考研英语阅读理解模拟试题及解析

　　WHAT do you do when everyone hates you? That is the problem faced by Americas pharmaceutical industry. Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms (see chart). Last week, at a conference organised by The Economist in Philadelphia, the drug industry was offered some advice from an unlikely source: a tobacco firm. Steven Parrish of Altria, the conglomerate that includes Philip Morris, gave his perspective on how an industry can improve its tarnished public image.

　　Comparing the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem absurd, or even offensive. Their products kill people. Our products save peoples lives, says Alan Holmer, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry association. Yet the drug giants currently face an unprecedented onslaught of class-action lawsuits and public scrutiny; industry bosses are being grilled by lawmakers asking who knew what and when. It is all reminiscent of what happened to the tobacco industry in 1994.

　　Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics. Rather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about. (Philip Morris now acknowledges, for example, that cigarettes are addictive and deadly, and is trying to develop less harmful products.) Not everyone is open to persuasion, so focus on those who are, he said. But changing opinions takes time and demands deeds as well as words: This is not about spin, this is about change.

　　The pharmaceutical industry is pursuing a range of initiatives to mollify its critics, Mr Holmer noted in his own speech. But Mr Parrish suggested that speaking with one voice through a trade association might be counter-productive, since it can give the impression that the industry is a monolithic cartel. And too much advertising, he said, can actually antagonise people further.

　　The audience was generally receptive, claims Mr Parrish. This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics. At a conference at the University of Michigan last year, he offered Americas State Department advice on improving Americas image in the Middle East. So does his prescription work? There has been a positive shift in attitudes towards tobacco firms, if only a small one. But at least, for once, a tobacco firm is peddling a cure, rather than a disease.

　　1.Why is Americas pharmaceutical industry so unpopular?

　　A. Because it, like tobacco and oil firms, does harm to peoples health and environment.

　　B. Because it fails to cure disease and make people live longer.

　　C. Because the prices of its products are too high and its profit margin is too wide.

　　D. Because it exploits its employees.

　　2.Alan Holmer is quoted to illustrate that __________.

　　A. the comparison between tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem ridiculous, or even insulting

　　B. the pharmaceutical industries agree that they are similar to tobacco industry

　　C. tobacco products do more harm to people than pharmaceutical products

　　D. pharmaceutical industries are currently facing lots of problems

　　3.According to the text, Mr. Parrish gives the following suggestions to drug firms except______.

　　A. To acknowledge the problems and try to do something to improve their images.

　　B. Not to react to the public in one voice through the drug association.

　　C. Not to care about the past.

　　D. To try to spend time and energy to persuade the majority of the audience who are open to persuasion.

　　4.The word mollify (Line 1, Paragraph 4) might mean?

　　A. placate.

　　B. enrage.

　　C. fight.

　　D. relieve.

　　5.What does the author imply by saying This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics.?

　　A. Mr. Parrish has offered his advice to other on dealing with tough critics for several times.

　　B. Mr. Parrish has dealt successfully with other critics himself.

　　C. Mr. Parrish has given sound advice to drug firms.

　　D. Mr. Parrish has been of help to others on critical moments.

　　词汇注释

　　pharmaceutical adj. 制药的

　　longevity n. 长寿，寿命

　　soaring adj. 飞涨的

　　bumper adj. 丰厚的

　　exploitative adj. 剥削的

　　conglomerate n. 集团企业

　　tarnished adj. 受到玷污的，

　　unprecedented adj. 空前的

　　onslaught n. 冲击

　　class-action n. 共同起诉

　　lawsuit n. 诉讼

　　scrutiny n. 详细审查

　　grill v. 严加盘问

　　reminiscent adj. 回忆往事的

　　bunker n. 掩蔽，掩体

　　mentality n. 心理，思想情况

　　addictive adj. 上瘾的

　　initiative n. 主动

　　monolithic adj. 巨大的

　　cartel n. 企业联合

　　antagonize v. 是反抗，使敌对

　　receptive adj. 善于接受的

　　implacable adj. 不缓和的

　　peddle v. 叫卖，散播

　　难句突破

　　1.Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms (see chart).

　　主体句式：soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that

　　结构分析：该句的难点是结构复杂。句子开头部分的介词短语Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity,用作让步状语;soaring health-care costs and bumper profits为本句的并列主语;that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms (see chart).该部分是mean的宾语从句。但其中有并列谓语：viewed as... 和regarded asregarded as又有同级比较成份regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms将制药业归入同烟草业和石油业一样不受人欢迎的行业。

　　句子译文：虽然在治疗疾病和延长寿命方面这一行业做得很成功，但高昂的医疗保健成本和丰厚的利润意味着大型制药企业被普遍视为剥削者，其声誉几乎和烟草以及石油公司一样差(见图)。

　　2.Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics.(line 1, paragraph 3)

　　主体句式：Parrish advised firms to abandon and engage

　　结构分析：本句的难点是如何正确理解bunker mentality和engage with their critics. 即使不知道这两个短语的意思，也可以通过下文细节句：Rather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about. (Philip Morris now acknowledges, for example, that cigarettes are addictive and deadly, and is trying to develop less harmful products.)他建议说，不要对过去纠缠不清，而是要继续发展，这样才能让民众淡忘过去，看到进步。(菲利普?莫里斯现在承认吸烟上瘾，也能致命，并宣称他们正努力开发危害性较小的产品。)从这个细节句中可以分析出他建议制药业也采取烟草业的做法，承认错误，并提出改进措施。 bunker表示掩体同mentality一起表示掩饰错误的心理。engage with 表示与交锋。

