首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
If asked, "What are health decisions?", most of us would answer in terms of hospitals, doctors and pills. Yet we are all making
If asked, "What are health decisions?", most of us would answer in terms of hospitals, doctors and pills. Yet we are all making
admin
2011-01-05
55
问题
If asked, "What are health decisions?", most of us would answer in terms of hospitals, doctors and pills. Yet we are all making a whole range of decisions about our health which go beyond this limited area; for example, whether or not to smoke, exercise, drive a motorbike, or drink alcohol really. The ways we reach decisions and form attitudes about our health are only just beginning to be understood.
The main paradox is why people consistently do things which are known to be very hazardous. Two good examples of this are smoking and not wearing seat belts. Both these examples underline elements of how people reach decisions about their health. Understanding this process is crucial. We can then more effectively change public attitudes to hazardous, voluntary activities like smoking.
Smokers run double the risk of contracting heart disease, several times the risk of suffering from chronic bronchitis and at least 25 times the risk of lung cancer, as compared to non-smokers. Despite extensive press campaigns ( especially in the past 20 years) , which have regularly told smokers and car drivers the grave risks they are running, the number of smokers and seat belt wearers has remained much the same. Although the number of deaths from road accidents and smoking are well publicised, they have aroused little public interest.
If we give smokers the real figures, will it alter their views on the dangers of smoking? Unfortunately not. Many of the "real figures" are in the form of probabilistic estimates, and evidence shows that people are very bad at processing and understanding this kind of information.
The kind of information that tends to be relied on both by the smoker and seat belt non-wearer is anecdotal, based on personal experiences. All smokers seem to have an Uncle Bill or an Auntie Mabel who has been smoking cigarettes since they were twelve, lived to 90, and died because they fell down the stairs. And if they don’t have such an aunt or uncle, they are certain to have heard of someone who has. Similarly, many motorists seem to have heard of people who would have been killed if they had been wearing seat belts.
Reliance on this kind of evidence and not being able to cope with "probabilistic" data form the two main foundation stones of people’s assessment of risk. A third is reliance on press-publicised dangers and causes of death. American psychologists have shown that people overestimate the frequency (and therefore the danger) of the dramatic causes of death (like aeroplane crashes)and underestimate the undramatic, unpublicised killers (like smoking) which actually take a greater toll of life.
What is needed is some way of changing people’s evaluations of and attitudes to the risks of certain activities like smoking. What can be done? The "national" approach of giving people the "facts and figures" seems ineffective. But the evidence shows that when people are frightened, they are more likely to change their estimates of the dangers involved in smoking or not wearing seat belts. Press and television can do this very cost-effectively. Programmes like Dying for a Fag (a Thames TV programme) vividly showed the health hazards of smoking and may have increased the chances of people stopping smoking permanently.
So a mass-media approach may work. But it needs to be carefully controlled. Overall, the new awareness of the problem of health decisions and behaviour is at least a more hopeful sign for the future.
For answers 51-55, mark
Y (for YES) if the statement agrees with the information given in the passage;
N (for NO) if the statement contradicts the information given in the passage;
NG (for NOT GIVEN) if the information is not given in the passage.
People are good at processing and understanding "probabilistic" data about health.
选项
A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案
Y
解析
由关键词probabilistic快速找到相关段落为倒数第三段。由倒数第三段第一句“not being able to cope with "probabilistic" data”,可知此题陈述:人们擅于处理和理解关于健康的概率性数据,不符合原文,即答案为Y。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/9MAMFFFM
本试题收录于:
A类竞赛(研究生)题库大学生英语竞赛(NECCS)分类
0
A类竞赛(研究生)
大学生英语竞赛(NECCS)
相关试题推荐
Writeareportinaround120wordstodescribethewaterdistributionontheearthandwriteitontheanswersheet.
Doctorsoftentellpatientstotakeacertainkindofmedicineinorderto【D1】______anillness.Forexample,apatientmaynee
Doctorsoftentellpatientstotakeacertainkindofmedicineinorderto【D1】______anillness.Forexample,apatientmaynee
Doctorsoftentellpatientstotakeacertainkindofmedicineinorderto【D1】______anillness.Forexample,apatientmaynee
Doctorsoftentellpatientstotakeacertainkindofmedicineinorderto【D1】______anillness.Forexample,apatientmaynee
Doctorsoftentellpatientstotakeacertainkindofmedicineinorderto【D1】______anillness.Forexample,apatientmaynee
Thepolicemanlookedme______severaltimesandobviouslydislikedwhathesaw.
Allhertime_________experiments,shehasnotimeforsports.
Thereportersexposedthecorruptionofseveralhighofficialsinthegovernment;_________,theywereaskedtoresignfromoffic
随机试题
患者,男性,50岁。2型糖尿病10年,近半月来发现双下肢水肿,并逐渐加重,常感乏力、头晕。遂来医院就诊,查血浆白蛋白25g/L,血清胆固醇及甘油三酯升高,血肌酐、尿素氮正常。查体:血压170/110mmHg,双下肢重度可凹性水肿,诊断为肾病综合征。责任
过敏性紫癜常在病程何时出现肾脏症状
导致代谢性酸中毒的病因,以下不正确的是
关于胆囊结石,下一列哪项不正确
在一起公诉案件的开庭审理时,被告人申请出庭的某公诉人回避,此时,有权对该公诉人是否应予回避作出决定的是:
在地面砖施工中,下列施工方法正确的是()。抹灰工程对材料的技术要求有()。
固定资产投资完成额的计算方法一般为一定时期()。
—列队伍沿直线匀速前进,某时刻一传令兵从队尾出发,匀速向队首前进传送命令,他到达队首后马上原速返回,当他返回队尾时,队伍行进的距离正好与整列队伍的长度相等。问传令兵从出发到最后到达队尾行走的整个路程是队伍长度的多少倍?()
下列程序的功能是计算sum=1+(1+3)+(1+3+5)+……+(1+3+5+……+19)PrivateSubCommand_Click()t=0m=1sum=0Dot=t+m
W:SunshineHotel.MayIhelpyou?M:________
最新回复
(
0
)