Hej!

Gjorde nyss ELF ht 2006 och på följande text är jag osäker:

The feather in the cap of 20th-century medicine is the prevention of infectious diseases, especially in child hood. Smallpox was eradicated 25 years ago. Thanks to extra ordinary international 17_____ (including cease-fires in wars just so that vaccinations could be administered), polio is on the verge of going the same way. Measles, mumps and whooping cough can also be prevented with vaccines, and their incidence has declined dramatically in the past 50 years. Even some less tractable diseases, such as malaria, have started to bend to interventions. Covering more beds with nets has proved to be remarkably effective, perhaps as effective as vaccinations, at reducing the incidence of this disease.


18_____ the triumph is by no means complete. It is, of course, well known that preventing or treating an infectious disease can have profound effects on the pathogenic organism that causes it. The evolution of drug resistant strains is the most famous example of such an effect. But now a new worry has emerged. It appears that intervening in infections may have undesirable effects on the hosts—that is, on people—as well as on the pathogens them selves.

The first possible effect is the replacement of one disease by another. As the incidence of childhood infections has fallen, chronic ailments, such as diabetes and asthma, have become more 19_____. In parts of the world where childhood diseases are still common, these chronic ailments are rare.


A direct link between these two phenomena is not yet proven. This may be because there isn’t one. Doctors in rich countries have the experience to detect, and the money to treat, chronic disease. In poor countries, such diseases—if detected at all—are low on the list of priorities, and may therefore go unreported. However, a number of studies suggest that this is not the whole explanation. Instead, childhood 20_____ do indeed seem to reduce the probability of chronic disease—an idea known as the “hygiene hypothesis”.



17.
efforts
research
conflicts
funding
18.
So
Consequently
Furthermore
Yet
19.
uncommon
harmless
frequent
deadly
20.
experiences
vaccines
problems
infections



Okej, så jag svarade: A(efforts), D(yet),C(frequent) och D(infections). Fick fel på alla förutom 18. Facit sade att det skulle vara B, D, C, D vilket jag inte alls höll med om. Jag hade gjort provet på studeravidare.se och tänkte att något kanske hade blivit fel så jag gick in på http://www.provtips.com/hogskoleprovet_forberedelser och laddade ner provet i PDF och kunde då konstatera att svarsalternativen är i rätt ordning.

Jag gick då och kollade facit http://www.provtips.com/_tidigare_hogsk ... _facit.pdf
som också säger att jag har fel. Jag letade tillslut upp orginaltexten http://www.economist.com/node/106632 som äntligen gav mig rätt! Så nu är jag helt lost, är facit fel eller vadå?

Casio skrev:Hej!

Gjorde nyss ELF ht 2006 och på följande text är jag osäker:

The feather in the cap of 20th-century medicine is the prevention of infectious diseases, especially in child hood. Smallpox was eradicated 25 years ago. Thanks to extra ordinary international 17_____ (including cease-fires in wars just so that vaccinations could be administered), polio is on the verge of going the same way. Measles, mumps and whooping cough can also be prevented with vaccines, and their incidence has declined dramatically in the past 50 years. Even some less tractable diseases, such as malaria, have started to bend to interventions. Covering more beds with nets has proved to be remarkably effective, perhaps as effective as vaccinations, at reducing the incidence of this disease.


18_____ the triumph is by no means complete. It is, of course, well known that preventing or treating an infectious disease can have profound effects on the pathogenic organism that causes it. The evolution of drug resistant strains is the most famous example of such an effect. But now a new worry has emerged. It appears that intervening in infections may have undesirable effects on the hosts—that is, on people—as well as on the pathogens them selves.

The first possible effect is the replacement of one disease by another. As the incidence of childhood infections has fallen, chronic ailments, such as diabetes and asthma, have become more 19_____. In parts of the world where childhood diseases are still common, these chronic ailments are rare.


A direct link between these two phenomena is not yet proven. This may be because there isn’t one. Doctors in rich countries have the experience to detect, and the money to treat, chronic disease. In poor countries, such diseases—if detected at all—are low on the list of priorities, and may therefore go unreported. However, a number of studies suggest that this is not the whole explanation. Instead, childhood 20_____ do indeed seem to reduce the probability of chronic disease—an idea known as the “hygiene hypothesis”.



17.
efforts
research
conflicts
funding
18.
So
Consequently
Furthermore
Yet
19.
uncommon
harmless
frequent
deadly
20.
experiences
vaccines
problems
infections



Okej, så jag svarade: A(efforts), D(yet),C(frequent) och D(infections). Fick fel på alla förutom 18. Facit sade att det skulle vara B, D, C, D vilket jag inte alls höll med om. Jag hade gjort provet på studeravidare.se och tänkte att något kanske hade blivit fel så jag gick in på http://www.provtips.com/hogskoleprovet_forberedelser och laddade ner provet i PDF och kunde då konstatera att svarsalternativen är i rätt ordning.

Jag gick då och kollade facit http://www.provtips.com/_tidigare_hogsk ... _facit.pdf
som också säger att jag har fel. Jag letade tillslut upp orginaltexten http://www.economist.com/node/106632 som äntligen gav mig rätt! Så nu är jag helt lost, är facit fel eller vadå?

http://www.provtips.com/_tidigare_hogsk ... acitex.pdf

17 A 18 D 19 C 20 D.


Fint svarat föresten.