Бесплатный урок с нашим репетитором!

Узнать подробнее

Новая Школа - онлайн-школа подготовки к ЕГЭ
При поддержке
Посмотреть все вопросы нейросети
Бесплатный пробный урок с репетитором

Узнай больше про репетиторов Новой Школы и запишись на бесплатный пробный урок. Мы проверим твой уровень знаний и составим план обучения по любому предмету и классу

Вопрос от Анонимного юзера 31 декабря 2025 14:50

18. The author believes that meat eaters are very ... 1) aggressive. 2) irresponsible. 3) pessimistic. 4) ill-informed. Meat eaters you are daredevils or dumb. Or both. I am a vegetarian as well as my parents and all my family members. I've been a vegetarian for as long as I can remember. There have been times during my years of vegetarianism when I've wondered if I may indeed grow out of it. I've wondered if there might come a day when I'll put aside my childish aversion to the thought of dead stuff travelling through my intestines, like a corpse on a raft ride. However, it could never happen, and not because I'm so enlightened, sensitive or any of the other euphemisms for whining hippie usually dumped on vegetarians. My conversion to flesh-eating couldn't happen because, frankly, I'm not stupid enough. As in, I can read. Analysis of more than 6,000 pancreatic cancer cases published in the British Journal of Cancer says that eating just 50g of processed meat a day (one sausage or a couple of slices of bacon) raises the likelihood of pancreatic cancer by a fifth. lOOg a day (the equivalent of a medium burger) raises it by 38%, 150g by 57%. Men are worst hit, as they tend to eat the most processed meat. And while pancreatic cancer is not the most common of cancers, it's frequently diagnosed late, with four-fifths of sufferers dying within a year of diagnosis. It should be pointed out that this is about processed meat. However, many past studies have stated a probable link between too much meat and all manner of cancers and heart problems, as well as links to other conditions, from diabetes and high blood pressure to obesity and Alzheimer's. If, by now, you're thinking that I'm out to shock you, then you couldn't be more wrong. I'd be shocked if any of this was considered new enough to shock anyone. This information has popped up regularly for years in all forms of popular media - newspapers and numerous TV and radio programs, to say nothing of the Internet. Indeed, in this era of info overload, if you've never come across the burgers and kebabs are unhealthy revelation, one would have to presume you've been lying in a coma. Sympathy is in short supply these days. You can't move for people being blamed for their own miserable situations: smokers who burden the NHS; alcoholics who don't deserve liver transplants; obese people who should pay more for flights. By this logic, people who've been regularly informed of the dangers of meat, particularly the cheap processed variety, but who continue to wolf it down should be held just as accountable. Yet if these meat eaters are mentioned at all, it's in general poor lifestyle terms, as an afterthought to drinking, smoking, and lack of exercise. You just don't get people making emotional pronouncements about bacon lovers not deserving cancer treatment or kebab fans burdening the NHS. It's not as if they haven't been warned countless times about the dangers -how willfully ill-informed can people be? Or maybe they're just hard. In fact, when I say I'm not dumb enough to eat meat, I should probably add brave enough. With so much frightening information, so readily available for so long, the modern committed carnivore must have nerves of steel. And yet, we should admit it, meat eaters still predominate and even grow in number. Must all of them be deaf and blind, and immune to a general sense of self-safety?

Ответ нейросети

31 декабря 2025 14:50

Классная задача, давай разберёмся по шагам.

  1. Что спрашивают
  • Нужно выбрать краткое слово/качество, которое автор приписывает мясоедам: “The author believes that meat eaters are very ...”
  1. Что прямо говорит автор в тексте
  • В начале есть предложение: "Meat eaters — you are daredevils or dumb. Or both." Это прямо задаёт главную характеристику meat eaters как рискованных/глупых людей.
  1. Сопоставляем варианты
    1. aggressive — текст не говорит о агрессии мясоедов.
    1. irresponsible — близко к смыслу: daredevils (рискуют) и/или dumb (глупы) указывают на безответственность.
    1. pessimistic — нигде нет упоминания мрачности или пессимизма по отношению к мясоедам.
    1. ill-informed — есть упоминания позже в тексте о том, что люди могут быть «willfully ill-informed», но это относится к критике определённой группы и не является основной характеристикой, заданной в начале.
  1. Верный ответ и почему
  • Правильный ответ: 2) irresponsible.
  • Почему именно 2: наиболее напрямую совпадает с фразой автора "daredevils or dumb. Or both." Рискованное поведение и/или глупость трактуется как безответственность. Остальные варианты либо не соответствуют явной формулировке, либо спорно выводятся из текста.
  1. Почему мой ответ 1 был неверен
    1. aggressive не отражает основную идею автора. В тексте нет утверждения, что мясоеды агрессивны; акцент — на риске и глупости, то есть на безответственности. Именно эта характеристика ближе всего к слову "irresponsible".

Короткий итог: правильный выбор — 2) irresponsible. Прямо из фразы автора; остальные варианты не соответствуют основному смыслу.

Хочешь, могу ещё привести пару подобных примеров для тренировки такого типа вопросов.

