2. 外语
  3. Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial, but history shows they can also be highly effective.

Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial, but history shows they can also be highly effective.

admin2019-09-17  72
问题    Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial, but history shows they can also be highly effective. But are all smoking bans equally successful?
   The barkeeper and blogger who writes as "Scribbler50" was outraged when, in 2003, New York City enacted one of the first comprehensive smoking bans in bars and restaurants, "How can a guy and some board just kick us in the teeth like this? This smacks of fascism." If people are aware of the consequences of smoking or visiting places with lots of secondhand smoke, should the government really have to tell us what to do? Won’t people just vote with their feet and smoke even more when they’re at home and away from restrictions?
   Scribbler50’s post inspired the physician who blogs as "PalMD" last week to look up the research on the effectiveness of smoking bans. He found several studies showing that not only did workers in restaurants and bars show improved health shortly after the bans were put in place, but smokers themselves also reduced the number of cigarettes they smoked.
   Overall, however, smoking rates remain persistently high, despite the common workplace smoking bans. Can other government measures help these smokers live healthier lives, or at least prevent people from taking up the habit?
   In the U.S., warning messages have been in place on cigarette packages for decades. But the messages are rather clinical, for example: "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, and May Complicate Pregnancy." What if packages contained more dramatic warnings? In January, psychologist and science writer Christian Jarrett looked at a small study of smokers’ reactions to cigarette warnings. The researchers measured self-esteem in student smokers, then showed them cigarette packages with either death-related warnings ("Smokers die earlier") or esteem-related warnings ("Smoking makes you unattractive"). Students who derived self-esteem from smoking and saw the death-related warnings later viewed smoking more positively than those who saw the esteem-related warnings. For students whose smoking wasn’t motivated by self-esteem, the effect was reversed.
   So not all anti-smoking messages are equal: Depending on who the message is directed at, a morbid warning on a cigarette label may actually backfire.
   Scribbler50, for his part, is now a convert favoring smoking restrictions, at least in his narrow limits as a bartender. His patrons who haven’t quit smoking say they smoke a lot less now that they have to go outside to get a nicotine fix. He doesn’t miss emptying ashtrays, or the holier-than-thou customers who complained every time a fellow patron lit up, or working in a smoke-filled bar all night and going home "smelling like you put out a three-alarm".
   Would it be right to enact even more restrictions on smoking in the interest of public health? It’s hard to deny that banning smoking in public, indoor spaces has been a huge success. Why not try out some stronger smoking bans? Parents in some areas are already restricted from smoking in cars with children, but I haven’t seen a study that evaluates the success of those measures. Perhaps a state or municipality could try extending the ban to homes, with provisions for studying the results. It’s also possible that stronger measures would be counter-productive, like the stronger warnings on cigarette labels. Maybe we’ll decide that at some level deciding whether or not to smoke should still be an individual choice. Or maybe in a few generations, it won’t be necessary to regulate smoking: There won’t be any smokers left.
Which of the following statements is true of smoking restriction?
选项 A、Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are effective.
B、Scribbler50 himself did some research on the effectiveness of the bans on smoking.
C、Christian Jarrett found the morbid signs on cigarettes play an important role among all smokers.
D、The measure to restrict parents from smoking in cars with children is effective.
答案A
解析    正误判断。第一段第一句就表明“Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial，but history shows they can also be highly effective”，所以选项A正确。第三段第一句“Scribbler50’s post inspired the physician who blogs as‘PalMD’last week to look up the research on the effectiveness of smoking bans”表明，Scribbler50的博文引发了禁烟效果的研究，不是该博主自己的研究，所以选项B错误；第五段“For students whose smoking wasn’t motivated by self-esteem，the effect was reversed”表明，如果吸烟者不是因为博取自尊感而吸烟，吸烟有损魅力的警示语无效，但吸烟致死的警示语有效，即不同的警示语对不同的人群有效，故选项C错误。第八段提到当车内有孩子时禁止家长吸烟，但事实是“but I haven’t seen a study that evaluates the success of those measures”，没有证据表明其成功，选项D错误。【知识拓展】一般而言，正误判断只需要找出正确选项即可终止。只有在读者不确定的情况下才需要一一比对判断，但这样会浪费很多时间。如果必须如此，需要利用选项关键词快速在原文中检索原句，如选项A、B、C、D的municipal bans，Scribbler50 himself，Christian Jarrett，cars with children等。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/5MwO777K
本试题收录于： CATTI三级笔译综合能力题库翻译专业资格（CATTI）分类
0

CATTI三级笔译综合能力

翻译专业资格（CATTI）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)