Question

Strictly Ban smoking

       If you smoke and you still don’t believe that there’s a definite（一定的）link between smoking and bronchial（支氣管的）troubles, heart disease and lung cancer, then you are certainly deceiving yourself. No one will accuse you of hypocrisy. Let us just say that you are suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking. This needn’t make you too uncomfortable because you are in good company. Whenever the subject of smoking and health is raised, the governments of most countries hear no evil, see no evil and smell no evil. Admittedly, a few governments have taken timid measures. In Britain for instance, cigarette advertising has been banned on television. The conscience of the nation is appeased, while the population continues to puff its way to smoky, cancerous death.

       You don’t have to look very far to find out why the official reactions to medical findings have been so lukewarm. The answer is simply money. Tobacco is a wonderful commodity to tax. It’s almost like a tax on our daily bread. In tax revenue alone, the government of Britain collects enough from smokers to pay for its entire educational facilities. So while the authorities point out ever so discreetly that smoking may, conceivable, be harmful, it doesn’t do to shout too loudly about it.

       This is surely the most short-sighted policy you could imagine. While money is eagerly collected in vast sums with one hand, it is paid out in increasingly vaster sums with the other. Enormous amounts are spent on cancer research and on efforts to cure people suffering from the disease. Countless valuable lives are lost. In the long run, there is no doubt that everybody would be much better-off if smoking were banned altogether.

       Of course, we are not ready for such a drastic action. But if the governments of the world were honestly concerned about the welfare of their peoples, you’d think they’d conduct aggressive anti-smoking campaigns. Far from it! The tobacco industry is allowed to spend staggering sums on advertising. Its advertising is as insidious as it is dishonest. We are never shown pictures of real smokers coughing up their lungs early in the morning. That would never do. The advertisement always depict virile, clean-shaven young men. They suggest it is manly to smoke, even positively healthy! Smoking is associated with the great open-air life, with beautiful girls, true love and togetherness. What utter nonsense!

       For a start, governments could begin by banning all cigarette and tobacco advertising and should then conduct anti-smoking advertising campaigns of their own. Smoking should be banned in all public places like theatres, cinemas and restaurants. Great efforts should be made to inform young people especially of the dire consequences of taking up the habit. A horrific warning – say, a picture of a death’s head – should be included in every packet of cigarettes that is sold. As individuals, we are certainly weak, but if governments acted honestly and courageously, they could protect us from ourselves.

Why do a few governments take timid measures toward smoking?

A because they are afraid of people.  B Because diseases cost a lot.

C Because they are afraid of the cutting down of their revenue.

D Because they are afraid of manufacturers.

The tone of this passage is________________.

A critical.  B ironical（諷刺的用反語的）.  C distaste（不喜歡）.    D amusing.

What does the sentence “because you are in good company” mean?

A you are backed by the government. B You are not alone.

C You have good colleagues.       D Governments are blind to evils of smoking too.

What is the best title of this passage?

A World Governments should conduct serious campaigns against smoking.

B World governments take timid measures against smoking.

C smoking is the most important source of income to many countries.

D tobacco industry spends a large sum of money on medical research.

Answer 1

【小題1】C

【小題2】B

【小題3】D

【小題4】A

解析:

       這是一篇“要求政府禁煙”的論說文，采用因果對比手法。先以諷刺口吻指出政府對禁煙的態度――軟弱無力。然后點明軟弱的原因――大量稅收。再以抽煙大嚴重后果，機器所花去的錢說明得不償失。而煙草工業廣告泛濫，毒化人們。從而提出政府應從禁止煙廣告作起。

答案詳解

【小題1】 因為他們害怕收入減少。答案見第二段。“你不用看得很遠就能發現為什么官方對醫學成果的反應如此冷淡，答案就是錢。煙草是征稅的最奇妙的商品，幾乎就像日用面包的稅收。光煙草稅收一項，英國政府就從抽煙人身上征到足以支付整個教育措施的費用。所以在當局那么謹慎地指出吸煙有害時，可以想象，喊叫得太響時不行的。”

A.他們害怕人民。D.他們害怕廠商。文中沒有。B.疾病花費很大和軟弱無力的禁煙措施有關。不是花費大而采取弱政策。

【小題2】諷刺語氣。特別表現在第一段、第四段。

A.批評語氣，整篇文章都在批評，這不是什么語氣問題。這里時以諷刺的口吻加以批評政府軟弱的禁煙政策。C.厭惡。D.有趣。

【小題3】政府對吸煙的惡果也是視而不見。

A.政府支持。太明朗化。B.你不是單獨一人。和C.你有好同事，都是似是而非的答案。這可以上下文說明，第一段：“假如你吸煙，依然認為吸煙和支氣管炎、心臟病、肺癌等毫無關系，那你是自欺欺人。可沒有人會說你虛偽。我們可以說你是患有一廂情愿病。這你無需太難受，因為你有好伙伴。每當提出吸煙和健康有關的問題時，大多數國家的政府對其惡果視而不見、聽而不聞、嗅而不覺。”

【小題4】世界各國政府應該開展眼里的禁煙運動。因為前面四段都是現象：⑴政策軟弱。如英國政府只在電視上禁止煙草廣告以高位人們的良知。另一方面人民繼續一路吞云吐霧走到癌癥死亡。⑵講煙草的稅收高，所以不嚴禁。⑶這項政策的后果是疾病花費大于煙草稅收。⑷煙草廣告泛濫毒害人。唯一解救的辦法就是禁煙。最后一段是結論，也是畫龍點睛的主題和標題。“作為起步，政府可以從禁止煙草廣告開始，然后應開展抵制吸煙的廣告運動。一切公共場合，如戲院、電影院、返點等應禁止吸煙。應竭盡全力告誡青年，尤其是告誡他們染上惡習的嚴重后果。在零賣的每包煙盒上應有一令人膽戰心驚的警告：例如，一幅骷髏頭畫像。作為個人，我們力量薄弱，可是如果政府真誠地鼓舞人心的行動起來，他們可以保護我們。”B.世界各國政府采取禁煙政策軟弱無力。C.吸煙是許多國家重要收入。這兩項是不分具體內容。D.煙草工廠在醫療研究上花了大筆費用。