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 uncertain7 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】[解析] 推断题。根据文中第一段前三句可知，作者提问，是否还记得那些年科学家争论说吸烟会致人死亡，但是怀疑者们坚持认为这还不确定，他们认为“the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way. ”(反对吸烟的游说是想毁掉我们的生活方式，政府应当置身事外)，由此可推断出吸烟的支持者们认为人们“有选择自己的生活方式的自由”(the freedom to choose their own way of life)，所以本题的答案是C。
单选题
According to Bruce Alberts, science can serve as ______.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。文中第二段最后两句介绍了Bruce Alberts的观点，讲到“科学从来没有所有的答案。但是科学确实能够为我们的未来提供“最有效的指引”(science does provide us with the best available guide to the future)，重点是我们的国家和整个世界都应依据科学能够提供的关于人类现在的行为对未来影响的最佳判断来制定重要决策(base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide...)。由此可知，Bruce Alberts认为科学可以作为一个“指南”，所以本题的答案是D项。
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] 猜测词义题。第四段最后一句中提到a classic case of "paralysis by analysis" (一个典型的“分析导致麻痹”的例子)，破折号前面的内容是对此的解释“Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research”(他们(指美国政府)没有制定任何行动计划，只是继续迫切要求进行更多的调查研究)。由此可知作者认为无止尽的分析研究只会扼杀行动，所以本题的答案是A项。
单选题
According to the author, what should the Administration do about global warming?
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。第五段第三句提到“If the Administration won"t take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures. ”(如果政府不争取立法上的主动权，国会就应当帮助政府开始制定保护措施)。由此可知作者认为政府应当争取立法的主动权，即首先采取法律行动来应对全球变暖，所以本题的答案是D项。
单选题
The author associates the issue of global warming with that of smoking because ______.