질문 올립니다.

<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.