• 站内搜索:

07年考研英语阅读理解精读100篇unit19

2006-7-6 21:39 印建坤 

Unit 19

  As you read this, nearly 80,000 Americans are waiting for a new heart, kidney or some other organ that could save their life. Tragically, about 6,000 of them will die this year——nearly twice as many people as perished in the Sept. 11 attacks——because they won't get their transplant in time. The vast majority of Americans (86%, according to one poll) say they support organ donation. But only 20% actually sign up to do it. Why the shortfall?

  Part of the problem is the way we handle organ donations. Americans who want to make this sort of gift have to opt in——that is, indicate on a driver's license that when they die, they want their organs to be made available. Many European and Asian countries take the opposite approach; in Singapore, for example, all residents receive a letter when they come of age informing them that their organs may be harvested unless they explicitly object. In Belgium, which adopted a similar presumed-consent system 12 years ago, less than 2% of the population has decided to opt out.

  Further complicating the situation in the U.S. is the fact that whatever decision you make can be overruled by your family. The final say is left to your surviving relatives, who must make up their minds in the critical hours after brain death has been declared. There are as many as 50 body parts, from your skin to your corneas, that can save or transform the life of a potential recipient, but for many families lost in grief, the idea of dismembering a loved one is more than they can bear.

  The U.S., like all medically advanced societies, has struggled to find a way to balance an individual's rightful sovereignty over his or her body with society's need to save its members from avoidable deaths. Given America's tradition of rugged individualism and native distrust of Big Brotherly interference, it's not surprising that voters resisted attempts to switch to a presumed-consent system when it was proposed in California, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Health Secretary Tommy Thompson last spring announced plans for a new initiative to encourage donations——including clearer consent forms——but its impact is expected to be modest. Given the crying need for organs, perhaps it's time we considered shifting to something closer to the presumed-consent model.

  Meanwhile, if you want to ensure that your organs are donated when you die, you should say so in a living will or fill out a Uniform Donor Card (available from the American Medical Association)。 Make sure your closest relatives know about it. And if you don't want to donate an organ, you should make your wishes equally explicit.

  注(1):本文选自Time; 12/10/2001, p117;

  注(2):本文习题命题模仿对象2003年真题text 3;

  1.According to the author, one of the reasons for a shortage of organs in America is ______.

  [A] most Americans are reluctant to donate their organs after death

  [B] the information about organ donation is not popular in America

  [C] the ways to handle organ donation is far from perfect

  [D] people waiting for transplant are rapidly increasing in America

  2.What is most Americans' attitude towards the organ donation?

  [A] Indifferent.

  [B] Indignant.

  [C] Detached.

  [D] Supportive.

  3.It can be inferred from paragraph 4 that ______.

  [A] Americans have a long tradition of weak individualism

  [B] all the states in America resist the presumed-consent system

  [C] it's not easy to find a way to serve the society's need and at the same time to protect the individual's right in the matter of organ donation

  [D] the government is not active in solving the problem

  4.The term “presumed-consent” probably means ______.

  [A] one's organs should be donated whether they agree or not

  [B] one is supposed to agree that their organ will be donated after death unless they explicitly object

  [C] dismembering a dead body is inhuman

  [D] one is assumed to be happy after they decide to donate their organs

  5.From the text, we can see the author's attitude towards organ donation is ______.

  [A] supportive

  [B] indignant

  [C] indifferent

  [D] negative

  答案:CDCBA

  篇章剖析

  本篇文章采用提出问题-分析问题-解决问题的模式,在提出了一个解决美国国内捐献器官严重紧缺问题的解决办法。第一段以人们的良好愿望和实际的严峻现实的强烈对比开始,第二段找出了产生这一问题的一个原因——运作方式有待提高,第三段找出了产生这一问题的令一个原因——人们的心理承受能力。第四段说明美国必须解决这个问题。最后一段指明在目前捐献器官的方式及注意事项。

  词汇注释

  perish:[5periF] v. 死;暴卒;毁灭

  donation: [dEu5neiFEn] n. 捐赠

  shortfall: [5FC:tfC:l] n. 不足之量,短缺的数额

  opt: [Cpt] v. (常与for连用)决定做;选择,选取

  consent: [kEn5sent]  n & v.  同意

  overrule: [7EuvE5ru:l] v. 驳回, 否决

  cornea: [5kC:niE] n. 角膜

  dismember: [dis5membE] v. 肢解

  sovereignty:[5sCvrinti] n. 完全独立和自我统治

  rugged: [5rQ^id] adj.  粗犷的

  难句突破

  1.They are as many as 50 body parts, from your skin to your corneas, that can save or transform the life of a potential recipient, but for many families lost in grief, the idea of dismembering a loved one is more than they can bear.

