answering

I would say the wording is very unusual. I would suggest "accounting for," if you don't "responsible for." Normally, the word "answering," when used in that context, carries connotations of "justifying," or "explaining." Generally only a person is capable of "answering" in that context.

What layman said makes sense. I wonder if you could change the preposition "for" to "to": answering to 7%... with this change it's less like a justification and more like a statement of fact, I think. I.e., high blood pressure is the answer to 7% of disease. Answers to seems like a less common construction than answers for, however. And I'm not sure the nuance I've interpreted is one that others would think is useful or correct, which is a round about way of saying I think answering for is fine. High blood pressure is the cause that answers for/is the answer to the effect, 7% of disease.

Without a question being asked, there can be no "answer," literally speaking. Sometimes it is used in ways that appear otherwise; "answering the call," for example.

But when you boil it down, the "call" is really an abstract question along the lines of "where are you," or "who will serve this need?" When you "answer the telelphone" you are "responding" to a request to speak with you. But, again, a "response" requires a pre-existing stimulus--a trigger. By definition, it's not something that arises sua sponte.

"Accounting for" is perfect, thanks very much!

According to the Oxford Dictionary Unabridged (see link), answer for is the same as account for or be responsible for, but maybe only people can "answer for" something in this context. Thoughts?

http://imgur.com/a/r1aSo

That's a good explanation. Thank you.

Godly Pete, Doubt, I would've said it's okay. Cen, help