Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: If only reason 2 (R2) and not reason 1 (R1) is the reason for the assertion (A).
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Urban weight gain is typically multi-factorial, but exam questions of the Assertion–Reason type ask whether the proposed reasons directly and plausibly account for the assertion. Here, we must examine whether abundance of food (R1) and/or a specific dietary pattern plus sedentary lifestyle (R2) serve as reasons for rising average urban weight.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Weight gain (long-run) follows from sustained positive energy balance: calories in > calories out. Abundance (R1) is a contextual enabler but does not by itself force higher intake. In contrast, R2 directly addresses both sides of the energy-balance equation: higher-calorie, lower-satiety foods (intake) and reduced physical activity (expenditure), which jointly increase the probability of sustained caloric surplus.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Test R1 → A: Food abundance may coexist with stable weights when cultural habits, pricing, or awareness limit intake; abundance is neither necessary nor sufficient.2) Test R2 → A: Diets rich in fats/refined cereals elevate energy density; sedentary habits reduce expenditure → likely surplus → gradual weight gain.3) Compare explanatory power: R2 provides a proximate mechanism; R1 is only a background condition.Verification / Alternative check:Populations with abundant food but high activity or whole-food diets may avoid weight gain; conversely, populations with ultra-processed, high-fat/refined diets and sedentary routines show rising average BMI—consistent with R2.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:Option A over-credits abundance. Option C wrongly claims both are reasons; R1 is too general. Option D denies clear causal pathways from R2.
Common Pitfalls:Confusing availability with consumption; assuming abundance guarantees overeating.
Final Answer:If only reason 2 (R2) and not reason 1 (R1) is the reason for the assertion (A).
Discussion & Comments