patients have their own values and find what are sacred, they can live a longer life with up to five more years."

Explanation: This option contains contradictory information, stating there is no direct proof of palliative care extending life, which contradicts the text's assertion that patients with palliative care lived three to six months longer. Additionally, it introduces the idea of living longer based on values, which is not supported by the text. The mention of 'five more years' is also inaccurate, as the text specifies a shorter duration.

The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.

Sign in to read the full explanation

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.
Be the first! No community answers here yet. Submit yours and help others learn.
Saving...