阅读理解 Sugar shocked. That describes the reaction of many Americans this week following revelations that, 50 years ago, the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists for research that shifted the focus away from sugar’s role in heart disease—and put the spotlight (注意的中心) squarely on dietary fat. What might surprise consumers is just how many present-day nutrition studies are still funded by the food industry. Nutrition scholar Marion Nestle of New York University spent a year informally tracking industry-funded studies on food. "Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies favored the sponsor’s interest," Nestle tells us. Other systematic reviews support her conclusions. For instance, studies funded by Welch Foods—the brand behind Welch’s 100% Grape Juice—found that drinking Concord grape juice daily may boost brain function.Another, funded by Quaker Oats, concluded, as a Daily Mail story put it, that "hot oatmeal (燕麦粥) breakfast keeps you full for longer. " Last year, The New York Times revealed how Coca-Cola was funding well-known scientists and organizations promoting a message that, in the battle against weight gain, people should pay more attention to exercise and less to what they eat and drink. Coca-Cola also released data detailing its funding of several medical institutions and associations between 2010 and 2015. "It’s certainly a problem that so much research in nutrition and health is funded by industry," says Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "When the food industry pays for research, it often gets what it pays for. " And what it pays for is often a pro-industry finding. Given this environment, consumers should be skeptical (怀疑的) when reading the latest finding in nutrition science and ignore the latest study that pops up on your news feed. "Rely on health experts who’ve reviewed all the evidence," Liebman says, pointing to the official government Dietary Guidelines, which are based on reviews of hundreds of studies. "And that expert advice remains pretty simple," says Nestle. "We know what healthy diets are— lots of vegetables, not too much junk food, balanced calories. Everything else is really difficult to do experimentally. "
单选题 What did Harvard scientists do 50 years ago?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】细节辨认题。定位句指出，60年前，制糖业资助哈佛大学科学家将研究重心从糖在心脏病中的影响，转移到了膳食脂肪。由此可见，他们把公众的注意力从糖的健康风险转移到脂肪上，故答案为B)。
单选题 What does Marion Nestle say about present-day nutrition studies?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】推理判断题。定位段第二、三句提到，纽约大学的营养学家玛丽恩.内斯特尔花了一年的时间非正式地跟踪了各种工业资助的食品研究。她指出，在将近170项研究中，大约有90％的研究都会偏袒赞助商的利益。其他系统的研究综述也支持她的结论。由此可知，几乎所有的营养研究都是为资助者服务的，D)中的Nearly all of them对应原文中的Roughly 90％ of nearly 170 studies，故答案为D)。
单选题 What did Coca-Cola-funded studies claim?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】细节辨认题。定位句指出，去年，《纽约时报》披露了可口可乐公司资助知名科学家以及组织来宣传一个信息，在对抗增重的斗争中，人们应该更加注意锻炼，少关注饮食。由此可见，由可口可乐公司资助的研究声称锻炼对于身体健康比饮食更重要，故答案为A)。
单选题 What does Liebman say about industry-funded research?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】推理判断题。第五段第二、三句提到，利伯曼认为“食品工业为研究提供资金时，通常会得到相应的回报。”他们所支付的往往是一个利于推动该行业的发展的发现。由此可见，由食品工业资助的研究，其结果并不客观。故答案为C)。
单选题 What is the author’s advice to consumers?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】推理判断题。定位句指出，鉴于这种环境，消费者在阅读营养科学的最新发现时应持怀疑态度，并且忽略新闻推送上弹出的最新研究。由此可见，作者的建议是对新的营养研究成果三思而后行，D)中的Think twice对应原文中的skeptical，故答案为D)。
单选题 What does the author use the example of his father to illustrate?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】推理判断题。定位段指出，成功曾经被定义为能在一家公司任职很长时间并获得晋升。目的是到达高位，积累财富，退休后安度晚年。第三、四句提到了作者父亲的亲身经历，用以说明该段前两句的内容，即在其父辈的年代，人们对于成功的定义是怎样的，故答案为C)。
单选题 Why did people often change jobs when the author started his career?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】细节辨认题。定位句提到，当作者开始他的职业生涯时，事情已经不同了。如果你不是每三四年就换一家公司，那么就说明你并未在职业生涯中前进。由此可知，人们频繁换工作是为了促进职业发展，故答案为B)。
单选题 What does the author say about people now working for several businesses at the same time?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】细节辨认题。定位句指出，现如今，能够同时为五家企业工作是荣耀的象征。接下来的一句指出这能说明一个人的价值所在。也就是说，能同时为多家企业工作的人通常是有价值的人才，故答案为A)。
单选题 What have businesses come to recognize now?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】细节辨认题。定位句提到，越来越多的人意识到那些能够平衡工作和娱乐的人，以及做自己喜爱的工作的人，会更加专注和高效，从而为他们的客户提供更大的价值，故答案为C)。
单选题 What does the author say about the gig economy?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】细节辨认题。定位句指出，或许更重要的是，随着全球经济持续受到科技和其他重大改变的干扰，零工经济本身将会成为经济和社会转型的引擎，故答案为D)。