Body weight has risen in defiance of health and appearance norms. A basic theory in economics is that consumers are the best judges of their welfare, that they are insatiable, and that their choices add to the well-being of society—that consumer choices are consistent and optimal over time. The experience of eating in the post-war period belies this optimism. Abundance of food is desirable, but the consequent rise in body weights is not always so welcome. The number of obese people has been rising to “epidemic” levels. From the 1970s to the 1990s the incidence of overweight in the USA rose from 51 to 59 percent for that in an affluent society, the more affluent are less obese. Why is that? Social pressures affect not only the desire to eat, but also the desired body-weight. In poor societies, food is scarce, the poor are thin, and the wealthy are fat. Under affluence, it is slimness that is difficult, and demonstrates a capacity for self-control. If self-control is costly, then the affluent have it more than the poor. In affluent societies, these conditions persist, and the poor tend to fatness, while the well-off are men, from 41 to 50 percent for women. Of American men about one-fifth were obese, and one-quarter of women. Here then is what needs to be explained: eating choices have defied health and appearance norms. They have generated a “cognitive dissonance”, expressed in the contrast between the fashion and cookery pages of weekend magazines. The mismatch between weight aspirations and outcomes can be regarded as a failure of self-control. Affluence is a flow of new and inexpensiveewards. If these rewards arrive faster than disciplines of prudence can form, then self-control will decline with affluence. However, the fact is slimmer. New rewards are thrown up by affluence faster than it takes to master the previous ones, so that overall, despite growing wealth, self-control declines. Obesity shows how abundance, through cheapness, variety, novelty, and choice, can make a mockery of the rational consumer, how it entices only in order to humiliate. The challenge of affluence is to attain the requisite level of self-control. This also puts an unfamiliar face on the question of equity. The backhand of affluence hits the poor more than the rich. The well-to-do have more capacity to pace and defer their consumption and to exercise self-control. From this aspect, abundance does not solve the problem of equity, but exacerbates it.

56. What does the increase in obesity demonstrate according to the first paragraph?
A. The richer you get the less your self control.
B. People are not valuing self control as much.
C. People do not always choose their purchases wisely.
D. Wealth is not good for health.

57. The difference between obesity in poor countries and obesity in affluent countries is
A. the obese in poor countries do not suffer as many health problems.
C. obesity is greater among the poorer people in affluent societies.

58. The author argues that the more affluent are usually slimmer in affluent societies because
B. they have the option to control their consumption.
C. they have more options to exercise and buy healthier products.
D. they relate success in work to success in health.

59. The word “dissonance” (Para. 2) most likely means
A. stress. B. misunderstanding. C. ignorance. D. disharmony.来源：www.examda.com

60. Which of the following would be the best title of the passage?
A. “How Affluence And Obesity Relates” B. “How Obesity Occurs”
C. “Self-Control And Obesity” D. “The Paradox Of Obesity”