2. 专升本
  3. Do we need laws that prevent us from running risks with our lives? If so, then perhaps laws are needed prohibiting the sale of c

Do we need laws that prevent us from running risks with our lives? If so, then perhaps laws are needed prohibiting the sale of c

admin2018-04-17  57
问题     Do we need laws that prevent us from running risks with our lives? If so, then perhaps laws are needed prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcoholic drink. Both products have been known to kill people. The hazards of drinking too much alcohol are as bad or worse than the hazards of smoking too many cigarettes. All right then, let’ s pass a law closing the liquor stores and the bars in this country. Let’ s put an end once and for all to the ruinous disease from which as many as 10 million Americans currently suffer—alcoholism.
    But wait, we’ve already tried that. For 13 years, between 1920 and 1933, there were no liquor stores anywhere in the United States. They were shut down abolished by an amendment to the Constitution (the 18th) and by a law of Congress (the Volstead Act). After January 20, 1920, there was supposed to be no more manufacturing, selling, or transporting of "intoxicating liquors". Without any more liquor, people could not drink it, and if they did not drink it, how could they get drunk? There would be no more dangers to the public welfare from drunkenness and alcoholism. It was all very logical.
    And yet prohibition of liquor, beer, and wine did not work. Why?
    Because, law or no law, millions of people still liked to drink alcohol. And they were willing to take risks of getting it. They were not about to change their tastes and habits just because of a change in the law. And gangs of liquor smugglers made it easy to buy an illegal drink. They smuggled millions of gallons of the outlawed beverages across the Canadian and Mexican Borders. Drinkers were lucky to know of an illegal bar that served Mexican or Canadian liquor. Crime and drunkenness were both supposed to decline as a result of prohibition. Instead people drank more alcohol than ever—often poisoned alcohol.
    On December 5, 1933, they repealed prohibition by ratifying the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.
Which of the following was NOT a characteristic reason for the proposal of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the Volstead Act?
选项 A、There would be no further danger to the public from alcoholism.
B、There would be a rise in the cost of alcoholic beverages.
C、Without liquor, people would not drink.
D、People wouldn’t become drunk or create a public nuisance.
答案B
解析 从文章第二段的后几句：“Without any more liquor，people could not drink it，and if they did not drink it，how could they get drunk? There would be no more dangers to the public welfare from drunkenness and alcoholism．”可知，B项关于“酒类的费用会提高”不合题意。因此正确答案为B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/upiC777K
本试题收录于： 英语题库成考专升本分类
0

英语

成考专升本

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)