2. 外语
  3. Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial, but history shows they can also be highly effective.

Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial, but history shows they can also be highly effective.

admin2019-09-17  68
问题    Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial, but history shows they can also be highly effective. But are all smoking bans equally successful?
   The barkeeper and blogger who writes as "Scribbler50" was outraged when, in 2003, New York City enacted one of the first comprehensive smoking bans in bars and restaurants, "How can a guy and some board just kick us in the teeth like this? This smacks of fascism." If people are aware of the consequences of smoking or visiting places with lots of secondhand smoke, should the government really have to tell us what to do? Won’t people just vote with their feet and smoke even more when they’re at home and away from restrictions?
   Scribbler50’s post inspired the physician who blogs as "PalMD" last week to look up the research on the effectiveness of smoking bans. He found several studies showing that not only did workers in restaurants and bars show improved health shortly after the bans were put in place, but smokers themselves also reduced the number of cigarettes they smoked.
   Overall, however, smoking rates remain persistently high, despite the common workplace smoking bans. Can other government measures help these smokers live healthier lives, or at least prevent people from taking up the habit?
   In the U.S., warning messages have been in place on cigarette packages for decades. But the messages are rather clinical, for example: "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, and May Complicate Pregnancy." What if packages contained more dramatic warnings? In January, psychologist and science writer Christian Jarrett looked at a small study of smokers’ reactions to cigarette warnings. The researchers measured self-esteem in student smokers, then showed them cigarette packages with either death-related warnings ("Smokers die earlier") or esteem-related warnings ("Smoking makes you unattractive"). Students who derived self-esteem from smoking and saw the death-related warnings later viewed smoking more positively than those who saw the esteem-related warnings. For students whose smoking wasn’t motivated by self-esteem, the effect was reversed.
   So not all anti-smoking messages are equal: Depending on who the message is directed at, a morbid warning on a cigarette label may actually backfire.
   Scribbler50, for his part, is now a convert favoring smoking restrictions, at least in his narrow limits as a bartender. His patrons who haven’t quit smoking say they smoke a lot less now that they have to go outside to get a nicotine fix. He doesn’t miss emptying ashtrays, or the holier-than-thou customers who complained every time a fellow patron lit up, or working in a smoke-filled bar all night and going home "smelling like you put out a three-alarm".
   Would it be right to enact even more restrictions on smoking in the interest of public health? It’s hard to deny that banning smoking in public, indoor spaces has been a huge success. Why not try out some stronger smoking bans? Parents in some areas are already restricted from smoking in cars with children, but I haven’t seen a study that evaluates the success of those measures. Perhaps a state or municipality could try extending the ban to homes, with provisions for studying the results. It’s also possible that stronger measures would be counter-productive, like the stronger warnings on cigarette labels. Maybe we’ll decide that at some level deciding whether or not to smoke should still be an individual choice. Or maybe in a few generations, it won’t be necessary to regulate smoking: There won’t be any smokers left.
What’s the assumption of the author about smoking restriction according to the last paragraph?
选项 A、People can try out some gentler smoking bans.
B、The municipality could try to extend smoking bans to homes.
C、It will not be a personal choice to decide whether or not to smoke.
D、It is still necessary to restrict smoking after several generations.
答案B
解析    论点概括。最后一段第一句提出问题“Would it be right to enact even more restrictions on smoking in the interest of public health”，所以本段试图回答该问题。但作者并没有给出确定无疑的答案，只有段落中“Perhaps a state or municipality could try extending the ban to homes…”基本可以概括大意，与选项B吻合。此后各句的表述分别否定了选项A、C和D。【知识拓展】题干问的是最后一段中作者的假设，所以在作者不确定结果的情况下使用了虚拟语气，如could try，would be等。语法是表意的，虚拟语气的形式就是为了表达假设的情况或与事实相反的情况。在本段所列的情况中，政府机构扩大禁烟范围就是假设，所以才会提出段首的问题：扩大禁烟合理吗?因此，本题实际上考查了读者的隐形逻辑推理。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/l1PYFFFM
本试题收录于： CATTI三级笔译综合能力题库翻译专业资格（CATTI）分类
0

CATTI三级笔译综合能力

翻译专业资格（CATTI）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)