2007年3月中科院英语试题阅读（6选5）答案及原文 $69ef[b
;&A%"8o
7
[b]%i
x}c%8dO#J
Paper one x+X^K_*
B(omD3jzN
;)SWUXa;{
-t5DcEAb$
The Bush crowd bristles at the use of the "Q-word" - quagmire - to describe American involvement in Iraq. But with our soldiers fighting and dying with no end in sight, who can deny that Mr. Bush has gotten us into "a situation from which extrication is very difficult," which is a standard definition of quagmire? %. zcE@7*
More than 1,730 American troops have already died in Iraq. （D）Some were little more than children when they signed up for the armed forces, like Ramona Valdez, who grew up in the Bronx and was just 17 when she joined the Marines. She was one of six service members, including four women, who were killed when a suicide bomber struck their convoy in Falluja last week. RH"&B`
Corporal Valdez wasn't even old enough to legally drink in New York. She died four days shy of her 21st birthday. iJr 1w&GL$
On July 2, 2003, with evidence mounting that U.S. troop strength in Iraq was inadequate, Mr. Bush told reporters at the White House, "There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, Bring 'em on." '(q VA>S
（A）It was an immature display of street-corner machismo that appalled people familiar with the agonizing ordeals of combat. Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, was quoted in The Washington Post as saying: "I am shaking my head in disbelief. When I served in the Army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander - let alone the commander in chief - invite enemies to attack U.S. troops." 6{ qI
The American death toll in Iraq at that point was about 200, but it was clear that a vicious opposition was developing. Mr. Bush had no coherent strategy for defeating the insurgency then, and now - more than 1,500 additional deaths later - he still doesn't. 2&k5X-Y
The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals. --32kuF&(
The administration seems to have learned nothing in the past two years. Dick Cheney, who told us the troops would be "greeted as liberators," now assures us that the insurgency is in its last throes. And the president, who never listened to warnings that he was going to war with too few troops, still refuses to acknowledge that there are not enough U.S. forces deployed to pacify Iraq. }+" N
'
The Times's Richard A. Oppel Jr. wrote an article recently about a tragically common occurrence in Iraq: U.S. forces fight to free cities and towns from the grip of insurgents, and then leave. With insufficient forces left behind to secure the liberated areas, the insurgents return. RjOQSy3
"We have a finite number of troops," said Maj. Chris Kennedy of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment. "But if you pull out of an area and don't leave security forces in it, all you're going to do is leave the door open for them to come back. This is what our lack of combat power has done to us throughout the country." }'FNGn.~#
（E）The latest fantasy out of Washington is that American-trained Iraqi forces will ultimately be able to do what the American forces have not: defeat the insurgency and pacify Iraq. "We've learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills," said Mr. Bush in his television address. "And that is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting, and then our troops can come home." Ep@NT+V nI
Don't hold your breath. (C)This is another example of the administration's inability to distinguish between a strategy and a wish. */kX|Sur
Whether one agreed with the launch of this war or not - and I did not - the troops doing the fighting deserve to be guided by leaders in Washington who are at least minimally competent at waging war. (F)That has not been the case, which is why we can expect to remain stuck in this tragic quagmire for the foreseeable future.” ^LO`6,
fuwv,[m
Paper two ZgXn8O[a
[T5z}!_y
#4iiY6
c<(LXf+61
Watch your mouth! S!u`V3-s
)R QX1("O
New laws could gag critics of unsafe food mJ>@Dh3>G
@`</Z
)
Over the past few years, outcries from food activists have changed many Americans' eating habits: Criticism of widespread pesticide use led many consumers to organic foods, and early warnings prompted shoppers to shun irradiated and genetically altered food. x+L
G4++
(C)But now angry agribusiness groups are fighting back. Major players, among them the American Farm Bureau Federation, have muscled "agricultural disparagement" laws through state legislatures. The statutes make it illegal to suggest that a particular food is unsafe without a "sound scientific basis" for the claim, reports Paul Rauber in Sierra (Nov./Dec. 1995). These so-called banana bills are on the books in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas, and are under consideration in California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington. T.=du$
Banana bill backers believe the laws will protect agricultural producers from losses like those following the Alar scare in 1989, when the TV magazine show 60 Minutes publicized a Natural Resources Defense Council report charging that the chemical, which enhances the appearance of apples, causes cancer. (E)Overnight, tons of apples, applesauce, and apple juice became grocery shelf untouchables, and Washington apple growers lost $130 million, according to the Washington State Farm Bureau. \mB H6GS
Florida proponents of banana bills point to the fate of Vindicator Inc., a Florida firm that opened the nation's first food irradiation facility and now is struggling to survive. Vindicator blamed activists' anti-irradiation publicity for its woes, and fearful farmers in the agribusiness-rich state teamed up to pass a banana bill with clout: Those found guilty of "agricultural disparagement" have to pay three times the estimated dollar amount of damage done to the ag interest plaintiffs. ,w+}Evp])
Banana bill foes say the laws simply serve to stifle those who speak out against risky food -- produce with "acceptable" levels of pesticides, genetically altered tomatoes, milk from cows injected with the growth hormone rbST (recombinant bovine somatotropin), which boosts milk production. Even when a lawsuit against a food safety group fails, legal fees can bankrupt the group. In Safe Food News (Summer 1994), David Bederman, an ACLU attorney challenging Georgia's banana bill, predicts the laws will encourage "state-sanctioned SLAPP suits," new versions of the strategic lawsuits against public participation that corporations have been filing or threatening to file against critical groups since the mid-'80s. LEUD6 M+~t
(A)Many journalists are also outraged about banana bills, calling them an affront to free speech and an impediment to covering critical food safety issues, notes Nicols Fox in American Journalism Review (March 1995). Most critics question the laws' requirement that only charges based on "reasonable and reliable" evidence be allowed. (F)Who determines what's "reasonable"? After all, it's unlikely that agribusinesses will accept even the best evidence if it threatens their bottom line. Fox notes that even though the Environmental Protection Agency -- not exactly a devil-may-care outfit -- affirmed that Alar posed unacceptable health risks, Washington State Farm Bureau spokesperson Peter Stemberg insists that EPA's science is "subject to second opinion." 49BLJ|:P?
Stemberg's statement, ironically enough, makes the ideal argument against banana bills. Thalidomide, DDT, and other toxic "innovations" were originally endorsed by the best scientific minds. Thanks to the "second opinions" of food safety, environmental, and health groups -- opinions that challenged accepted wisdom -- the nation's health has doubtless been improved. Fe
4QWB6\U
Instead of attacking what they deride as "junk science," food producers should be listening to the public's food worries, says Sierra's Rauber, who cites a recent Young & Rubicam poll that found that 4 out of 5 Americans are "very concerned about food safety." (B)Many agribusinesses seem more interested in keeping consumers in the dark about what they're eating than in exploring ways to produce safe food. A case in point is rbST maker Monsanto, who fought (and eventually lost) a battle to keep dairy producers from advertising that their milk came from rbST-free cows. V?k"BU
If you are concerned about state banana bills, and about the food industry's efforts to have similar laws included in the 1995 federal farm bill, Rauber suggests that you contact state and federal officials and activist groups such as the Environmental Working Group. And Dr. Wally Burnstein, founder of the food-safety group Food & Water Inc., recommends turning the tables: Activists can work for new laws that forbid corporate and government officials to make false safety claims about dangerous products. D-/
aS5wM
-- Helen Cordes Utne Reader Jan.-Feb. 1996
