NS FL3 CARS 6

Post Reply
achakr1
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:42 pm

NS FL3 CARS 6

Post by achakr1 » Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:57 pm

Hello, I had a question on why the answer to this question is not "B". Specifically, paragraph 3 states that "CDPH incorporated a Health in All Policies proposal into their application for Communities Putting Prevention to Work funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." I interpreted the ARRA act as a source of funds that the CDPH could use to implement the Health in All Policies program - which the passage seemed to explicitly indicate by saying that the HAP did not receive the funds.

In the analogy for "B", I thought the aquaculturist was the CDPH, the "run-off" was the money provided by the ARRA (farm), and the nourishment of the stock pond was the HAP. While I recognize that the "run off" can imply waste, I thought that POE made "B" a better answer than "C".

Specifically, I felt that the analogy with the hitchhiker did not acknowledge that the CDPH was seeking to receive funds for the program. This seemed directly opposite the case of the hitchhiker contributing money for the personal goal. Moreover, I did not understand how the incorporation of the HAP is implied to shape the CDPH proposal in light of the larger program. When I re-read the passage, I could only see evidence that the HAP was devised as a local initiative that was then included in the ARRA application for the purpose of funds.

Please let me know if you have suggestions on this problem. Thank you so much for your time!
NS_Tutor_Yuqi
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 11:43 pm

Re: NS FL3 CARS 6

Post by NS_Tutor_Yuqi » Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:02 pm

Hey! I think that because of the way the question is phrased, the first subject in each answer corresponds to the Health in All Policies proposal, while the second subject corresponds to the ARRA. Therefore, for B, the aquaculturist will would be the Health in All Policies proposal. Additionally, I believe your inclination was correct that run off indicates waste product, or an unintended/unwanted consequence. Therefore, for those two reasons, B would not be a fitting answer.
This leaves C as the most desirable answer. I think the main piece of evidence for C is that the hitchhiker and couple are working together toward a shared goal, which is akin to the relationship between HAP and the ARRA. You are right that the CDPH was seeking to receive funds, which would mean that they were seeking to gain something from the relationship, but that is true also of the hitchhiker analogy since the hitchhiker is benefiting from the couples' car. The HAP is not shaping the CDPH's proposal since it itself is the proposal, but rather it is fitting into the overall ARRA. Since the results of the proposal would have been mutually beneficial to both parties, it fits the hitchhiker analogy. I hope that helped clarify things! Let me know if I can elaborate further.
achakr1
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:42 pm

Re: NS FL3 CARS 6

Post by achakr1 » Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:25 pm

Thank you so much! This definitely helped me understand this problem better; I appreciate your help!
Post Reply