The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers. Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.
Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?
Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.
The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.
People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.
Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.
Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.
一直在纠结A选项,但是慢慢自己理顺了,A说的是吸烟的人比不吸烟的人少吸入vitamin和minerals,我原来想的是所以吸烟的人增加吸入vitamin和minerals才有效,因为他们本身比较少。但是后来认真想了想,我是这么了解的,就算吸烟的人一开始就比不吸烟的人吸收vitamin和minerals多,吸烟的人继续吸收vitamin和minerals的话也还是能对他们有好处,所以A选项对结论没影响。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论