2015考研英语阅读理解模拟试题（二十）

　　2015考研英语复习正在如火如荼的进行中，考研专家建议可以按考研题型分别进行重点复习，考研英语阅读理解是考研英语中分值最高的，新东方在线小编特地整理了2015考研英语阅读理解模拟试题供大家模拟练习，希望大家认真做题，错题着重看解析及译文，经过练习阅读理解能力必能有所提高。

　　二十、环境预防原则

　　Your first introduction to the so-called “precautionary principle” may have come from your mother. She may have told you it was “better to be safe than sorry” as she advised you to buckle your seat belt or admonished “when in doubt, throw it out”, as you speculated on the odds of getting food poisoning from the leftover turkey you forgot to refrigerate the night before. Such precautionary advice makes sense. But the modern-day precautionary principle—which is generally taken to mean that environmental and health policies that deal with known hazards are insufficient; we need new policies based on what “might” cause harm, even if there’s no scientific evidence a hazard exists—is not nearly so benign.

　　It is this precautionary principle that dominates the currently raging debate about trace levels of so-called “hormone-disrupting chemicals” in the environment. At a number of recent international conferences and in a widely publicized book, Our Stolen Future, it has been suggested that the release into the environment of synthetic chemicals—especially chlorine and related compounds—has been responsible not only for an increase in chronic diseases like cancer, but even more ominously, for an increase in reproductive and developmental problems. The suggested response? Stop the technology and ban all the chemicals just in case— and do so immediately. The scientific evidence for the charges? Spotty, ambiguous and filled with gaps— and the advocates of precautionary principle acknowledge it.

　　But under the precautionary principle, scientifically questionable observations of wildlife and incomplete human data are sufficient to sound the alarm. In short, since no data exist to prove there isn’t a problem, we should assume there is. So as is typical in situations where the scientific evidence is extremely tentative but the potential for arousing fear is great, the precautionary principle is invoked. Our Stolen Future uses the word “might” 30 times, —as in, “those exposed prenatally to endocrine-disrupting chemicals may have abnormal hormone levels as adults, and they could pass on persistent chemicals they themselves have inherited—both factors which could influence the development of their own children.” Still, just the hint of possible harms is seductive and the precautionary principle plays well to the crowd, placing environmental advocates on the side of the public, and portraying opponents as indifferent, even hostile to public health.

　　There are however, at least two reasons why the precautionary principle itself is a hazard, both to our health and our high standard of living, and why it should not be applied to regulatory policy. First, if we act on “mays” and “coulds”, we will have less time, less money, and fewer resources left to deal with the real public health challenges that confront us. We should not let the distraction of purely hypothetical threats cause us to lose sight of known or highly probably ones. Second, the precautionary principle assumes that no detriment to health will result from a proposed new regulation. For example, what are the known health risks from the current, regulated use of chlorine? None. How great are the benefits? Enormous. What new health risks would we encounter if we were to ban chlorinated compounds because they might make alligators less virile? Plenty. Chlorine is the essential cornerstone of modern industrial chemistry. We need chlorine to make the pesticides that enable us to have a food supply rich in cancer-fighting fruits and vegetables. We need it to produce lifesaving pharmaceuticals. And we need it to disinfect our nation’s water supply. So what’s to be done in those instances when the risks are hypothetical and the costs of eliminating a technology are substantial? Go back to what mother said: “When in doubt, throw the precautionary principle out.”

　　1. In the opening paragraph, the author introduces her topic by_____.

　　[A] justifying a principle [B] making an assumption [C] posing a contrast [D] having quotations

　　2. Which of the following may disagree with advocates of precautionary principle?

　　[A] Chemicals in the environment cause serious damage to human health.

　　[B] The final solution is to immediately ban the technology and chemicals.

　　[C] The scientific evidence for environmental harm is disputable.

　　[D] More time and money should be spent in dealing with known diseases.

　　3.In the public’s eyes,_____.

　　[A] environmental advocates are indifferent to public health

　　[B] health policies are insufficient to deal with unknown hazards

　　[C] many diseases have no environmental component

　　[D] new policies based on what might cause harm may cause harm themselves

　　4. The precautionary principle itself is a hazard, because _____.

　　[A] to stop a supposedly risky technology does more harm than good

　　[B] there is no scientific evidence that a hazard truly exists

　　[C] hypothetical threats distract our attention from the truth

　　[D] tentative theories are likely to misinform the public

　　5.Which of the following best describes the author’s attitude towards the present-day environmental issue?

　　[A] Better to be safe than sorry. [B] When in doubt, throw it out.

　　[C] No doubt about the need for action. [D] No trouble, no fuss.

