Read the following excerpt and answer the question.
In a blog post about sleep, a student writes: "Pulling an all-nighter is like borrowing time from a loan shark. You get quick cash—one more chapter studied—but the interest rate is brutal: slower reaction time, worse memory, and a mood that makes the next day harder to manage. In our health class, we tracked quiz scores for two weeks; students who slept at least seven hours scored an average of eight points higher than those who slept under five. The 'extra' hours at night aren't free; they're billed to tomorrow."
The comparison is effective because it
- claims that staying up late is illegal and should be punished like financial crime.
- illustrates the hidden costs of short‑term gains, reinforcing the argument that lost sleep undermines performance later. (correct answer)
- replaces evidence with a metaphor so readers don't notice the lack of data.
- argues that students who sleep less are morally inferior to those who sleep more.
Explanation: This question examines how the author uses comparison to illustrate the hidden costs of sleep deprivation. The comparison likens pulling an all-nighter to borrowing from a loan shark—both provide immediate benefits but extract much higher costs later through impaired performance and well-being. This helps readers understand that lost sleep isn't free time but borrowed time that must be repaid with interest. Choice A misreads this as making sleep deprivation illegal, while Choice D turns it into moral judgment. Effective comparisons reveal the true costs of seemingly beneficial short-term choices.