阅读理解 Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn''t know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain ? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves. There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth''s atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made. The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, added this key point in the preface to the panel''s report: "Science never has all the answers. But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions." Just as on smoking, voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it''s OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the time 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now. Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it'' s obvious that a majority of the president''s advisers still don''t take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research―a classic case of "paralysis by analysis." To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won''t take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures. A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry, is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound.
单选题 An argument made by supporters of smoking was that
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】C.是“人们有自由选择自己的生活方式”。A.是“没有科学证据证明吸烟与死亡之 间的关系”;从第一段的第一、二句就可以找到答案;B.是“在过去的几十年里,因吸 烟而夭折的人的数量微不足道”;D.是“反对吸烟的人常常说废话”。
单选题 According to Bruce Alberts, science can serve as
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】布鲁斯认为科学可以当作通向未来的指南,这可以从第二段的最后一句中找到答案: “But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future...”。其实这题 容易做,其他三个词都没有出现,只需找到文中的guide一词,就可做对。A.a protector是“保护人”;B.a judge是“法官,仲裁人”;C.a critic是“批评家”。
单选题 What does the author mean by "paralysis by analysis"( Last line, Paragraph 4)?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】A.的意思是“没完没了的研究扼杀了行动”。这从第四段中能找到答案。段中说,所 幸的是白宫开始关注此事,但是总统顾问中许多人仍不认真看待此事。他们不是制 订行动计划,而是一味地要求多做研究。接下来说,这是一个“paralysis by analysis” 的典型例子。从上下文看来,paralysis by analysis就是老是分析、研究,不采取行动导 致瘫痪,与A.的意思接近。B.是“细微的调查揭示了真相”;C.是“谨小慎微的计 划影响进展”;D.是“深入研究有助于决策”。
单选题 According to the author, what should the Administration do about global warming?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】D.的意思是“采取一些立法措施”,可以从第五段第三句找到答案。文中说“如果政 府不能采取立法措施,国会应当帮助制订保护措施。”由此看来作者是希望政府采取 一些立法措施的。A.是“提供帮助建造更清洁的电厂”;B.是“提高公众的环保觉 悟”;C.是“要求进一步进行科学研究”。
单选题 The author associates the issue of global warming with that of smoking because
【正确答案】
【答案解析】题干的意思是“作者把全球变暖的问题与吸烟的问题联系起来是因为……”。B.的 意思是“从后者(即吸烟问题)所得到的教训可以适用于前者”。作者正是通过大多 数人对科学家提出的“吸烟会导致死亡”的警告置若罔闻,而遭受巨大伤害这件事来 提醒人们不要在全球变暖问题上重犯错误。A.是“两者都遭到政府的忽视”;C.是 “后者的结果加剧了前者的遭遇”;D.是“两者都有好转”。