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 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 protest 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。
26. An argument made by supporters of smoking was that
[A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death。
[B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant。
[C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life。
[D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense。
27. According to Bruce Alberts, science can serve as
[A] a protector。
[B] a judge。
[C] a critic。
[D] a guide。
28. What does the author mean by “paralysis by analysis” (Last line, Paragraph 4)？
[A] Endless studies kill action。
[B] Careful investigation reveals truth。
[C] Prudent planning hinders progress。
[D] Extensive research helps decision-making。
29. According to the author, what should the Administration do about global warming?
[A] Offer aid to build cleaner power plants。
[B] Raise public awareness of conservation。
[C] Press for further scientific research。
[D] Take some legislative measures。
30. The author associates the issue of global warming with that of smoking because
[A] they both suffered from the government’s negligence。
[B] a lesson from the latter is applicable to the former。
[C] the outcome of the latter aggravates the former。
[D] both of them have turned from bad to worse。
名師解析
26. An argument made by supporters of smoking was that
吸煙的支持者提出的觀點是
[A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death。
沒有科學證據證明吸煙和死亡之間存在相互聯系。
[B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant。
在過去的幾十年中過早死亡的吸煙者人數不多。
[C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life。
人們有選擇自己生活方式的自由。
[D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense。
反對吸煙的人通常一派胡言。
【答案】 C
【考點】 事實細節題。
【分析】 從第一段可以看出，其實支持吸煙的人的理由不止一個，比如證據不夠充分，科學也不能確定，反對吸煙的游說是為了毀掉我們的生活方式等等。[A]選項是出題人故意擴大范圍，夸大選項，故意絕對化，原文只是證據不足，而不是沒有證據。[B]選項說死亡人數不多，而原文提到的“1,000萬”可不是小數字。[D]選項不符合的原因是作者說支持吸煙的人的話是“nonsense”(一派胡言)，而不是反對吸煙的人的話。
27. According to Bruce Alberts, science can serve as
根據布魯斯·阿爾伯特的觀點，科學能充當
[A] a protector. 保護人。 [B] a judge. 評判人、法官。
[C] a critic. 批評者。 [D] a guide. 向導。
【答案】 D
【考點】 事實細節題。
【分析】 文章第二段第四句中有這樣的話“科學從來都不能夠提供所有的答案，但是科學卻能夠為我們提供通向未來的比較佳引導”。
28. What does the author mean by “paralysis by analysis” (Last line, Paragraph 4)？
作者通過“分析性癱瘓癥”(第四段比較后一行)表達什么意思？
[A] Endless studies kill action. 無窮盡的研究遏制了行動。
[B] Careful investigation reveals truth. 詳細的研究揭示了真理。
[C] Prudent planning hinders. 謹慎的計劃阻礙了進展。
[D] Extensive research helps decision-making. 廣泛的研究幫助決策。
【答案】 A
【考點】 上下文暗示題。
【分析】 文章第四段說“白宮已經開始關注此事，但是總統顧問中的許多人仍然沒有認真對待地球變暖問題，他們不但沒有制定行動計劃，反而繼續要求進行更多的研究——這是典型的‘分析性麻痹癥’”。也就是總統顧問中的許多人通過分析、研究來拖延行動。所以這里應該選擇[A]。
