[求助]Last 5-6-21 以前灭有讨论呢~

zxzhyzcy

21.   Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United States were cut in half, an estimated 5,000 lives might be saved each year.

Thomas: How can that be? That would mean that if people adopt this single change in diet for ten years, the population ten years from now will be greater by 50,000 people than it otherwise would have been.

Which one of the following is a statement that Leona could offer Thomas to clarify her own claim and to address the point he has made?

(A) It is possible for the population to grow by 5,000 people for every year if the base year chosen for purposes of comparison is one with unusually low population growth.

(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so-even if they died for some other reason.

(C) If egg consumption were reduced by more than half, the estimated number of lives saved each year could be even more than 5,000.

(D) The actual rate of population growth depends not only on the birth rate, but also on changes in life expectancy.（B）

(E) For the average consumption of eggs to be cut by half, many individual consumers would have to cut their own consumption by much more than half.

不是很明白~能不能有前辈指点一下呢？谢谢哦~~~

dphxmg

The expression, the average consumption (AC), does not refer to any individual entity in reality. It refers to a conceptual relation between two entities.

Suppose the total consumption of eggs by the whole population of the US is represented by T and the whole population is represented by P, then AC = T/P.

In fact, very probably Leona has already got a theoretical model or some expirical data about a particular group of people. And the quoted sentence is just a conclusion.

Thus E is the key. It amounts to a possible premise for the conclusion.

icewarm

Do you have the answer to this question?

I think B is the correct answer.

E would be an answer to a Must Be True question. but this question is apparently not. I don't konw how to classify this question: Resolve the Paradox? Method of Reasoning?

The key thing here is there is an assumption that Thomas assumed in order to draw his conclusion: those 5,000 people saved every year by reducing egg consumption do not die for other reasons until  as least the year that is 10 years from the begining of the diet change.

Leona clearified her statement by pointing out her awareness of the possiblity that people saved by eating less eggs may die for other reasons.

icewarm

Do you have the answer to this question?

I think B is the correct answer.

E would be an answer to a Must Be True question. but this question is apparently not. I don't konw how to classify this question: Resolve the Paradox? Method of Reasoning?

The key thing here is there is an assumption that Thomas assumed in order to draw his conclusion: those 5,000 people saved every year by reducing egg consumption do not die for other reasons until  as least the year that is 10 years from the begining of the diet change.

Leona clearified her statement by pointing out her awareness of the possiblity that people saved by eating less eggs may die for other reasons.

zxzhyzcy

我也选错了E~答案是B哦~

能不能帮忙翻译一下整个题目和B选项呢？感觉还是没有弄明白他们到底在说什么~

icewarm

21.   Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United States were cut in half, an estimated 5,000 lives might be saved each year.
Leona: 如果美国平均鸡蛋食用量削减一半的话，　每年大约能挽救5000人的生命。
Thomas: How can that be? That would mean that if people adopt this single change in diet for ten years, the population ten years from now will be greater by 50,000 people than it otherwise would have been.
Thomas: 那怎么可能？　那就是说如果大家都这样改变饮食十年，与不改变饮食比较　就会有50000人多出来？

Which one of the following is a statement that Leona could offer Thomas to clarify her own claim and to address the point he has made?

(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so-even if they died for some other reason.
更准确的说，　有5000人因改变饮食被救（如果不改变，　他们本会死于多食蛋）尽管他们可能因为别的原因死去。

zxzhyzcy

我懂了！谢谢icewarm！

ssssss

This question stem is not a usual one. It basicly ask you to find an answer that can explain and support both Leona and Thomas’ argument.

B should the right answer. It offer Thomas to clarify her own claim and to address the point he has made