1、专业八级分类模拟 191及答案解析(总分：100.10，做题时间：90 分钟)一、READING COMPREHENSIO(总题数：1，分数：100.00)Section A Multiple-Choice Questions In this section there are several passages by fourteen multiple choice questions. For each multiple choice qutestion, there are four suggested answers marked A. B, C and D. Choose the on
2、e that you think is the best answer and mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET TWO. PASSAGE ONE The Great Lyme DebateThere“s a debate raging over Lyme disease, although you“d never know it unless you“ve been paying close attentionbecause on the surface it sounds like the dullest argument imaginable. Last
3、 year, the Infectious Diseases Society of America issued new guidelines saying physicians should treat Lyme with antibiotics for no longer than 30 days. Some docs think that“s wrong. It“s a seemingly straightforward difference of opinion. So why has the debate dissolved into animosity, with one side
4、 suggesting that its opponents have no credibility and the other slinging deeply personal insults on the Web? And why has it now spilled out of medical journals and onto the office of a state attorney general? Clearly, something other than ticks is bugging a lot of doctors. Lyme diseasethe most comm
5、on insect-borne ailment in America, with roughly 20,000 cases diagnosed each year and more undetectedis transmitted mostly by a well-known pest, the deer tick. But the real culprit is something even nastier, a bacterium called Borrelia burgdorferi that lives in the tick“s gut. When Borrelia infiltra
6、tes the human body, it can cause a suite of distinctive symptoms, most notably a flulike feeling and a red rash like a bull“s-eye. Sometimes, though, it causes no symptoms at all, and that“s more dangerous, because the early signs are the only warnings doctors have. If Lyme is left undiagnosed and u
7、ntreated, its consequences can be serious, including arthritis, meningitis, heart problems and inflammation of the brain. “The real secret,“ says Dr. Michael Zimring, director of the Center for Wilderness and Travel Medicine at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore, “is to be able to recognize the disea
8、se early enough.“ Zimring would know. Several years ago his wife felt fluish and came down with an oval-shaped rash. Zimring wasn“t sure what she had, but “knowing our backyard is loaded with ticks was enough,“ he says. He started his wife right away on one of the classic, effective antibiotics used
9、 to treat Lyme. When her medical tests came back, they proved him right. “I treated her for three weeks,“ he says, “and that was it. No problem.“ Unfortunately, not all Lyme patients recover so easily. And that“s what“s at the heart of the debatesome docs think patients who are treated inadequately
10、can develop a chronic form of the disease, while others deny that it“s possible. Dr. Rafael Stricter, president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, believes in “chronic Lyme disease,“ and he says that in his clinical experience about 70 percent of patients with it get better i
11、f they“re treated long term with the same drags used to treat early infection. But the doctors who made the new IDSA guidelines on treatment say there“s no such thing as chronic Lyme, because in most patients who complain of it, Borrelia isn“t detectable in the body. Dr. Gary Wormser, who chaired th
12、e IDSA panel, prefers the term “post-Lyme syndrome.“ “Treating that syndrome with high-dose antibiotics for monthsas some physicians did before the new guidelinescan only hurt patients,“ he says. “It can give them gallstones and infections and lead to antibiotic resistance while not curing anything.
