If you smoke and you still don’t believe that there’s a definite link between smoking and bronchial troubles, heart disease and lung cancer, then you are certainly deceiving yourself. No one will accuse you of hypocrisy. Let us just say that you are suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking. This needn’t make you too uncomfortable because you are in good company. Whenever the subject of smoking and health is raised, the governments of most countries hear no evil, see no evil and smell no evil. Admittedly, a few governments have taken timid measures. In Britain for instance, cigarette advertising has been banned on television. The conscience of the nation is appeased, while the population continues to puff its way to smoky, cancerous death.
You don’t have to look very far to find out why the official reactions to medical findings have been so lukewarm. The answer is simply money. Tobacco is a wonderful commodity to tax. It’s almost like a tax on our daily bread. In tax revenue alone, the government of Britain collects enough from smokers to pay for its entire educational facilities. So while the authorities point out ever so discreetly that smoking may, conceivable, be harmful, it doesn’t do to shout too loudly about it.
This is surely the most short-sighted policy you could imagine. While money is eagerly collected in vast sums with one hand, it is paid out in increasingly vaster sums with the other. Enormous amounts are spent on cancer research and on efforts to cure people suffering from the disease. Countless valuable lives are lost. In the long run, there is no doubt that everybody would be much better-off if smoking were banned altogether.
Of course, we are not ready for such a drastic action. But if the governments of the world were honestly concerned about the welfare of their peoples, you’d think they’d conduct aggressive anti-smoking campaigns. Far from it! The tobacco industry is allowed to spend staggering sums on advertising. Its advertising is as insidious as it is dishonest. We are never shown pictures of real smokers coughing up their lungs early in the morning. That would never do. The advertisement always depict virile, clean-shaven young men. They suggest it is manly to smoke, even positively healthy! Smoking is associated with the great open-air life, with beautiful girls, true love and togetherness. What utter nonsense!
For a start, governments could begin by banning all cigarette and tobacco advertising and should then conduct anti-smoking advertising campaigns of their own. Smoking should be banned in all public places like theatres, cinemas and restaurants. Great efforts should be made to inform young people especially of the dire consequences of taking up the habit. A horrific warning – say, a picture of a death’s head – should be included in every packet of cigarettes that is sold. As individuals, we are certainly weak, but if governments acted honestly and courageously, they could protect us from ourselves.
1. Why do a few governments take timid measures toward smoking?
[A] because they are afraid of people.
[B] Because diseases cost a lot.
[C] Because they are afraid of the cutting down of their revenue.
[D] Because they are afraid of manufacturers.
2. The tone of this passage is
[A] critical.
[B] ironical.
[C] distaste.
[D] amusing.
3. What does the sentence “because you are in good company” mean?
[A] you are backed by the government.
[B] You are not alone.
[C] You have good colleagues.
[D] Governments are blind to evils of smoking too.
4. What is the best title of this passage?
[A] World Governments should conduct serious campaigns against smoking.
[B] World governments take timid measures against smoking.
[C] smoking is the most important source of income to many countries.
[D] tobacco industry spends a large sum of money on medical research.
Vocabulary
1. a wishful thinking 根据愿望的想法，不顾事实的想法
2. puff 喷
puff its way to 一路吞云吐雾走向(指抽烟抽到死)
3. lukewarm 冷淡/漠然
4. insidious 阴险的，狡猾的
5. virile 年富力强的
写作方法与文章大意
这是一篇“要求政府禁烟”的论说文，采用因果对比手法。先以讽刺口吻指出政府对禁烟的态度――软弱无力。然后点明软弱的原因――大量税收。再以抽烟大严重后果，机器所花去的钱说明得不偿失。而烟草工业广告泛滥，毒化人们。从而提出政府应从禁止烟广告作起。
答案详解
1. C 因为他们害怕收入减少。答案见第二段。“你不用看得很远就能发现为什么官方对医学成果的反应如此冷淡，答案就是钱。烟草是征税的最奇妙的商品，几乎就像日用面包的税收。光烟草税收一项，英国政府就从抽烟人身上征到足以支付整个教育措施的费用。所以在当局那么谨慎地指出吸烟有害时，可以想象，喊叫得太响时不行的。”
A.他们害怕人民。D.他们害怕厂商。文中没有。B.疾病花费很大和软弱无力的禁烟措施有关。不是花费大而采取弱政策。
2. B 讽刺语气。特别表现在第一段、第四段。
A.批评语气，整篇文章都在批评，这不是什么语气问题。这里时以讽刺的口吻加以批评政府软弱的禁烟政策。C.厌恶。D.有趣。
3. D 政府对吸烟的恶果也是视而不见。
A.政府支持。太明朗化。B.你不是单独一人。和C.你有好同事，都是似是而非的答案。这可以上下文说明，第一段：“假如你吸烟，依然认为吸烟和支气管炎、心脏病、肺癌等毫无关系，那你是自欺欺人。可没有人会说你虚伪。我们可以说你是患有一厢情愿病。这你无需太难受，因为你有好伙伴。每当提出吸烟和健康有关的问题时，大多数国家的政府对其恶果视而不见、听而不闻、嗅而不觉。”
4. A 世界各国政府应该开展眼里的禁烟运动。因为前面四段都是现象：⑴政策软弱。如英国政府只在电视上禁止烟草广告以高位人们的良知。另一方面人民继续一路吞云吐雾走到癌症死亡。⑵讲烟草的税收高，所以不严禁。⑶这项政策的后果是疾病花费大于烟草税收。⑷烟草广告泛滥毒害人。唯一解救的办法就是禁烟。最后一段是结论，也是画龙点睛的主题和标题。“作为起步，政府可以从禁止烟草广告开始，然后应开展抵制吸烟的广告运动。一切公共场合，如戏院、电影院、返点等应禁止吸烟。应竭尽全力告诫青年，尤其是告诫他们染上恶习的严重后果。在零卖的每包烟盒上应有一令人胆战心惊的警告：例如，一幅骷髅头画像。作为个人，我们力量薄弱，可是如果政府真诚地鼓舞人心的行动起来，他们可以保护我们。”
B.世界各国政府采取禁烟政策软弱无力。C.吸烟是许多国家重要收入。这两项是不分具体内容。D.烟草工厂在医疗研究上花了大笔费用。