hce_cmu
108年
英文
第 45 題
📖 題組：
The discovery of a recent research published in Nature shows that although electrophysiological monitoring could not detect any neural activity that reflects consciousness in mammalian brains, it did pick up cellular functions hours after death. In this study, researchers obtained dead pigs from a state-run slaughterhouse; they then connected 32 dead pigs to an artificial perfusion system called BrainEx. The brains of these pigs were removed from the skulls. As a result, these dead pigs would not have the ability to perceive the environment and experience sensations such as pain. But, incredibly, BrainEx—a computerized system utilized to control the blood flow, temperature, and perfusion, was capable of restoring circulation to major arteries and small blood vessels in pig brains. Notably, a drug used to enhance the blood flow in people’s brain also successfully dilated pig blood vessels. Electrodes inserted into pig brain tissues even detected activities between and among cells. Findings of this research raise challenges to a long-standing assumption that brains will be irrevocably damaged soon after blood stops circulation. Importantly, the discovery of this research exacerbates the tug-of-war between the effort to salvage a person’s life and the endeavors to remove and implant the organs in another body. Typically, practitioners use various rules of thumb, such as “declare death after 30 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitative efforts”, as the reference point for death determination and for switching from life-saving effort to “organ-saving” effort (for transplantation purposes). But the aforementioned rules of thumb have not been clear-cut. In most countries, most organs for transplant have been extracted from people who have been pronounced brain dead; however, recently, more and more people who are declared dead after their heart and lungs have stopped working (circulatory death) are also eligible for organ donation. Apparently, the standards for death determination and organ transplantation are still not unequivocally accepted by clinicians. The debate on life and death will continue. Despite the lack of consensus, the transplant community, scientists, and medical professionals and other stakeholders generally agree that indisputable, unambiguous transplantation guidelines that can help protect the interests of individuals for whom recovery is a possibility and the interests of potential organ recipients are warranted. Such transplantation guidelines will help medical professionals to make indisputable decisions on the timing to switch from saving someone’s life to saving their organs for the benefit of another person. In any case, this decision on “life and death” should not come down to a moral decision. In addition, medical professionals should also make joint effort to optimize the resuscitation technology. If such a technology gets improved, people who are pronounced brain dead may become candidates for brain resuscitation, rather than candidates for organ transportation. In this regard, it would be harder for families to accept that further resuscitative intervention performed on their love ones is futile. In our view, as the science of brain resuscitation progresses, the decisions to revive patients from unconsciousness or apparent death might increasingly become more reasonable; and the decisions to give up resuscitation in favor of transplanting organs might seem less so.
The discovery of a recent research published in Nature shows that although electrophysiological monitoring could not detect any neural activity that reflects consciousness in mammalian brains, it did pick up cellular functions hours after death. In this study, researchers obtained dead pigs from a state-run slaughterhouse; they then connected 32 dead pigs to an artificial perfusion system called BrainEx. The brains of these pigs were removed from the skulls. As a result, these dead pigs would not have the ability to perceive the environment and experience sensations such as pain. But, incredibly, BrainEx—a computerized system utilized to control the blood flow, temperature, and perfusion, was capable of restoring circulation to major arteries and small blood vessels in pig brains. Notably, a drug used to enhance the blood flow in people’s brain also successfully dilated pig blood vessels. Electrodes inserted into pig brain tissues even detected activities between and among cells. Findings of this research raise challenges to a long-standing assumption that brains will be irrevocably damaged soon after blood stops circulation. Importantly, the discovery of this research exacerbates the tug-of-war between the effort to salvage a person’s life and the endeavors to remove and implant the organs in another body. Typically, practitioners use various rules of thumb, such as “declare death after 30 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitative efforts”, as the reference point for death determination and for switching from life-saving effort to “organ-saving” effort (for transplantation purposes). But the aforementioned rules of thumb have not been clear-cut. In most countries, most organs for transplant have been extracted from people who have been pronounced brain dead; however, recently, more and more people who are declared dead after their heart and lungs have stopped working (circulatory death) are also eligible for organ donation. Apparently, the standards for death determination and organ transplantation are still not unequivocally accepted by clinicians. The debate on life and death will continue. Despite the lack of consensus, the transplant community, scientists, and medical professionals and other stakeholders generally agree that indisputable, unambiguous transplantation guidelines that can help protect the interests of individuals for whom recovery is a possibility and the interests of potential organ recipients are warranted. Such transplantation guidelines will help medical professionals to make indisputable decisions on the timing to switch from saving someone’s life to saving their organs for the benefit of another person. In any case, this decision on “life and death” should not come down to a moral decision. In addition, medical professionals should also make joint effort to optimize the resuscitation technology. If such a technology gets improved, people who are pronounced brain dead may become candidates for brain resuscitation, rather than candidates for organ transportation. In this regard, it would be harder for families to accept that further resuscitative intervention performed on their love ones is futile. In our view, as the science of brain resuscitation progresses, the decisions to revive patients from unconsciousness or apparent death might increasingly become more reasonable; and the decisions to give up resuscitation in favor of transplanting organs might seem less so.
Which of the following is closest in meaning to the word “warranted” in the passage?
- A appreciated
- B employed
- C converted
- D needed
- E approved
思路引導 VIP
在閱讀這句話時，請先留意作者描述的前因後果：文中先提到「缺乏共識」以及臨床決策的困境，隨後提出「一套明確的指南」作為對應方案。如果目前的醫療現場充滿了不確定性，那麼專業社群對於這個「解決方案」會展現出什麼樣的態度？是單純的欣賞，還是認為這個東西「有存在的必要」呢？你可以試著將這個詞替換為「合理且必要」來通讀整句試試看。
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你精準地掌握了詞彙在特定語境下的深意！這道題考查的是動詞 warrant 的衍生用法。在文章第三段中，作者提到面對腦死判定與器官移植間的拉鋸戰，醫學界與科學界普遍認為，一套能保護各方利益且明確的移植指南是 warranted。從上下文邏輯來看，既然現狀是「缺乏共識」且「標準不一」，那麼制定一套明確的準則自然是「迫切需要」且「合理正當」的行動。
語境推論與詞義辨析
這題的鑑別度在於學生是否能擺脫對單字初階定義的束縛。Warrant 在法律語境中雖有「搜索令」之意，但在學術或正式評論中，當動詞使用時是指「使……成為必要」或「證明……是正當的」。選項 (D) needed（被需要）最能對應文中「基於現狀混亂而產生的必要性」。相較於 (E) approved（被批准）強調程序完成，warranted 在此更強調「應然性」，即這套指南「應該要存在」。這類題目難度屬於中等，考驗的是你從段落主旨（解決混亂）推導出詞彙正確功能的能力。