The question is based on the following text. Delivering medicine to the world’s poorest people is a challenge. Hot, poor places such as Tanzania have many microbes but microscopic health budgets. Dangerous myths deter many sick rural folk from seeking medical help. Even if they do seek help, it is often unavailable, for they do not have the money to pay for it, and their government rarely has the money to give it to them for free. Because they cannot afford adequate health care, poor people are sick a lot of the time. And because they are sick a lot of the time, they find it hard to put in the long hours of productive labour that might make them less poor. All hope is not lost, however. A recent experiment in Tanzania has shown that a small health budget can go a long way, provided that the money is spent with care. With the help of a Canadian charity, the Tanzanian health ministry set up a health project in two rural districts, with a combined population of about 700,000. Five years ago, annual health spending in Tanzania was about 8 a head. This figure included an estimate for the annual cost of trained staff. The charity added 2 a head to the pot, on condition that it was spent rationally. By this, the donors meant that the amount of money spent on fighting a particular disease should reflect the burden that disease imposed on the local population. This may sound obvious; however, in this region, no one had a clue which diseases caused the most trouble, so the first task was to find out. Researchers were sent out to carry out a door-to-door survey, asking representative households whether anyone had been ill or died recently, and if so with what symptoms. These raw numbers were then crunched to produce a ‘burden of disease’ profile for the two districts. In other words, researchers sought to measure how many years of life were being lost to each disease, including the damage done to families when breadwinners die. They then compared their results with the amount spent by the local health authorities on each disease and found that it bore no relation whatsoever to the harm which the disease inflicted on local people. Some diseases were horribly neglected, such as malaria, which accounted for 30% of the years of life lost but only 5% of the health budget. Other conditions, meanwhile, attracted more than their fair share of cash. Tuberculosis, which accounted for less than 4% of years of life lost, received 22% of the budget. This tiny infusion of cash from the Canadians, in the form of an extra 2 a head, was enough to allow the districts health authorities to make their spending reflect the disease burden. The results of all this were stunning. Infant mortality fell by 28% between 1999 and 2000 and the proportion of children dying before their fifth birthday dropped by 14%. The writer’s purpose in writing the text is probably to…. (SIMAK 2011)

The question is based on the following text.

          Delivering medicine to the world’s poorest people is a challenge. Hot, poor places such as Tanzania have many microbes but microscopic health budgets. Dangerous myths deter many sick rural folk from seeking medical help. Even if they do seek help, it is often unavailable, for they do not have the money to pay for it, and their government rarely has the money to give it to them for free. Because they cannot afford adequate health care, poor people are sick a lot of the time. And because they are sick a lot of the time, they find it hard to put in the long hours of productive labour that might make them less poor.

          All hope is not lost, however. A recent experiment in Tanzania has shown that a small health budget can go a long way, provided that the money is spent with care. With the help of a Canadian charity, the Tanzanian health ministry set up a health project in two rural districts, with a combined population of about 700,000. Five years ago, annual health spending in Tanzania was about 8 a head. This figure included an estimate for the annual cost of trained staff. The charity added 2 a head to the pot, on condition that it was spent rationally. By this, the donors meant that the amount of money spent on fighting a particular disease should reflect the burden that disease imposed on the local population.

          This may sound obvious; however, in this region, no one had a clue which diseases caused the most trouble, so the first task was to find out. Researchers were sent out to carry out a door-to-door survey, asking representative households whether anyone had been ill or died recently, and if so with what symptoms. These raw numbers were then crunched to produce a ‘burden of disease’ profile for the two districts. In other words, researchers sought to measure how many years of life were being lost to each disease, including the damage done to families when breadwinners die. They then compared their results with the amount spent by the local health authorities on each disease and found that it bore no relation whatsoever to the harm which the disease inflicted on local people. Some diseases were horribly neglected, such as malaria, which accounted for 30% of the years of life lost but only 5% of the health budget. Other conditions, meanwhile, attracted more than their fair share of cash. Tuberculosis, which accounted for less than 4% of years of life lost, received 22% of the budget.

          This tiny infusion of cash from the Canadians, in the form of an extra 2 a head, was enough to allow the districts health authorities to make their spending reflect the disease burden. The results of all this were stunning. Infant mortality fell by 28% between 1999 and 2000 and the proportion of children dying before their fifth birthday dropped by 14%.

The writer’s purpose in writing the text is probably to…. (SIMAK 2011)