阅读理解
Madrid was hailed as a public health beacon last November when it rolled out ambitious restrictions on the most polluting cars. Seven months and one election day later, a new conservative city council suspended enforcement of the clean air zone, a first step toward its possible demise. Mayor Jose Luis Martinez-Almeida made opposition to the zone, a centrepiece of his election campaign, despite its success in improving air quality. A judge has now overruled the city's decision to stop levying fines, ordering them reinstated. But with legal battles ahead, the zone's future looks uncertain at best. Madrid's back and forth on clean air is a pointed reminder of the limits to the patchwork, city-by-city approach that characterized efforts on air pollution across Europe, Britain very much included. Among other weaknesses, the measures cities must employ when left to tackle dirty air on their own are politically contentious, and therefore vulnerable. That's because they inevitably put the costs of cleaning the air on to individual drivers—who must pay fees or buy better vehicles—rather than on to the car manufacturers whose cheating is the real cause of our toxic pollution. It's not hard to imagine a similar reversal happening in London. The new ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) is likely to be a big issue in next year's mayoral election. And if Sadiq Khan wins and extends it to the North and South Circular roads in 2021 as he intends, it is sure to spark intense opposition from the far larger number of motorists who will then be affected. It's not that measures such as London's ULEZ are useless. Far from it, local officials are using the levers that are available to them to safeguard residents' health in the face of a serious threat. The zones do deliver some improvements to air quality, and the science tells us that means real health benefits—fewer heart attacks, strokes and premature births, less cancer, dementia and asthma, fewer untimely deaths. But mayors and councillors can only do so much about a problem that is far bigger than any one city or town. They are acting because national governments—Britain's and others across Europe—have failed to do so. Restrictions that keep highly polluting cars out of certain areas—city centres, 'school streets', even individual roads—are a response to the absence of a larger effort to properly enforce existing regulations and require auto companies to bring their vehicles into compliance. Wales has introduced special low speed limits to minimise pollution. We're doing everything but insist that manufacturers clean up their cars.
单选题
Which of the following is true about Madrid's clean air zone? ______
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】 事实细节题。根据题干中的关键词Madrid's clean air zone可定位至原文前两段。第二段最后一句提到，随着法律斗争的继续，这个地区的未来充其量也是不确定的。D项中的fate和yet to be decided是对原文中future和uncertain的同义转述，故答案为D(它的命运悬而未定)。 原文第二段第一句指出，尽管该计划在改善空气质量方面取得了成效，然而市长Jose Luis Martinez-Almeida反对将该地区作为竞选活动的核心。由此可知，该计划效果显著，A项(它的效果还不确定)正反混淆，故排除。该段第二句指出，一名法官驳回了马德里停止征收罚款的决定，下令其恢复罚款，B项(它遭到了一名法官的反对)属于偷换概念，故排除。C项(它需要更严格的执行力度)原文未提及，故排除。 [参考译文] 去年11月，马德里对污染最严重的车辆实施了严格的管控措施，这一举措被誉为公共健康的指明灯。历时七个月，在一个选举日过后，一个新的保守党市议会暂停了清洁空气区计划的实施，这似乎是该计划走向灭亡的第一步。 尽管该计划在改善空气质量方面取得了成效，然而市长Jose Luis Martinez-Almeida反对将该地区作为竞选活动的核心。一名法官驳回了马德里停止征收罚款的决定，下令其恢复罚款。但是随着法律斗争的继续，这个地区的未来充其量也是不确定的。 欧洲许多国家，尤其是英国，在治理空气污染方面付出的努力是有局限性的，因为它们采取的是拼凑的、按市区划分的方式，马德里在清洁空气问题上的摇摆不定为此敲响了警钟。 该计划还存在其他缺点，比如，各城市在单独应对空气污染时必须采取的措施在政治上是有争议的，因而力度不够。这是因为它们不可避免地把清洁空气的担子甩给了个体司机——他们必须为污染付费，或者购买更好的车——而不是找那些汽车制造商问责，其实汽车制造商的欺骗行为才是有毒污染物产生的真正原因。 不难想象，英国伦敦也会上演类似的逆转情景。新的超低排放区很可能是明年市长选举的一个大问题。如果Sadiq Khan在2021年胜出，并按照他的意愿将超低排放区延伸至南北环路，那么必然会引发受到影响的那些车主们的强烈反对。 并不是说像伦敦设置超低排放区这样的措施是无用的。其实远非如此，面对严重的威胁，当地官员正利用现有的手段来保障居民的健康。这些区域的确改善了空气质量，科学研究也表明，这有益于减少心脏病、中风、早产、癌症、痴呆和哮喘等疾病的发生，并降低过早死亡率。 这个问题远远大于任何一个城市或城镇出现的问题，但市长和议员为此能做的只有这么多了。他们之所以采取行动，是因为英国和欧洲其他国家的政府未能做到这一点。 限制高污染汽车进入某些区域——市中心、“学校路段”、甚至个别道路——的规定是对缺乏力度执行现有法规，并要求汽车公司生产达标汽车的回应。威尔士已实行了特别的低速限制，以尽量减少污染。除了让汽车生产商生产更清洁的汽车外，能做的我们已经都做了。
单选题
Which is considered a weakness of the city-level measures to tackle dirty air? ______