access or exposure?


New Member
More access to nature makes children less likely to fall ill.

Above is a choice derived from a Chinese national English exam, and the sentence is created by the exam makers as the cerrect answer to the following sentence
"A study in Sweden indicatec that kindergarten children who could play in a natural environment had less illness and greater physical ability than children used only to a normal playground. "

Well, my question is whether access is used in an appropriate way here? I would use exposure in this context. I need your judgement. :)
  • sdgraham

    Senior Member
    USA English
    I agree that "exposure" is better than "access," since an open door is a means of "access," but it doesn't mean that anybody walks through it.

    The whole sentence is a bit stilted, however, in addition to being an overblown generality.


    New Member
    Thank you so much, Ham. Actually, access is misunderstood by many Chinese, even the exam makers. That'
    s why they used it in this way. In fact, they didn't mean to add any generality to this sentence.:) Have a good day!


    Lapsed Moderator
    English-Ireland (top end)
    I'm not convinced that there is anything wrong with access.

    The original sentence refers to children who "could play in a natural environment". That, to me, indicates that they had access to a natural environment.

    If the original sentence had referred to children who "played in a natural environment" I would prefer "exposure".


    Senior Member
    English - Californian
    I don't think you want to collocate "children" with "exposure to nature." That makes it sound like you're leaving babies on mountaintops to die.

    The sentence has "that could play" in nature: we're talking about children who are "allowed to play" in nature, not "brought more or less forcefully to" nature.
    < Previous | Next >