2. 考研
  3. New York City Council passed the ban on smoking in its parks and on its beaches on the principle that a nonsmoker shouldn’t have

New York City Council passed the ban on smoking in its parks and on its beaches on the principle that a nonsmoker shouldn’t have

admin2014-06-25  21
问题     New York City Council passed the ban on smoking in its parks and on its beaches on the principle that a nonsmoker shouldn’t have to inhale even a tiny amount of secondhand smoke, whether in a bar or a Central Park meadow. But while there is a strong public-health case for banning smoking indoors, the case for banning it outdoors is much weaker — particularly when it runs the risk of a backlash that could undermine the basic goals of the antismoking movement.
    True, there is evidence that being near someone smoking, even outdoors, can result in significant secondhand smoke exposure. Researchers at Stanford found that levels of tobacco smoke within three feet of a smoker outside are comparable to inside levels. But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage.
    But that hasn’t stopped many opponents of smoking. Citing new research, they have argued that e-ven transient exposure to tobacco smoke can cause severe health effects like heart disease and lung cancer. For example, last year the surgeon general’s office claimed that "even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack," and that "inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer. "
    However, the surgeon general’s statement confuses the temporary negative effects of secondhand smoke on the circulatory system, which have been shown to occur with short-term exposure, with heart disease, a process that requires repeated exposure and recurring damage to the coronary arteries. It also confuses one-time DNA damage, which occurs with any carcinogenic exposure, with cancer risk, which likewise generally requires repeated exposure.
    Moreover, bans like New York’s may actually increase exposure by creating smoke-filled areas near park entrances that cannot be avoided.
    To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility. The antismok-ing movement has always fought with science on its side, but New York’s ban on outdoor smoking seems to fulfill its opponents’ charge that the movement is being driven instead by an unthinking hatred of tobacco smoke. That, in turn, could jeopardize more important fronts in the antismoking fight, in particular the 21 states that still allow smoking in bars and restaurants.
    A ban on outdoor smoking may provide a symbolic victory. But from a public health perspective, it’s pointless. Instead, antismoking organizations should focus on extending workplace protections, already enjoyed by millions of New Yorkers, to the 100 million Americans still denied the right to work without having to breathe in secondhand smoke.
By citing the surgeon general’s statement, the author intends to explain______.
选项 A、why smoking outdoors should be banned
B、that outdoor exposure causes substantial health damage
C、that the argument of outdoor-smoking-ban advocates is not solid
D、how the outdoor smoking ban in fact increases smoking exposure
答案C
解析 第三段第一句首先指出，许多人(支持室外禁烟者)认为：即使短暂接触到烟草烟雾，也会引起严重健康问题。随后指出卫生局局长办公室声明“即使短暂接触二手烟，也会引发心血管疾病，严重的心脏病症或癌症”。最后转而指出该声明混淆概念：一，将“二手烟在人体循环系统内的短暂负面作用”和“引发心脏病”混为一谈(前者在短时间接触烟草烟雾即可发生，后者则是多次反复接触烟草烟雾造成的结果)；二，将“一次性DNA损伤”与“癌症发病风险”混为一谈(“多次接触烟草烟雾”可能会引发癌症风险)。可见，作者是为了以卫生局局长办公室声明为例说明室外禁烟支持者理由不充分。可见[C]选项符合文义。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/L6MRFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)