  主体句式:they are…,but the idea…is…

  结构分析:这句是由but 做连接词的两个分句。第一个分句中包含一个由 that 引导的定语从句修饰body parts;第二个分句的主语是the idea.

  句子译文:人身上有50中可捐献的器官,皮肤和角膜都包括在内。每种都可能救活一个人或改变他们的命运。但对正沉浸在丧失亲人之痛的人来说,把逝去的亲人大卸八块是他们承受不了的。

  2.The U.S., like all medically advanced societies, has struggled to find a way to balance an individual's rightful sovereignty over his or her body with society's need to save its members from avoidable deaths.

  主体句式:The U.S. … has struggled to find a way to balance …with…

  结构分析:其中短语 “balance…with…”的含义是“使…和…相平衡”。

  句子译文:像其他医学发达的国家一样,美国也在努力寻求个人和国家之间的最佳平衡点。既使个人对自己的身体有合法的拥有权,又能满足社会救死扶伤的需要。

  题目分析

  1.答案是C,属事实细节题。从一、二段可以读出,绝大多数美国人愿意捐出自己的器官,只是运作方式还有待提高。

  2.答案是D,属推理判断题。从第一段 “The vast majority of Americans say that support organ donation.”可以看出。

  3.答案是C,属事实细节题。政府也想改变目前这种状况,只不过措施不那么有效。

  4.答案是B,属猜测词义题。从第二段的对新加坡和比利时的描述中可以得出结论。

  5.答案是A,属推理判断题。作者认为解决这个器官短缺这个难题,应该向新加坡和比利时学习,采取新的强有力的措施。最后一段作者给出了想捐献器官的做法以及应注意的问题,这也可以看出作者支持的态度。

  参考译文

  就在你读这篇短文的时候,大约有八万美国人正等着可以救命的心脏、肾脏或其他器官。不幸的是,因为不能及时得到所需的器官,他们中的大约六千人将要死去,比9.11事件中死去的人们将近多一倍。绝大多数的美国人(根据一项民意测验,有86%的美国人)表示支持器官捐献,但只有2%的人签了捐献协议。为什么会有这么大的差距呢?

  问题之一在于我们处理这件事情的方式。在美国,那些想捐器官的人必须自己做出抉择。也就是说,他们必须在驾照上写明死后器官可以被征用。许多欧亚国家却采取了相反的做法。比如在新加坡,所有的居民在成年后会收到一封信,内容是如果他们不明确表示反对,那他们的器官就有可能死后被捐献。比利时12年前也采取了类似的“假定捐献人同意”的办法,只有2%的人决定不捐献。

  在美国,还有一个更为复杂的问题。那就是,不管你做出什么决定,家人都有可能表示反对。最后的发言权掌握在那些活着的人手里。他们必须在你被宣布脑死亡之后的关键时刻决定捐还是不捐。人身上有50中可捐献的器官,皮肤和角膜都包括在内。每种都可能救活一个人或改变他们的命运。但对正沉浸在丧失亲人之痛的人来说,把逝去的亲人肢解是他们承受不了的。

  像其他医学发达的国家一样,美国也在努力寻求个人和国家之间的最佳平衡点,既使个人对自己的身体有合法的拥有权,又能满足社会救死扶伤的需要。美国人向来推崇强硬的个人主义,对老大哥式干涉他人生活的做法持怀疑态度。所以当加利福尼亚州、俄勒冈州、明尼苏达州、宾夕法尼亚州、马里兰州提议采用“假定同意捐献”办法时,那里的居民投票抵制也就毫不奇怪了。去年春天,卫生部长汤米。托姆森宣布计划出台新举措来鼓励人们捐献器官,新举措包括更为明确的同意表格。但这些举措的影响力微乎其微。鉴于全国各地器官紧缺,我们或许真该考虑改变当前的做法,采取接近于“假定同意”式的方式。

  目前,如果你想确保自己死后器官被捐献,你应该在遗嘱中说明或填写统一的捐献卡(可从美国医学协会获得),也必须让你的亲属知道你的意图。当然,如果你不想捐献,也要把自己的意愿表达清楚。

栏目相关课程表