　　句子译文：帕里什建议制药商摈弃他们那种文过饰非的心理，正面回应批评。

　　答案：C A D A C

　　篇章剖析

　　本篇文章介绍了烟草商帕里什就制药商受民众指责问题，提出的若干建议。

　　第一段作者介绍了制药业面临的危机，并引出来自烟草公司的建议。

　　第二段介绍了制药业对这一建议来源的反应以及制药业面临的困境。

　　第三段介绍了帕里什给出的第一条建议：不要回避批评，而是要正面回应批评。

　　第四段针对制药也采取的一致口径，帕里甚至出这种做法容易引起人们的反感。

　　第五段作者评价了帕里什的建议。

　　题目分析

　　1.答案是C，属推理判断题。第一段第24行Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms (see chart).一句中的soaring health-care costs and bumper profits是正确回答该问题的关键。Soaring 表示飞涨的。bumper 表示通常表示丰盛的，丰收的例如，a bumper crop表示大丰收但该词在本句中与profits连用，表示丰厚的利润。

　　2.答案是A，属推理判断题。该题的关键在于正确判断出第二段第一句是概括句，而紧随其

　　后的引言是细节句。细节句是为说明概括句服务的。由此可以看出引言是用来说明Comparing the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem absurd, or even offensive.。

　　3.答案是D，属推理判断题。本题的关键在于正确理解第三、第四段中帕尔什提出的几条建

　　议。根据关键词：advice及其同义词和句型suggest，better to, so do sth.等，我们可以从第三段和第四段中挑出以下句子，如果能正确理解这些句子，就能顺利完成该题。第三段第一句话：Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics. 帕里什先生建议制药商摈弃他们的掩蔽心理，正面回应批评。Rather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about. 他建议说，不要对过去纠缠不清，而是要继续发展，这样才能让民众淡忘过去的一切，看到进步。 Not everyone is open to persuasion, so focus on those who are, he said.帕里什还指出，并不是人人都能被说服的。因此集中精力说服那些听的进取的人。But Mr Parrish suggested that speaking with one voice through a trade association might be counter-productive, 但帕里什先生说，通过行业协会发布一致看法有可能适得其反。

　　4.答案是A，属猜词题。根据上文提到的对制药业的批评，可以判断The pharmaceutical

　　industry is pursuing a range of initiatives to mollify its critics 中的mollify its critics表示平息批评。

　　5.答案是C，属推理判断题。 从本句This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics.，以及下面举出的例子：他为美国国务院提建议。结合在一起可以看出作者隐含的意思是：他认为帕里什先生为制药业提的建议有道理，会奏效。

　　参考译文

　　要是所有人都讨厌你，你该怎么办?如今美国的制药行业就面临这一难题。虽然在治疗疾病和延长寿命方面这一行业做得很成功，但高昂的医疗保健成本和丰厚的利润意味着大型制药企业被普遍视为剥削者，其声誉几乎和烟草以及石油公司一样差。上周，在一个由《经济学人》组织的费城会议上，制药行业得到了一些建议，而建议的提出者多少有些出人意料：一家烟草公司。斯蒂文?帕里什来自麾下拥有菲利普?莫里斯集团的埃尔特利亚集团，他就一个行业如何改善自己不佳的公众形象提出了自己的见解。

　　将烟草和制药业进行对比看似荒谬，甚至令人不快。他们的产品会致人死亡。我们的产品却会救人性命，艾伦?霍尔默说道。他是一家行业协会美国药物研究和生产联合会的主席。不过这些制药巨头目前面临的是前所未有的共同起诉和公众审查的冲击。这些公司大老板不得不面对立法者们的严厉盘问：都知道些什么，何时发生的。这一切不禁让人回想起1994年烟草业的遭遇。

　　帕里什建议制药商摈弃他们那种文过饰非的心理，正面回应批评。他建议说，不要对过去纠缠不清，而是要继续发展，这样才能让民众淡忘过去，看到进步。(菲利普?莫里斯现在承认吸烟会让人上瘾，也能致命，并宣称他们正努力开发危害性较小的产品。)帕里什还指出，并不是人人都能被说服的。因此集中精力说服那些听的进去的人。然而改变人们的看法不仅需要时间、行动，更需要反复劝说：现在要的不是兜圈子，而是要改变。

　　赫尔玛在演讲中指出，制药业正采取各种行动平息公众的批评。但帕里什说，通过行业协会发布一致看法有可能适得其反，因为这容易使人们将烟草业看成垄断企业联合体。他还指出，过多的广告会进一步加深民众的反感情绪。

　　帕里什先生说，绝大多数民众是能被说服的。这不是他第一次为解决难以化解的危机出谋划策。去年，在密歇根大学举行的一次研讨会上，就如何改善美国在中东地区的形象问题，他曾为美国国务院献计献策。他开的药方会奏效吗?无论药方是否奏效，人们对烟草商的态度有所好转，尽管只是稍稍有所好转。 毕竟这是烟草商破天荒第一次兜售治病良方，而不是传播疾病。