29. According to the author, what should the Administration do about global warming?
根據本文作者的看法，政府對全球變暖應該做些什么？
[A] Offer aid to build cleaner power plants. 提供幫助，建造更加清潔的電廠。
[B] Raise public awareness of conservation. 提高公眾的環保意識。
[C] Press for further scientific research. 敦促更進一步的科學研究。
[D] Take some legislative measures. 采取一些立法的措施。
【答案】 D
【考點】 推斷題。
【分析】 文章的比較后一段里面提到“只有研究是不夠的，如果政府不采取法律行動，國會應該開始制定保護措施。”[A]選項很具有干擾性，因為原文中出現了“電廠”的概念，這是出題人根據文章比較后兩句話“很多人看見國家正在做好準備來修建大量的電廠來滿足我們的能源需求。但是如果我們要保護我們的大氣，這些電廠必須是環保的。”來編寫的干擾項，采取環保措施是“國會”(congress)做的。[B]選項說政府應該提高公眾的環保意識，這一點文章沒有提到。[C]選項是顯然不對的，因為上文剛說光有研究是不夠的。只有[D]選項采取立法措施是“政府”(administration)應該做的。
30. The author associates the issue of global warming with that of smoking because
作者把全球變暖和吸煙聯系在一起是因為
[A] they both suffered from the government’s negligence。
它們二者都被政府忽視。
[B] a lesson from the latter is applicable to the former。
從后者吸取的教訓適用于前者。
[C] the outcome of the latter aggravates the former。
后者的結果惡化了前者。
[D] both of them have turned from bad to worse。
它們二者都已經日益惡化。
【答案】 B
【考點】 推斷題。
【分析】 本題出題思路是考生能否把握住作者將吸煙和全球變暖問題聯系在一起的意圖。在第一段，作者提到“幾十年前吸煙問題被忽視帶來嚴重后果；而現在這樣的忽視又發生在全球變暖問題上，希望政府引以為鑒，吸取教訓”。[A]選項不合適的原因是它只指出一個事實，卻沒有能夠指出作者聯系二者的意圖。[C]選項說吸煙的后果惡化了全球變暖，顯然是不對的。[D]選項說二者都已經日益惡化，顯然也沒有能夠反映作者意圖。只有[B]選項正確，它明確指出了政府應該從后者的教訓中引以為鑒。
難句解析：
1. 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。
【結構分析】 主句部分是“The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us”。“panel”后接有兩個定語成分：“from”引導的介賓短語以及含“enlisted”的過去分詞短語，意思是“白宮召集的、來自國家科學院的專家團”。
2. 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。
【結構分析】 該句子的主干是由“and”連接的兩個并列分句，前一分句的主干是“science does provide us with…guide…”；后一分句的主干是“it is critical that…”，其中“it”為形式主語，真正的主語是“that”引導的主語從句。從句的主干是“our nation and the world base…policies on…judgments”，“judgments”后接有兩個定語結構，一是“that”引導的定語從句，一是“concerning”結構。
全文翻譯：
還記得科學家們認為吸煙會致人死亡，而那些懷疑者們卻堅持認為我們無法對此得出定論的時候嗎？還記得懷疑者們堅持認為證據不夠確鑿，科學也不確定的時候嗎？還記得懷疑者們堅持認為反對吸煙的游說是為了毀掉我們的生活方式，而政府對于吸煙這件事應該置身事外的時候嗎？許多美國人相信了這些胡言亂語，30多年中，差不多有1,000萬煙民早早地進了墳墓。
現在出現了與吸煙類似的令人感到不安的事情。科學家們前仆后繼地試圖使我們意識到全球氣候變暖所帶來的日益嚴重的威脅。比較近的一次是由白宮召集了一批來自國家科學院的專家小組以告訴我們地球氣候確實正在變暖，而這個問題主要是人為造成的。它發出了明確的信息，即我們應該立刻行動起來保護自己。國家科學院院長布魯斯·阿爾伯特在專家小組報告的前言中加上了這一重要觀點：“科學從來都不能解答所有問題，但是科學確實為我們的未來提供了比較好的指導，關鍵是我們的國家和整個的世界在做重要決策時，應該依據科學能夠提供的關于人類現在的行為對未來影響比較好的判斷。
與吸煙問題如出一轍，現在又有來自不同領域的聲音堅持認為有關全球變暖的科學資料尚不完整，我們可以向大氣中不斷地排放氣體直到我們證實此事。這是一個危險的游戲；到了有百分之百的證據的時候，可能就太晚了。風險一目了然并且與日俱增，此時，一個謹慎的民族現在應該采取保險措施了。
幸運的是，白宮開始關注此事了。但是顯然大多數總統顧問并沒有認真看待全球氣候變暖這個問題。他們非但沒有出臺行動計劃，相反只是繼續迫切要求進行更多的研究 ——這是一個經典的“分析導致麻痹”案例。
為了成為地球上有責任感的守護者，我們必須積極推進對于大氣和海洋的深入研究。但只有研究是不夠的。如果政府不爭取立法上的主動權，國會就應該幫助政府開始采取保護措施。弗吉尼亞的民主黨議員羅伯特·貝爾德提出一項議案，從經濟上激勵私企，就是一個良好的開端。許多人看到這個國家正準備修建許多新的發電廠，以滿足我們的能源需求。如果我們準備保護大氣，關鍵要讓這些新發電廠對環境無害。
