Transcript:
Result:
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Option 3: "Health insurance in America is not fair for everyone. Its aim should be protecting people against financial risk, instead of protecting their insurance company against the sick. If things go on the wrong track, people in this market would be very close to bankruptcy."
Explanation: This option accurately summarizes the main idea of the text, which critiques the unfairness of the health insurance system and emphasizes that its purpose should be to protect individuals from financial risk. It reflects the author's concern about the potential for bankruptcy due to the current discriminatory practices in the insurance market.
Option 1: "Previously, most Americans were uninsured because health insurance was a relatively new concept. Then more and more people started to realize the importance of quality health insurance. Insurance companies, therefore, offered more products that matched their customers."
Explanation: This option incorrectly states that most Americans were uninsured, which contradicts the text that mentions 80% had quality insurance. It also misrepresents the timeline and the role of insurance companies, suggesting a proactive approach that is not supported by the text.
Option 2: "20% of Americans were either uninsured or faced the prospect of buying insurance in the unstable insurance market. Because they could not prove their financial capability, no insurance companies would provide good insurance for them."
Explanation: While this option correctly identifies the 20% of Americans facing issues with insurance, it inaccurately attributes their lack of coverage to an inability to prove financial capability. The text emphasizes discrimination against the sick rather than financial proof as the main issue.
Option 4: "The insurance market is one where it was totally legal for insurers to discriminate against the sick for any reason. Insurers only provide basic insurance for Americans, but if people get a wrong gene or get caught in a bad traffic accident, they will no longer provide the service anymore."
Explanation: This option correctly mentions the legality of discrimination in the insurance market but misrepresents the nature of the coverage provided. The text discusses substantive coverage for the majority, not just basic insurance, and does not imply that insurers would stop providing service entirely based on genetic or accident-related factors.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation