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 caily 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 out 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 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 ease 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】解析：文章提到有1000多万人过早死去，说明这是一个触心惊目的数字，而不是微不足道的(insignificant)，而且，这是作者的观点，而非支持吸烟者的论据，选项B错误；文中的谬论(nonsense)一词是作者对反对者禁烟者所持观点的评价，而不是反对禁烟人士(antismoking people)的论调，选项D错误；原文指出"the evidence was inconclusive"，这与A项中的"no scientific evidence"不一致。所以，只有选项C是正确的。
单选题
According to Bruce Alberts, science can serve as ______.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】解析：解此题的依据是Bruce Alberts所说的话"But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future…"，即：但是科学确实能给我们提供关于未来的最佳指导，找到guide一词就可得出答案是选项D。
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】解析：paralysis by analysis出现在第四段最后一句，而且是在破折号之后，可见是对破折号之前的解释。破折号前面是Instead of a plan of action，they continue to press for more research(他们没有制定行动的计划，而是迫切要求进行更多的研究)，也就是他们只是研究而不采取行动，选项A正是此意。所以其他选项都是不对的。
单选题
According to the author, what should the Administration do about ______.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】解析：最后一段第二句说"If the Administration won"t take the legislative initiative，Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures"．显然，这里暗指政府应采取法律措施，选项D正确。选项A前半部分"offer aid"是参议员Senator Robert Byrd提案中涉及的内容，非作者的看法，后半部分"to build cleaner power plants"是作者针对现在的实际做法提出的看法，而非针对政府而说的；选项B是作者建议国会要做的事，而非政府要做的；选项C正是作者所认为政府做的不够的地方，即"只要求进一步研究"，而没有实际行动。
单选题
The author associates the issue of global warming with that of smoking because ______.