阅读理解 Public health officials grappling with the obesity epidemic have debated a wide range of approaches to helping slim the American waistline. To some degree, everything from building more sidewalks to banning chocolate milk has been explored. Yet few tactics have been as polarizing as the possibility of introducing tariffs on treats. Despite endorsement from several respected obesity researchers and politicians, soda taxes, for example, have been subject to severe scrutiny, as critics protested that implementing a tax before verifying that it would achieve the end result was shortsighted and potentially overreaching. So, in attempt to determine just how sin taxes might impact people's food choices, psychologists from the University of Buffalo decided to put junk food levies to the test—in the lab.
Researchers recruited shoppers to examine the aisles of a mock supermarket filled with 68 common foods labeled with nutritional information. Participants were given a predetermined amount of cash, and were told to use that money to purchase a week's worth of groceries for a family. The first time, all of the products on the shelves were priced in keeping with local supermarkets. In subsequent trips, however, junk food was taxed—an additional 12.5%, then 25%—or healthier foods were subsidized to reduce cost.
The study, published in the journal Psychological Science, revealed that taxes were more effective at getting people to avoid certain products than subsidies were at prompting healthier food purchases. In scenarios where junk foods were taxed, study participants generally came away with a lower caloric total for their groceries, and a higher ratio of protein to fats and carbohydrates. Yet, in situations where healthy foods were subsidized, the savings were often spent on additional junk food. That is, instead of stocking up on more fruits and vegetables because they were cheaper, the study's shoppers bought their vegetables, and then used the leftover cash to bring home extra treats like chips and soda. In the end, the subsidies—only scenarios resulted in higher total calorie counts, and didn't result in overall nutritional improvement on the week's groceries.
Because the scenario is hypothetical,; the findings certainly shouldn't be taken as the final word in the sin tax debate, the researchers stress, but should instead be used to inform the ongoing discussion about practical ways to battle obesity. To that end, they say, the next step should be research to determine whether these results would be replicated in the real world.
单选题 6.It is suggested in the first paragraph that obesity has
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】事实细节题。根据题干定位到文章第一段。该段首句讲到许多官员对如何使美国人瘦下来进行了讨论,可知肥胖问题引起了人们的广泛关注,故A项为正确答案。
单选题 7.Psychologists from the University of Buffalo decided to experiment on junk food tax in order to
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】细节理解题。根据题干定位到文章第一段最后一句话。由该句in attempt to后的内容可知,研究的目的是为了确定对垃圾食品征税对人们选择食品有多大影响,故A项正确。
单选题 8.Which of the following is true of the experiment?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】是非判断题。根据题干定位到文章第二段。根据文章可知,实验先让模拟超市价格与实际情况相同,然后在后续的对比试验中(in subsequent trips)对有些货品征税或实行补贴,由此可知实验设置了不同的情境,D项符合题意。
单选题 9.The study published in Psychological Science showed that
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】细节理解题.根据题干定位到文章第三段。由文章可知,征税比补贴对人们健康饮食更有效,故B项正确。
单选题 10.To which of the following statements would the researchers most likely agree?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】观点态度题。根据题干定位到文章最后一段。由文章可知,虽然此研究是假设的,但研究人员认为需要让人们知道这一结果。说明这一研究发现还是有意义的,故C项正确。