Americans don’t like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars—the ki

admin2016-01-05  32

问题     Americans don’t like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars—the kind that test patriotism and courage—and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag—when the job is done, they earned it.
    Now there is a similar challenge—global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is figting at all, it’ s fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world’ s greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn’t intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It’s hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country’ s coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.
    The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there’ s far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America’ s growth. But let’ s assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?
    Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what’s needed most is will. "I’m not saying the challenge isn’t almost overwhelming," says Fred Krupp. "But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before."
The paragraphs immediately following this passage would most probably deal with

选项 A、the new book written by Fred Krupp.
B、how America can fight against global warming.
C、the harmful effects of global warming.
D、how America can tide over economic crisis.

答案B

解析 结构题。篇章结构题命题的基础是文章的第一句或第一段、最后一句或最后一段,承上启下的语句或段落。如果题目提问本文接下来一段的内容,考生可以根据最后一句或最后一段的内容对下一段内容做出推断。一般来说,最后一句的后半句或者最后一段的后半部分会对下一段内容做出提示。根据这一解题原则,我们就要认真阅读最后一段,尤其是最后一句。最后一段的中心意思是:Halting climate change will be far harder.想要彻底阻止气候的改变是很困难的。最后一句是“I’m not saying the challenge isn’t almost overwhelming,says Fred Krupp,but this is America,and America has risen to these challenges before.”Fred Krupp说“我们确实面临着巨大的挑战,但是这是美国,美国人经受住过类似的挑战,也会经受住这次的考验。”由此可以推断下一段涉及的可能是美国如何迎接全球变暖问题的挑战或类似内容。因此,我们可以确定本题答案为B项how America can fight against global warming.
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/ZWZ7FFFM
0

最新回复(0)