　　答案：1.C 2.D 3.B 4.A 5.D

　　核心词汇或超纲词汇

　　(1)precautionary(a.)预防的;precaution(n.)使提防;预先警告

　　(2)buckle(n.)搭扣(v.)扣住;变弯曲变形;屈服，崩溃

　　(3)admonish(v.)劝告，训诫，警告;admonishment(n.)

　　(4)speculate(v.)(about/on/upon)推测，思索;(in)投机;speculation(n.)speculative(a.)

　　(5)leftover(a./n.)剩余的(物)

　　(6)hazard(n.)冒险，危险;公害(v.)冒险，斗胆;使遭受危险;hazardous(a.)

　　(7)benign(a.)良性的;仁慈的，和蔼的;benignity(n.)仁慈，善行

　　(8)trace(n.)踪迹;极少量trace-element微量元素(v.)追踪，回溯，探索

　　(9)ominous(a.)恶兆的，不吉利的

　　(10)endocrine(n./a.)内分泌(的)，激素(的)

　　(11)alligator(n.)产于美洲的鳄鱼，短吻鳄

　　(12)pharmaceutical(n.)药物(a.)药用的，制药的，制药(学)上的;pharmaceutist(n.)药剂师;pharmacy(n.)药房;制药业

　　(13)disinfect(v.)消毒;infect(v.)传染, 感染;dis-前缀表示“否定，相反”，如disbelieve不相信，disconnect切断

　　全文翻译

　　你可能最初是从妈妈那儿接触所谓的“预防原则”的。当建议你扣紧座位安全带时她可能会说“有备无患，无备遗憾”，或者当你在推测昨晚剩下的、忘记放入冰箱的火鸡有多大可能性让你食物中毒时她会告诫说“当怀疑的时候，就把它扔掉”。这种预防性的建议是有道理的。但当今的预防原则——一般认为那些针对已知危害的环境和健康政策是不够的;我们需要建立在“可能”有害基础上的新政策，即使没有危害存在的科学证据——就几乎不那么有利了。

　　就是这种预防原则在关于环境中微量的所谓“干扰荷尔蒙的化学物质”的激烈争论中占据了优势。最近几次国际会议上广泛宣传的《失窃的未来》一书，暗示排放到环境中的合成化学物质——尤其是氯及其相关合成物——不仅造成了慢性疾病譬如癌症的增加，而且更加危害深远的是，造成了繁殖和发展问题的增加。建议的应对策略?为以防万一，停止该技术并且禁止所有的化学制品——而且要立即执行。那么这些指控的科学证据呢?不完整、含糊其词而且充满漏洞——甚至预防原则的支持者们也承认了这一点。

　　但是在预防原则下，科学上值得怀疑的对野生生物的观察资料和不完整的人类数据都足以拉响警报。总之，既然不存在数据证明没有问题，那我们就应该假定有。典型的情形是，当科学证据极其具有推测性但引起恐慌的可能性很大时，预防原则就产生了作用。《失窃的未来》提到“可能”这个词有30次——例如，“那些出生前接触干扰内分泌的化学物质的人，成年时可能荷尔蒙水平不正常，而且他们可能会把自己遗传的持久稳定的化学物质传给后代——两个因素都可能影响他们孩子的成长。”尽管如此，仅仅对可能性危害的暗示就是诱人的——而且预防原则在群众中很有影响，它把环保分子归于公众一边，而把反对者描绘成对公共健康漠不关心的，甚至是敌对的。

　　然而，至少有两个原因可以解释为什么预防原则本身对我们的健康和高水平的生活是个危害，为什么它不能应用于管理政策中。其一，如果我们以“可能”和“也许”为行动依据，那么我们剩下来用于应付现实中遇到的公共健康难题的时间、金钱和资源就会减少。我们不能让纯粹假定的威胁分散我们的精力，使我们忽视那些已知或极有可能的威胁。其二，预防原则假定新提议的条例不会给健康带来任何危害。例如，现在对氯的控制性使用引起了什么已知的健康危险了吗?没有。好处有多少?数不胜数。如果我们因为它们“可能”使美洲鳄鱼生殖力减弱就禁止氯化合物的话，我们将会遇到什么新的健康危险呢?很多。氯是现代工业化学的基石。我们需要氯制造农药，以使我们的食物中有丰富的抗癌水果和蔬菜。我们需要它来生产救命的医药。我们需要它给国家的水源消毒。那么当危险只是猜想的而消除使用一项技术的代价巨大时，我们该怎么办呢?回到妈妈的教导：“怀疑的时候，就抛弃预防原则。”

　　八月伊始，部分高校2015年考研招生简章已经发布，请广大15年考生关注，预计到8月底9月初，2015年全国硕士研究生招生简章会陆续发布完成，新东方在线小编第一时间跟踪发布，请大家收藏关注！另有研究生专业目录、考研参考书等最新考研信息，帮助考生及时了解目标院校招生政策及信息。