阅读真题-2003年Text 4

2003年Text 4
　 It is said that in England death is pressing, in Canada inevitable and in California optional. Small wonder. Americans' life expectancy has nearly doubled over the past century. Failing hips can be replaced, clinical depression controlled, cataracts removed in a 30-minute surgical procedure. Such advances offer the aging population a quality of life that was unimaginable when I entered medicine 50 years ago. But not even a great health-care system can cure death — and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of ours. Death is normal; we are genetically programmed to disintegrate and perish, even under ideal conditions. We all understand that at some level, yet as medical consumers we treat death as a problem to be solved. Shielded by third-party payers from the cost of our care, we demand everything that can possibly be done for us, even if it's useless. The most obvious example is late-stage cancer care. Physicians — frustrated by their inability to cure the disease and fearing loss of hope in the patient — too often offer aggressive treatment far beyond what is scientifically justified.
　　In 1950, the US spent $12.7 billion on health care. In 2002, the cost will be $1540 billion. Anyone can see this trend is unsustainable. Yet few seem willing to try to reverse it. Some scholars conclude that a government with finite resources should simply stop paying for medical care that sustains life beyond a certain age — say 83 or so. Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has been quoted as saying that the old and infirm "have a duty to die and get out of the way", so that younger, healthier people can realize their potential.
　　I would not go that far. Energetic people now routinely work through their 60s and beyond, and remain dazzlingly productive. At 78, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone jokingly claims to be 53. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is in her 70s, and former surgeon general C.Everett Koop chairs an Internet start-up in his 80s. These leaders are living proof that prevention works and that we can manage the health problems that come naturally with age. As a mere 68-year-old, I wish to age as productively as they have.
　　Yet there are limits to what a society can spend in this pursuit. As a physician, I know the most costly and dramatic measures may be ineffective and painful. I also know that people in Japan and Sweden, countries that spend far less on medical care, have achieved longer, healthier lives than we have. As a nation, we may be overfunding the quest for unlikely cures while underfunding research on humbler therapies that could improve people's lives.
56. What is implied in the first sentence?
　　[A] Americans are better prepared for death than other people.
　　[B] Americans enjoy a higher life quality than ever before.
　　[C] Americans are over-confident of their medical technology.
　　[D] Americans take a vain pride in their long life expectancy.
57. The author uses the example of cancer patients to show that ________.
　　[A] medical resources are often wasted
　　[B] doctors are helpless against fatal diseases
　　[C] some treatments are too aggressive
　　[D] medical costs are becoming unaffordable
58. The author's attitude to ward Richard Lamm's remark is one of ________.
　　[A] strong disapproval
　　[B] reserved consent
　　[C] slight contempt
　　[D] enthusiastic support
59. In contrast to the US, Japan and Sweden are funding their medical care ________.
　　[A] more flexibly
　　[B] more extravagantly
　　[C] more cautiously
　　[D] more reasonably
60. The text intends to express the idea that ________.
　　[A] medicine will further prolong people's lives
　　[B] life beyond a certain limit is not worth living
　　[C] death should be accepted as a fact of life
　　[D] excessive demands increase the cost of health care

答案解析
56.答案： C
【考点】 推断题
【正确项精解】 根据题干信息直接定位至首段第一句。该句提到，“据说在英国死亡是迫在眉睫的，在加拿大死亡是不可避免的，而在加利福尼亚死亡是可以选择的(optional)”。为了证明此观点，作者运用多个医疗技术进步的例子，可见optional在文中的含义是美国人相信他们可以借助医疗技术，选择什么时候死亡。最后一句指出，即使再伟大的医疗卫生体系，也不能治愈死亡，由此可见作者的批判态度，［C］选项是首句话暗含的意思，体现了作者的态度。
【干扰项分析】 ［A］选项“正反混淆”，最后一句表明美国人比其他国家的人更害怕死亡。［B］选项“正反混淆”，由于医疗技术的进步美国老年人享受的生活质量的确提高了，但是作者要讲的重点是“再伟大的医疗卫生体系，也不能治愈死亡”。［D］选项“偷换概念”，将“美国人对医疗技术的过于自信”偷换为“对较长的寿命过于自信”。

57. 答案：A
【考点】 例证题
【正确项精解】 根据题干中的关键词cancer patients定位至第二段。文章第二段说，“由于有第三方支付我们的医疗费用，我们常常要求用尽一切可能的医疗手段，即使它们不会有任何作用”。然后文章举了癌症病人的例子来证明这一点。举例往往是为了说明上下文中提到的某个论点。显然作者这里要说明的是如果治疗没有作用仍然坚持进行，那么它就是一种浪费。因此［A］选项是作者举例所要说明的内容。
【干扰项分析】 ［B］和［C］选项属于“例子本身”，是举例中提到的内容，而不是举例的目的。［D］选项是根据第三段前两句介绍的美国几十年内医疗成本剧增而进行的“过度推理”，文中说医疗成本剧增，但是并没有说“支付不起”。

58. 答案：B
【考点】 态度题
【正确项精解】 根据题干中的人名Richard Lamm定位到第三段最后一句。该句提到Richard Lamm的观点：老年多病者“有义务死去和让位”，以便让更年轻、更健康的人们发挥他们的潜能。作者在第四段表达了自己对此的观点：“我不会说得这么绝对”，并举例说明老人仍然有创造力。在第五段首句，“Yet”一词表示了转折，表述了作者另外一个角度的意见，谈到社会对医疗的投资太多，而对提高老人生活质量的投资太少。从作者的论述中可推断出，作者希望人们接受死亡这个自然规律，即在一定程度上赞同拉姆的观点，但是却不愿意像拉姆一样极端。因此［B］选项中较中庸的态度是最佳答案。
【干扰项分析】 ［A］、［D］选项“过于绝对”，［C］选项“无中生有”。

59.答案：D
【考点】 细节题
【正确项精解】 根据题干关键词Japan and Sweden定位至文章最后一段。第三句指出，“日本和瑞典的人们获得了比我们更长、更健康的寿命，而他们的医疗开销要比我们少得多”。接着作者提出倡议，与其将资金徒劳地花在没有希望的治疗上，还不如投入到较一般的治疗中，以提高人们的生活质量。可见文章在暗示日本、瑞典两个国家在医疗卫生事业的资助更合理，［D］选项正确。
【干扰项分析】 ［A］选项“无中生有”，原文中没有提到。［B］选项“张冠李戴”，extravagantly是说明美国情况的。［C］选项“以偏概全”，cautiously只概括了日本和瑞典医疗系统“花钱少”的特征，并没有体现效果好。

60.答案：C
【考点】 主旨题
【正确项精解】 本题考查考生对文章主旨要义的理解能力。实际上考生只需要把各段的主题句串起来，基本上对全文就有了一个总体的把握。主题句一般落在首句和末句和强转折的地方，这篇文章也不例外。第一段提到，在美国死亡是可以选择的，但是即使再伟大的医疗卫生体系，也不能治愈死亡；第二段说，死亡是正常现象，我们的基因决定我们即使在最理想的条件下也会解体和灭亡。第三段讲，有人认为对83岁以上的老人应该停止支付医疗费，老人有责任为年轻人让位。第四段作者指出自己的观点不会和上一段的观点那样极端。第五段指出，人们不应该用无效而昂贵的手段延长生命，而应该提高生活质量。因此全文的中心思想是劝告人们接受死亡，［C］选项正确。
【干扰项分析】 ［A］选项和［D］选项“以偏概全”，是文中提到的部分事实，不是核心观点。［B］选项“张冠李戴”，是其他人的观点，作者在第四段已经举例反驳了这种偏激的看法。