Пожалуйста, оцените мой ответ лайком или дизлайком.

Задай свой вопрос

Напиши любую задачу или вопрос, а нейросеть её решит

Похожие вопросы 15

Бесплатно Мобильное приложение ГДЗ
Мобильное приложение ГДЗ

Задавай вопросы искуcственному интеллекту текстом или фотографиями в приложении на iPhone или Android

qr-codegoogle-playapp-store

Саша — ассистент в телеграмме

18. The author believes that meat eaters are very ... 1) aggressive. 2) irresponsible. 3) pessimistic. 4) ill-informed. Meat eaters you are daredevils or dumb. Or both. I am a vegetarian as well as my parents and all my family members. I've been a vegetarian for as long as I can remember. There have been times during my years of vegetarianism when I've wondered if I may indeed grow out of it. I've wondered if there might come a day when I'll put aside my childish aversion to the thought of dead stuff travelling through my intestines, like a corpse on a raft ride. However, it could never happen, and not because I'm so enlightened, sensitive or any of the other euphemisms for whining hippie usually dumped on vegetarians. My conversion to flesh-eating couldn't happen because, frankly, I'm not stupid enough. As in, I can read. Analysis of more than 6,000 pancreatic cancer cases published in the British Journal of Cancer says that eating just 50g of processed meat a day (one sausage or a couple of slices of bacon) raises the likelihood of pancreatic cancer by a fifth. lOOg a day (the equivalent of a medium burger) raises it by 38%, 150g by 57%. Men are worst hit, as they tend to eat the most processed meat. And while pancreatic cancer is not the most common of cancers, it's frequently diagnosed late, with four-fifths of sufferers dying within a year of diagnosis. It should be pointed out that this is about processed meat. However, many past studies have stated a probable link between too much meat and all manner of cancers and heart problems, as well as links to other conditions, from diabetes and high blood pressure to obesity and Alzheimer's. If, by now, you're thinking that I'm out to shock you, then you couldn't be more wrong. I'd be shocked if any of this was considered new enough to shock anyone. This information has popped up regularly for years in all forms of popular media - newspapers and numerous TV and radio programs, to say nothing of the Internet. Indeed, in this era of info overload, if you've never come across the burgers and kebabs are unhealthy revelation, one would have to presume you've been lying in a coma. Sympathy is in short supply these days. You can't move for people being blamed for their own miserable situations: smokers who burden the NHS; alcoholics who don't deserve liver transplants; obese people who should pay more for flights. By this logic, people who've been regularly informed of the dangers of meat, particularly the cheap processed variety, but who continue to wolf it down should be held just as accountable. Yet if these meat eaters are mentioned at all, it's in general poor lifestyle terms, as an afterthought to drinking, smoking, and lack of exercise. You just don't get people making emotional pronouncements about bacon lovers not deserving cancer treatment or kebab fans burdening the NHS. It's not as if they haven't been warned countless times about the dangers -how willfully ill-informed can people be? Or maybe they're just hard. In fact, when I say I'm not dumb enough to eat meat, I should probably add brave enough. With so much frightening information, so readily available for so long, the modern committed carnivore must have nerves of steel. And yet, we should admit it, meat eaters still predominate and even grow in number. Must all of them be deaf and blind, and immune to a general sense of self-safety?
Классная задача, давай разберёмся по шагам. 1) Что спрашивают - Нужно выбрать краткое слово/качество, которое автор приписывает мясоедам: “The author believes that meat eaters are very ...” 2) Что прямо говорит автор в тексте - В начале есть предложение: "Meat eaters — you are daredevils or dumb. Or both." Это прямо задаёт главную характеристику meat eaters как рискованных/глупых людей. 3) Сопоставляем варианты - 1) aggressive — текст не говорит о агрессии мясоедов. - 2) irresponsible — близко к смыслу: daredevils (рискуют) и/или dumb (глупы) указывают на безответственность. - 3) pessimistic — нигде нет упоминания мрачности или пессимизма по отношению к мясоедам. - 4) ill-informed — есть упоминания позже в тексте о том, что люди могут быть «willfully ill-informed», но это относится к критике определённой группы и не является основной характеристикой, заданной в начале. 4) Верный ответ и почему - Правильный ответ: 2) irresponsible. - Почему именно 2: наиболее напрямую совпадает с фразой автора "daredevils or dumb. Or both." Рискованное поведение и/или глупость трактуется как безответственность. Остальные варианты либо не соответствуют явной формулировке, либо спорно выводятся из текста. 5) Почему мой ответ 1 был неверен - 1) aggressive не отражает основную идею автора. В тексте нет утверждения, что мясоеды агрессивны; акцент — на риске и глупости, то есть на безответственности. Именно эта характеристика ближе всего к слову "irresponsible". Короткий итог: правильный выбор — 2) irresponsible. Прямо из фразы автора; остальные варианты не соответствуют основному смыслу. Хочешь, могу ещё привести пару подобных примеров для тренировки такого типа вопросов. Пожалуйста, оцените мой ответ лайком или дизлайком.