Two students are discussing whether running or walking is better for a person's health. Which piece of evidence would best strengthen the argument that running is better for a person's health?(1 point)

Question

Responses

Walking has the same effect on blood pressure as running.
Walking has the same effect on blood pressure as running.

Running is more likely to cause injury than walking.
Running is more likely to cause injury than walking.

A person must spend more time walking than running to get the same benefits.
A person must spend more time walking than running to get the same benefits.

Sprinting for short periods of time while running can increase health benefits.
Sprinting for short periods of time while running can increase health benefits.

Answer 1

The piece of evidence that would best strengthen the argument that running is better for a person's health is:

A person must spend more time walking than running to get the same benefits.

This statement suggests that running is more efficient in delivering health benefits than walking, thereby making a case for running being the better option for health.

Answer 2

I thought it was sprinting for short periods of time while running can increase health benefits?

Answer 3

You’re correct that sprinting can increase health benefits, particularly in terms of improving cardiovascular fitness and metabolic health. However, the statement "A person must spend more time walking than running to get the same benefits" more directly supports the argument that running is better for health by emphasizing the efficiency and effectiveness of running compared to walking.

While sprinting does enhance the benefits of running, the comparison in time and benefits is a stronger argument when specifically favoring running over walking. Both points are valid, but the one about spending more time walking highlights the comparative advantage of running more clearly.

Answer 4

Are you sure?

Answer 5

Let’s clarify the reasoning behind both options to ensure a comprehensive understanding:

1. "A person must spend more time walking than running to get the same benefits." - This statement suggests that running provides health benefits in a shorter amount of time compared to walking. It directly compares the two activities in terms of efficiency, implying that running can lead to better health outcomes faster.

2. "Sprinting for short periods of time while running can increase health benefits." - This statement highlights a specific technique within running that can enhance health benefits even further. While it does suggest that running has potential for greater health benefits, it operates on a more specific aspect of running rather than making a direct comparison between walking and running.

In the context of strengthening the argument that running is better than walking overall, the first statement more clearly emphasizes the efficiency of running compared to walking.

However, if the focus is specifically on the health benefits of running itself, then the second statement about sprinting could also be a strong point because it highlights an additional way running can be made even more effective.

Ultimately, if the goal is to argue that running is superior to walking in general for health purposes, the first statement is more directly effective. If discussing variations in running itself, the second could be compelling as well.

Thank you for your patience, and I hope this provides clarity!