<Economics focus Stomach staples>
P1)
1. But chronic hunger is part of everyday life ~~
질문: part 앞에 a가 붙지 않아도 되나요?
2. ~~people in developing countries who do not get enough to eat is ~~
질문: 품사가 get이 동사, enough to eat이 명사가 되는건가요?
P2)
1. In india, for example, real incomes~~
질문: 꼭 복수로 쓰여야 하나요?
P3)
1. This typically involves fixing a calorie threshold-and trying to count how many people report eating food that gives them fewer calories than this number.
질문: 해석부탁드립니다.
2. But the economists argue that this approach to measuring hunger also does not accord with how people themselves think about it. They propose a new way to use people's eating choices to tell whether they are hungry.
질문: 해석부탁드립니다.
P5)
1. It is possible to work out what share of a person't calories would come from staples such as rice and wheat if he were trying to fulfill his dietary needs as cheaply as possible.
질문: 해석부탁드립니다. 한편, 이 구문은 현재 상황에 대한 가정으로 해석하는게 맞는지요?
P6)
1. the authors find that share of calories that ought to come from staples varies much less than overall calorific needs.
질문: 해석부탁드립니다.
P7)
1. The survey data conformed with the basic idea fo substitution.
질문: 해석부탁드립니다.
P8)
1. Pulse taking의 의미가 무엇인지..
2. Here, the results contradict what the Chinese government's standard 2,100-calorie-per-day threshold would find.
질문: 해석부탁드립니다. 또한 would가 어떤 용법으로 쓰였는지 질문드립니다.