The announcement that England’s mad cow disease was involved in a case of a fatal human brain disorder has been met with understandable hysteria. The market for British beef collapsed, 1,000,000 famers’ jobs are in jeopardy, and the government is trying to defuse a crisis that could cause billions of dollars in losses.
But what is striking about the situation is how sharply the decisive public reaction to the crisis contrasts with the cautious language in the announcement. Scientists said consumption of contaminated beef was “the most likely explanation” for 10 cases of a similar human illness called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—nothing more definite than that.
The crisis is a telling example of a phenomenon occurring ever more frequently: A complex scientific debate is suddenly thrust upon an anxious public that is ill-equipped to understand it. Instant communications, combined with the greater willingness of government and industry leaders to go public with their scientific disputes, trigger concern. The core of real science gets overwhelmed by a flurry of “junk science”—conflicting statements by politicians, confusing press reports, legal depositions, even dueling ads.
The real problem is the nature of scientific inquiry, which inevitably involves uncertainty. Researchers cannot say conclusively whether mad cow disease poses a risk to humans. They don’t know the extent of the epidemic or how it can be stopped. Indeed, they can’t even agree on the cause. “This is tremendously difficult for the public to sort out. If scientists are disagreeing, what is the citizen to presume?” asks Paul Slovic, an American psychologist at Decision Research in Eugene.
One lesson to be drawn from the mad cow crisis is that government should not cut funding for basic research, which can prevent tomorrow’s crisis. But the only real solution is for government and industry leaders to use scientific information responsibly. Unresolved scientific disputes have become a fact of modern life. Nothing else so clearly illustrates science’s limits.
1. The announcement indicating the connection between the mad cow disease and the fatal brain disorder has brought about ______.
2. We can infer from the article that Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease ______.
3. The public reaction to the crisis could be best defined as ______.
4. To the author, the way in which the public reacted to the announcement is ______.
5. In the author’s opinion, which of the following should NOT be held responsible for the crisis?
问题1选项
A.a drastic decline in beef consumption
B.unemployment of 1000 000 farmers
C.the British government’s decisive action to prevent future crisis
D.scientific disputes concerning the nature of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
问题2选项
A.is an epidemic fatal to humans as well as cattle
B.is caused by eating contaminated beef
C.is incurable but preventable
D.is still under scientific investigation
问题3选项
A.violent
B.pessimistic
C.panic-stricken
D.incredulous
问题4选项
A.incomprehensible
B.ridiculous
C.justifiable
D.illogical
问题5选项
A.Uncertainty in explaining the cause of the human disorder.
B.Irresponsibility of government officials in using scientific information.
C.Misleading news report written by journalists.