13、 The majority of patients treated for “chronic Lyme“ do not have post-Lyme,“ he says, “and in fact never, ever had Lyme disease at all.“ This does not sit well with thousands of patients who believe they do have chronic Lyme and badly want antibiotic treatment for it. “The IDSA is basically saying t
14、o them, “We“re right, you“re wrong, we don“t want to listen to you, just take some antidepressants and go away“,“ says Stricker. The IDSA is a highly respected group of doctors. But it“s facing formidable opposition, not just from Stricker“s group (and angry patients who“ve taken to Internet message
15、 boards) but also from the attorney general“s office in Connecticut, the state with the country“s highest incidence of Lyme disease. A.G. Richard Blumenthal has launched an investigation of the IDSA panel, looking into whether it ignored any research that would support long-term antibiotic treatment
16、 (the guidelines cite more than 400 studies). “Our question basically is whether the guidelines were formulated through a process that was proper, without self-interest or conflicts of interest,“ Blumenthal says, noting that some of the panel members have financial interests in treatments and vaccin
17、es. Blumenthal also worries that the new guidelines might be used by insurance companies looking to avoid paying for Lyme drugs. “The investigation is at an important juncture,“ he says. Meanwhile, Wormser is baffled. “How could the interests of the patient be served by treating with unnecessary and
18、 potentially dangerous therapies?“ he says. “The guidelines represent the best that medical science has to offer.“ The question, then, is whether that“s good enough. PASSAGE TWO The Democrats“ Trade TroublesLast week House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Charles Rangel showed genuine leadership
19、 by making a deal with the Bush administration to ease the passage of new trade pacts. But they did so from within a party that is going seriously awry on this issue. Too many Democrats, including most of their presidential candidates, simply wish the subject would go away. This is a bad strategy fo
20、r the party and for the country. Bill Clinton“s most important political achievement was to transform the image of the Democratic Party into one that was in favor of growth, markets and trade. Clinton supported and articulated a powerful defense for the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World
21、 Trade Organization and commerce with China, among many such issues. He spoke confidently of the promise and opportunities of a globalized world. When you talk with elected Democrats now, they could not sound more different. Far too many of them are parochial, pessimistic and paranoid about the glob
22、al economy. Globalization and technological change produce real anxieties for many people in the developed world. But the basic facts are incontestable: over the past 20 years, as these forces have accelerated, the United States has benefited enormously. Its companies have dominated the new global e
23、conomic order; its consumers have reaped the lion“s share of the resulting price reductions. America has grown faster than any large industrial economy during these years: over the past two decades, American per capita GDP has roughly doubled. The median income of a family of four rose 23 percent be
24、tween 1985 and 2005. There are serious problems of dislocation and rising inequalityand I“ll return to thesebut that there have been substantial gains is indisputable. U.S. unemployment stands today at a stunningly low 4.4 percent, about half that of many large European economies. In this context it
25、 is almost bizarre to listen to the fears of so many Democrats (and increasingly some Republicans). The Central American Free Trade Agreement, which has almost no effect on the $13 trillion American economy but is a huge benefit to the countries in the region, passed the Senate with little Democrati
26、c support. Now trade pacts with three Latin American countriesPanama, Peru and Colombiahave been loaded down with amendments, and even so will face opposition from many Democrats. Again, this is a deal that will have almost no impact on us but is hugely important to three crucial allies. It“s true t
27、hat the pace of change is fast and often frightening. And it can cause real pain for real people. But we can“t solve this by slowing down or shutting off trade. What advanced economy in history that has closed itself off from the world has prospered? Would Detroit“s automakers have been better off i
28、f they had never been exposed to international competition? Perhaps the outsourcing of service jobs today is different. But for the past 50 years America has outsourced manufacturing jobsand yet the economy and personal income and our standards of living have kept growing robustly. Why is it differe
29、nt if the person exposed to international competition now wears a tie? The current Democratic approach to these issues is misguided. Loading trade pacts with environmental and labor standards is ineffective, unless the aim is to sink them. It will not really change the fact of low-wage competition f
30、rom poor countries. And, most important, it doesn“t really help American workers to prosper in the long term. What America needs is a new way to tackle trade. It is a C-and-T agenda: cushion and train. The government should help people to weather the shocks of this rollercoaster ride, and it should
31、help train them to be better equipped for the next round of global competition. We do very little of this today. When someone loses his job in America, he loses his health care and pension. Imagine if that didn“t happenand it doesn“t in other rich countrieswould that worker be as terrified of change
