2. 考研
  3. Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know

Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know

admin2016-06-22  48
问题     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 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 answer. 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 plan of action, they continue to press for more research—a classic 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.
The author mentioned the deeper atmospheric and oceanic research in the last paragraph with the intention______.
选项 A、to explain that the research should be exhaustive and sufficient
B、that the administration should take conservation measures
C、that the Congress should take the legislative initiative
D、that actions should be taken rather than research only
答案D
解析 综观全文，作者的中心意思就是要采取行动，科学研究可以作为向导，而不要只停留在研究上面，作者举了三个例子都是为了说明这一点，即举了吸烟、全球气候变暖还有对大气和海洋的研究的例子，因此，D项符合题意，而B项和C项意思恰恰相反了，A项没有提及，因此本题答案是D项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/RvQi777K
0

在职申硕（同等学力）英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)