D.Advertisement competing for public attention and market.
第1题:D
第2题:B
第3题:A
第4题:C
第5题:A
第1题:
The announcement indicating the connection between the mad cow disease and the fatal brain disorder has brought about ______. 有关疯牛病和脑疾病之间的关系的报道引起了______。
A. a drastic decline in beef consumption A. 牛肉消费量的急剧下降
B. unemployment of 1000 000 farmers B. 100万农民失业
C. the British government’s decisive action to prevent future crisis C. 英国政府防止未来危机的果断行动
D. scientific disputes concerning the nature of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease D. 关于克雅氏病性质的科学争论
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】首先定位至文章首句“英国疯牛病与一种致命的人类脑部疾病有关的声明引起了可以理解的情绪爆发”可知，有关疯牛病和脑疾病之间的关系的报道引起了公众对此的情绪爆发，而第三段提到 “……一场复杂的科学辩论突然被推给了焦虑的公众，而他们对此知之甚少”理解可知，这种情绪的爆发是因为公众突然被加入了一场复杂的科学辩论，也就是说这篇声明带来了关于这个疯牛病的科学争论，该题选择D项“关于克雅氏病性质的科学争论”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】A项“牛肉消费量的急剧下降”、B项“100万农民失业”和C项“英国政府防止未来危机的果断行动”是疯牛病引发的一系列后果，都是包括在D项之内的，这三项属于以偏概全。
第2题:
We can infer from the article that Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease ______. 我们可以从文章中推断出克雅氏病______。
A. is an epidemic fatal to humans as well as cattle A. 是一种对人和牛致命的流行病
B. is caused by eating contaminated beef B. 是由吃了受污染的牛肉引起的
C. is incurable but preventable C. 无法治愈，但可以预防
D. is still under scientific investigation D. 还在科学调查中
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据第二段第二句“科学家说，食用受污染的牛肉是10例类似的人类克雅氏病的‘最有可能的解释’，没有比这更确定的了（nothing more definite than that）”可知，食用受污染的牛肉最能解释人类为何患上克雅氏病，也就是说克雅氏病很可能是由于吃了受污染的牛肉，该题选择B项“是由吃了受污染的牛肉引起的”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
A项“是一种对人和牛致命的流行病”虽然克雅氏病是流行病，但是文中没有提及这种病致命，该项属于无中生有；
C项“无法治愈，但可以预防”和D项“还在科学调查中”也没有提及，这两项属于无中生有。
第3题:
The public reaction to the crisis could be best defined as ______. 公众对危机的反应可以很好地定义为______。
A. violent A. 强烈的
B. pessimistic B. 悲观的
C. panic-stricken C. 惊慌失措的
D. incredulous D. 不肯相信的
【考查点】观点态度题。
【解题思路】由文章首句“英国疯牛病与一种致命的人类脑部疾病有关的声明引起了可以理解的情绪爆发（hysteria）”可知，公众对这场危机的反应是强烈的，A项“强烈的”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】B项“悲观的”、C项“惊慌失措的”和D项“不肯相信的”表述与原文不符，这三项属于曲解原文。
第4题:
To the author, the way in which the public reacted to the announcement is ______. 对于作者来说，公众对声明的反应是______。
A. incomprehensible A. 无法理解的；难懂的
B. ridiculous B. 愚蠢的；荒谬的
C. justifiable C. 有理由的；情有可原的
D. illogical D. 不合逻辑的
【考查点】观点态度题。
【解题思路】由文章首句“英国疯牛病与一种致命的人类脑部疾病有关的声明引起了可以理解的情绪爆发（understandable hysteria）”从作者使用的understandable一词可看出，作者认为公众对声明的这种情绪爆发的反应是情有可原的，C项“有理由的；情有可原的”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
A项“无法理解的；难懂的”与原文相反，该项属于反向干扰；
B项“愚蠢的；荒谬的”和D项“不合逻辑的”没有信息提及，这两项属于无中生有。
第5题:
In the author’s opinion, which of the following should NOT be held responsible for the crisis? 在作者看来，下列哪项不应该为危机负责？
A. Uncertainty in explaining the cause of the human disorder. A. 无法解释人体疾病的原因。
B. Irresponsibility of government officials in using scientific information. B. 政府官员在使用科学信息方面的不负责任。
C. Misleading news report written by journalists. C. 记者写的误导性新闻报道。
D. Advertisement competing for public attention and market. D. 争夺公众关注和市场的广告。
【考查点】细节事实题。
【解题思路】由最后一段第一、二句“从疯牛病危机中得到的一个教训是，政府不应该削减对基础研究的资助，这可以防止未来的危机。但唯一真正的解决办法是政府和行业领袖负责任地使用科学信息。”可知，解决这场危机的办法，即对这场危机负责的方法就是政府和各个行业的领袖负责任地使用科学信息，而不是给社会造成恐慌；这些行业包括第三段提到的政府、新闻、广告、法律等，所以只有A项“无法解释人体疾病的原因”没有提到，但符合题意，故该题选择A项。
【干扰项排除】B项“政府官员在使用科学信息方面的不负责任”、C项“记者写的误导性新闻报道”和D项“争夺公众关注和市场的广告”都应该为这场危机负有责任，这三项属于反向干扰。