32、? And then imagine if he took a series of retraining and education courses to prepare him for a new job or career. These two shock absorbers would better equip the average American to face a world of global competition. It would ease the genuine anxieties that people have about trade and build durab
33、le political support for expanding the world economy rather than walling us in. It“s a more sensible solution than China bashing, bogus labor standards and protectionist subsidies. It“s a New Deal for trade. Now is any Democrat willing to say that? PASSAGE THREE When Tony Blair was elected to Britai
34、n“s House of Commons in 1983, he was just 30, the Labour Party“s youngest M.R Labour had just fought and lost a disastrous election campaign on a far-left platform, and Margaret Thatcher, fresh from her victory in the Falklands War, was in her pomp. The opposition to Thatcher was limited to a few an
35、cient warhorses and a handful of bright young things. Blair, boyish Blair, quickly became one of the best of the breed. Nobody would call Blair, 54 on May 6, boyish today. His face is older and beaten up, his reputation in shreds. Very soon, he will announce the timetable for his departure from offi
36、ce. In a recent poll for the Observer newspaper, just 6% of Britons said they found Blair trustworthy, compared with 43% who thought the opposite. In Britainas in much of the rest of the worldBlair is considered an unpopular failure. I“ve been watching Blair practically since he entered politicsat f
37、irst close up from the House of Commons press gallery, later from thousands of miles away. In nearly a quarter-century, I have never come across a public figure who more consistently asked the important questions about the relationships between individuals, communities and governments or who thought
38、 more deeply about how we should conduct ourselves in an interconnected world in which loyalties of nationality, ethnicity and religion continue to run deep. Blair“s personal standing in the eyes of the British public may never recover, but his ideas, especially in foreign policy, will long outlast
39、him. Britons (who have and expect an intensely personal relationship with their politician) love to grumble about their lot and their leaders, especially iflike Blairthey“ve been around for a decade. So you would never guess from a few hours down the pub how much better a place Britain is now than i
40、t was a decade ago. It“s more prosperous, it“s healthier, it“s better educated, andwith all the inevitable caveats about disaffected young Muslim menit is the European nation most comfortable with the multicultural future that is the fate of all of them. It would be foolish to give all the credit fo
41、r the state of this blessed plot to Blair but equally foolish to deny him any of it. In today“s climate, however, this counts for naught compared with the blame that Blair attracts for ensnaring Britain in the fiasco of Iraq. As the Bush Administration careered from a war in Afghanistan to one in Ir
42、aq, with Blair always in support, it became fashionable to say the Prime Minister had become the President“s poodle. This attack both misreads history and misunderstands Blair. Long before 9/11 shook up conventional thinking in foreign affairs, Blair had come by two beliefs he still holds: First, th
43、at it is wrong for the rest of the world to sit back and expect the U.S. to solve the really tough questions. Second, that some things a state does within its borders justify intervention even if they do not directly threaten another nation“s interests. Blair understood that today any country“s prob
44、lems could quickly spread. As he said in a speech in 2004, “Before Sept. 11, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648namely, that a country“s internal affairs are for it and you don“t
45、 interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance.“ Blair“s thinking crystallized during the Kosovo crisis in 1999. For Blair, the actions of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic were so heinous that they demanded a response. There was nothing particularly
46、artful about the way he put this. In an interview with Blair for a TV film on Kosovo after the war, I remember his justifying his policy as simply “the right thing to do.“ But Blair was nobody“s poodle. He and Bill Clinton had a near falling-out over the issue of ground troops. (Blair was prepared t
47、o contemplate a ground invasion of Kosovo, an idea that gave Clinton“s team the vapors.) The success of Kosovoand that of Britain“s intervention to restore order in Sierra Leone a year lateremboldened Blair to think that in certain carefully delineated cases the use of force for humanitarian purpose
48、s might make sense. As far back as 1999, he had Iraq on his mind. In a speech in Chicago at the height of the Kosovo crisis, Blair explicitly linked Milosevic with Saddam Hussein: “two dangerous and ruthless men.“ In office, moreover, Blair had become convinced of the dangers that weapons of mass de
49、struction (WMD) posed. He didn“t need 9/11 to think the world was a risky place. As a close colleague of Blair“s said to me in 2003, just before the war in Iraq, “He is convinced that if we don“t tackle weapons of mass destruction now, it is only a matter of time before they fall into the hands of rogue states or terrorists. If George Bush wasn“t pressing for action on this, Blair would be pressing George Bush on it.“ To those who knew him, there was simply never any doubt that he would be with the U.S. as it responded to the attacks or that he would stay with the Bush A
