Here is another one 2001.1.25 A 1991 calculation was made to determine what, if any, additional health-care cost beyond ordinary are borne by society at large for people who live sedentary life-style. The figure reached was life time on average $1650. Thus people's voluntary choice not to excercise places a significant burden on society. credited answer is c) Physical conditions that eventually require medical or nursing-home care often first predispose a person to adopt a sedentary life. Kaplan's explanation An issue that the author fails to take into account must be relevant to the author’s scope. “Thus” signals the conclusion: Society is burdened by people’s voluntary choice not to exercise. The evidence is the greater cost to society of almost $2,000 additional per sedentary—i.e. not exercising, not active—citizen. The evidence, however, never brings up the “voluntary” nature of sedentary living, and therein lies the argument’s flaw. If (C) is true, then in fact the cause-and-effect to which the author points is reversed. It’s not that sitting around raises the cost to society; it’s that the illnesses require one to sit around; the lack of exercise is hardly voluntary, and the costs are run up by the greater costs of care. Kaplan is right in there is a scope shift, but it does a real poor job explaining why C is correct. Looks like the Kaplan writer tries real hard and come up with cause effect reversal with a vicious cycle explanation to fit with C. It really doesnt make any sense whatsoever. Actually it's quite simple here. The conclusion says that people's voluntary choices of sedentary life are sucking those $1605 on average out of the society. But in fact, as C shows, the (majority) of those money have gone to seniors that are required not be active because of their physical condtions), and therefore the lazy bunch have not gotten much of those money and caused much burden to the society.
[此贴子已经被作者于2006-11-28 14:43:08编辑过] |