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。
名师解析
26. An argument made by supporters of smoking was that
吸烟的支持者提出的观点是
[A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death。
没有科学证据证明吸烟和死亡之间存在相互联系。
[B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant。
在过去的几十年中过早死亡的吸烟者人数不多。
[C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life。
人们有选择自己生活方式的自由。
[D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense。
反对吸烟的人通常一派胡言。
【答案】 C
【考点】 事实细节题。
【分析】 从第一段可以看出，其实支持吸烟的人的理由不止一个，比如证据不够充分，科学也不能确定，反对吸烟的游说是为了毁掉我们的生活方式等等。[A]选项是出题人故意扩大范围，夸大选项，故意绝对化，原文只是证据不足，而不是没有证据。[B]选项说死亡人数不多，而原文提到的“1,000万”可不是小数字。[D]选项不符合的原因是作者说支持吸烟的人的话是“nonsense”(一派胡言)，而不是反对吸烟的人的话。
27. According to Bruce Alberts, science can serve as
根据布鲁斯·阿尔伯特的观点，科学能充当
[A] a protector. 保护人。 [B] a judge. 评判人、法官。
[C] a critic. 批评者。 [D] a guide. 向导。
【答案】 D
【考点】 事实细节题。
【分析】 文章第二段第四句中有这样的话“科学从来都不能够提供所有的答案，但是科学却能够为我们提供通向未来的最佳引导”。
28. What does the author mean by “paralysis by analysis” (Last line, Paragraph 4)？
作者通过“分析性瘫痪症”(第四段最后一行)表达什么意思？
[A] Endless studies kill action. 无穷尽的研究遏制了行动。
[B] Careful investigation reveals truth. 详细的研究揭示了真理。
[C] Prudent planning hinders. 谨慎的计划阻碍了进展。
[D] Extensive research helps decision-making. 广泛的研究帮助决策。
【答案】 A
【考点】 上下文暗示题。
【分析】 文章第四段说“白宫已经开始关注此事，但是总统顾问中的许多人仍然没有认真对待地球变暖问题，他们不但没有制定行动计划，反而继续要求进行更多的研究——这是典型的‘分析性麻痹症’”。也就是总统顾问中的许多人通过分析、研究来拖延行动。所以这里应该选择[A]。
29. According to the author, what should the Administration do about global warming?
根据本文作者的看法，政府对全球变暖应该做些什么？
[A] Offer aid to build cleaner power plants. 提供帮助，建造更加清洁的电厂。
[B] Raise public awareness of conservation. 提高公众的环保意识。
[C] Press for further scientific research. 敦促更进一步的科学研究。
[D] Take some legislative measures. 采取一些立法的措施。
【答案】 D
【考点】 推断题。
【分析】 文章的最后一段里面提到“只有研究是不够的，如果政府不采取法律行动，国会应该开始制定保护措施。”[A]选项很具有干扰性，因为原文中出现了“电厂”的概念，这是出题人根据文章最后两句话“很多人看见国家正在做好准备来修建大量的电厂来满足我们的能源需求。但是如果我们要保护我们的大气，这些电厂必须是环保的。”来编写的干扰项，采取环保措施是“国会”(congress)做的。[B]选项说政府应该提高公众的环保意识，这一点文章没有提到。[C]选项是显然不对的，因为上文刚说光有研究是不够的。只有[D]选项采取立法措施是“政府”(administration)应该做的。
30. The author associates the issue of global warming with that of smoking because
作者把全球变暖和吸烟联系在一起是因为
[A] they both suffered from the government’s negligence。
它们二者都被政府忽视。
[B] a lesson from the latter is applicable to the former。
从后者吸取的教训适用于前者。
[C] the outcome of the latter aggravates the former。
后者的结果恶化了前者。
[D] both of them have turned from bad to worse。
它们二者都已经日益恶化。
【答案】 B
【考点】 推断题。
【分析】 本题出题思路是考生能否把握住作者将吸烟和全球变暖问题联系在一起的意图。在第一段，作者提到“几十年前吸烟问题被忽视带来严重后果；而现在这样的忽视又发生在全球变暖问题上，希望政府引以为鉴，吸取教训”。[A]选项不合适的原因是它只指出一个事实，却没有能够指出作者联系二者的意图。[C]选项说吸烟的后果恶化了全球变暖，显然是不对的。[D]选项说二者都已经日益恶化，显然也没有能够反映作者意图。只有[B]选项正确，它明确指出了政府应该从后者的教训中引以为鉴。
难句解析：
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。
【结构分析】 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”后接有两个定语成分：“from”引导的介宾短语以及含“enlisted”的过去分词短语，意思是“白宫召集的、来自国家科学院的专家团”。
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。
【结构分析】 该句子的主干是由“and”连接的两个并列分句，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”为形式主语，真正的主语是“that”引导的主语从句。从句的主干是“our nation and the world base…policies on…judgments”，“judgments”后接有两个定语结构，一是“that”引导的定语从句，一是“concerning”结构。
全文翻译：
还记得科学家们认为吸烟会致人死亡，而那些怀疑者们却坚持认为我们无法对此得出定论的时候吗？还记得怀疑者们坚持认为证据不够确凿，科学也不确定的时候吗？还记得怀疑者们坚持认为反对吸烟的游说是为了毁掉我们的生活方式，而政府对于吸烟这件事应该置身事外的时候吗？许多美国人相信了这些胡言乱语，30多年中，差不多有1,000万烟民早早地进了坟墓。
现在出现了与吸烟类似的令人感到不安的事情。科学家们前仆后继地试图使我们意识到全球气候变暖所带来的日益严重的威胁。最近的一次是由白宫召集了一批来自国家科学院的专家小组以告诉我们地球气候确实正在变暖，而这个问题主要是人为造成的。它发出了明确的信息，即我们应该立刻行动起来保护自己。国家科学院院长布鲁斯·阿尔伯特在专家小组报告的前言中加上了这一重要观点：“科学从来都不能解答所有问题，但是科学确实为我们的未来提供了最好的指导，关键是我们的国家和整个的世界在做重要决策时，应该依据科学能够提供的关于人类现在的行为对未来影响最好的判断。
与吸烟问题如出一辙，现在又有来自不同领域的声音坚持认为有关全球变暖的科学资料尚不完整，我们可以向大气中不断地排放气体直到我们证实此事。这是一个危险的游戏；到了有百分之百的证据的时候，可能就太晚了。风险一目了然并且与日俱增，此时，一个谨慎的民族现在应该采取保险措施了。
幸运的是，白宫开始关注此事了。但是显然大多数总统顾问并没有认真看待全球气候变暖这个问题。他们非但没有出台行动计划，相反只是继续迫切要求进行更多的研究 ——这是一个经典的“分析导致麻痹”案例。
为了成为地球上有责任感的守护者，我们必须积极推进对于大气和海洋的深入研究。但只有研究是不够的。如果政府不争取立法上的主动权，国会就应该帮助政府开始采取保护措施。弗吉尼亚的民主党议员罗伯特·贝尔德提出一项议案，从经济上激励私企，就是一个良好的开端。许多人看到这个国家正准备修建许多新的发电厂，以满足我们的能源需求。如果我们准备保护大气，关键要让这些新发电厂对环境无害。
