阅读理解原文
If you pluck someone off the street,whether in New York or Seattle or Sacramento, and ask them how many stepspeople should aim for per day in order to get enough physical activity, they’llprobably tell you 10, 000.
But is there any medical reason toembrace this number? Not really. That’s because the 10, 000-step-a-dayrecommendation has nothing to do with sedentary, fast-food-drenched circa-2015America. Rather, the recommendation first popped up in a very different foodand environment: 1960s Japan.
“It basically started around the TokyoOlympics” in 1964, said Catrine Tudor-Locke, a professor who studies walkingbehavior at LSU’s Pennington Biomedical Center. “A company over there created aman-po-kei, a pedometer. And man stands for ‘10, 000,’ po stands for ‘step,’and kei stands for ‘meter’ or ‘gauge.’”Whatever the reason for the adoption ofthis particular number, “It resonated with people at the time, and they wentman-po-kei-ing all over the place,” said Tudor-Locke.
The problem, which barely needsstating, is that circa-1964 Japan was markedly different from the circa-2015U.S. Data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationsshows that the average per-capita food supply for Japanese people in 1964 was2, 632 calories, while the average for Americans in 2011 was 3, 639. That’s adifference of about 1, 000 calories —or, about 20, 000 steps for anaverage-sized person.
More broadly, 10, 000 steps is just abit too simplistic a figure, say nutrition researchers. All the ones I spoke toagreed that there’s nothing wrong with shooting for 10, 000 steps, and thatwalking more is better than walking less. But Tudor-Locke said that “Theone-size-fits-all approach doesn’t necessarily work.”
“Focusing exclusively on how manysteps you’re getting and neglecting those other aspects isn’t going to lead toan overall improvement in health, unless you’re addressing those other factors simultaneously,”saidJeff Goldsmith, a biostatistics professor at Columbia’s Mailman School ofPublic Health.
Maybe it’s time, given just howunhealthy so many people are and how much they’d benefit from moving aroundjust a little more, to embrace an improvement approach to exercise. “Standrather than sit, walk rather than stand, jog rather than walk, and run ratherthan jog,”wrote Ulf Ekelund, lead author of the European mortality study, in anemail. Tudor-Locke concluded even further:“Just move more than before,”shesaid.
【题目】
Which of the following sentences isincorrect according to the passage?
A. Nowadays, a lot of people areunhealthy due to lack of exercise.
B. To improve overall health, weshould exercise as much as possible.
C. It is better to take as many stepsas your overall health condition can allow.
D. Walking more is better than walkingless.
有人想选B，觉得原文中说“走路是不可以够解决所有人的健康问题”，还有些觉得错误缘由是文章中没表示运动是“越多越好的”。
我的想法是选择A选项，由于原文中没提到缺少训练是什么原因。B选项是正确的，文章倒数第三段中确实说到“走路不可以解决所有人的健康问题”，但走路≠ 训练，因此，倒数第三段内容不可以成为判断B项的依据。我觉得B选项正确，是综合剖析文章后三段后得到的，具体剖析如下：
倒数第三段，大意为：多走路虽没坏处，但可以解决所有人的健康问题。
倒数第二段，大意为：走路+解决其它原因可以提升整体健康水平
倒数第一段，大意为：要使用改变过的办法进行训练。
我觉得最后一段说的改变过的办法，指的是在原有“日行千步”的理论上进行改变，不只要走路，而且要多方面（站，走，跑…）的训练，最后作者也说了，总之，要多训练。故B正确
想让各位老师帮我看看，这么想对不对。
题主的想法之所以出了问题，是没搞了解做英文阅读理解和做中文阅读理解完全是两回事，二者不可以混为一谈。做英文阅读理解，是完全没你这个答卷者存在的---你的想法一丝一毫都无关紧要，和答案没半毛钱关系，所有都要基于原文才行！下面大家逐条来看（英文阅读理解有困难的网友，可以参考下楼上陈老师的译文）：
原文最后一段明确指出：
1）健康情况不太好，是时候要多训练了--- 所以A选项没问题；
2) 能站不坐，能跑不走...... ---- 所以C选项也是正确的；
原文第五段明确指出：
走得多胜过走得少 ------所以D选项也是正确的；
假如用排除法，只有B选项的表述存在问题。是否真存在问题，大家仍然看原文：
原文倒数第二段说的是，假如只关注天天所走的步数（训练），而忽略饮食等其他原因的话，是无法整体上提升健康水平（ OVERALL health）。也就是说，训练虽然对提升健康有益，但没办法整体上提升健康水平。所以B选项错就错在多了个OVERALL！换句话，假如这里划掉overall，那样四个选项都是正确的。
另外，题主觉得走路不等于训练，这只题主的怎么看，依据原文，走路就是训练！切记，做英文阅读理解，不要考虑我们的感受，形合的语言，是无需自行脑补的，直接在原文找线索就是。
一家之言，仅供参考；
勤查英英，必有所获！
