2. 医学
  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

admin2013-12-14  3
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 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 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.
What does the author mean by "paralysis by analysis"(Last line, paragraph 4)?
选项 A、Endless studies kill action.
B、Careful investigation reveals truth.
C、prudent planning hinders.
D、Extensive research helps decision-making.
答案A
解析 问：分析导致麻痹是什么意思。文章第四段最后的句子：“Instead of a plan of action，theycontinue to press for more research-a classic case of "paralysis by analysis"。这话的意思是：不去作行动的安排，他们持续要求进行更多研究，这就是典型的分析导致麻痹的例子。选项A的意思是：无止境的研究扼杀了行动。因此选项A入选。选项B的意思是：仔细的研究才能揭示事实。文章中未谈到这个问题。选项C的意思是：过于谨慎的计划会影响进步。文章没有说到这个观点。选项D的意思是：广泛的研究能帮助决策的制定。文中也没提到。故答案为A。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/DqU3777K
本试题收录于： 医学博士外语题库考研分类
0

医学博士外语

考研

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)