Passage One
Questions 21 to 25 are based on the following passage.
There are good reasons to be troubled by the violence that spreads throughout the media.
Movies. Television and video games are full of gunplay and bloodshed, and one might reasonably
ask what’s wrong with a society that presents videos of domestic violence as entertainment. Most
researchers agree that the causes of real-world violence are complex. A 1993 study by the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences listed “biological, individual, family, peer, school, and community
factors” as all playing their parts.
Viewing abnormally large amounts of violent television and video games may well contribute
to violent behavior in certain individuals.
The trouble comes when researchers downplay uncertainties in their studies or overstate the
case for causality (因果关系). Skeptics were dismayed several years ago when a group of
societies including the
American Medical Association tried to end the debate by issuing a joint statement: “At this
time, well over 1,000 studies… point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media
violence and aggressive behavior in some children.”
Freedom-of-speech advocates accused the societies of catering to politicians, and even
disputed the number of studies (most were review articles and essays, they said). When Jonathan
Freedman, a social psychologist at the University of Toronto, reviewed the literature, he found
only 200 or so studies of television-watching and aggression. And when he weeded out “the most
doubtful measures of aggression”, only 28% supported a connection.
The critical point here is causality. The alarmists say they have proved that violent media
cause aggression. But the assumptions behind their observations need to be examined. When
labeling games as violent or non-violent, should a hero eating a ghost really be counted as a
violent event? And when experimenters record the time it takes game players to read ‘aggressive’
or ‘non-aggressive’ words from a list, can we be sure what they are actually measuring? The intent
of the new Harvard Center on Media and Child Health to collect and standardize studies of media
violence in order to compare their methodologies, assumptions and conclusions is an important
step in the right direction.
Another appropriate ster would be to tone down the criticism until we know more. Several
researchers write, speak and testify quite a lot on the threat posed by violence in the media. That is,
of course, their privilege. But when doing so, they often come out with statements that the matter
has now been settled, drawing criticism from colleagues. In response, the alarmists accuse critics
and news reporters of being deceived by the entertainment industry. Such clashes help neither
science nor society.
21. Why is there so much violence shown in movies, TV and video games?
A) There is a lot of violence in the real world today.
B) Something has gone wrong with today’s society.
C) Many people are fond of gunplay and bloodshed.
D) Showing violence is thought to be entertaining.
22. What is the skeptics (Line 3. Para.3) view of media violence?
A) Violence on television is a fairly accurate reflection of real-world life.
B) Most studies exaggerate the effect of media violence on the viewers.
C) A causal relationship exists between media and real-world violence.
D) The influence of media violence on children has been underestimated.
23. The author uses the term “alarmists” (Line 1. Para.5) to refer to those who ______.
A) use standardized measurements in the studies of media violence
B) initiated the debate over the influence of violent media on reality
C) assert a direct link between violent media and aggressive behavior
D) use appropriate methodology in examining aggressive behavior
24. In refuting the alarmists, the author advances his argument by first challenging____.
A) the source and amount of their data
B) the targets of their observation
C) their system of measurement
D) their definition of violence
25. What does the author think of the debate concerning the relationship between the media and
violence?
A) More studies should be conducted before conclusions are drawn.
B) It should come to an end since the matter has now been settled.
C) The past studies in this field have proved to be misleading.
D) He more than agrees with the views held by the alarmists.
Passage Two
Questions 26 to 30 are based on the following passage.
You’re in trouble if you have to buy your own brand-name prescription drugs. Over the past
decade, prices leaped by more than double the inflation rate. Treatments for chronic conditions can
easily top ＄2,000 a month-no wonder that one in four Americans can’s afford to fill their
prescriptions. The solution? A hearty chorus of “O Canada.” North of the border, where price
controls reign, those same brand-name drugs cost 50% to 80% less.
The Canadian option is fast becoming a political wake-up call, “If our neighbors can buy
drugs at reasonable prices, why can’t we?” Even to whisper that thought provokes anger.
“Un-American!” And-the propagandists’ trump card (王牌)—“Wreck our brilliant health-care
system.” Super-size drug prices, they claim, fund the research that sparks the next generation of
wonder drugs. No sky-high drug price today, no cure for cancer tomorrow. So shut up and pay up.
Common sense tells you that’s a false alternative. The reward for finding. Say, a cancer cure is so
huge that no one’s going to hang it up. Nevertheless, if Canada-level pricing came to the United
States, the industry’s profit margins would drop and the pace of new-drug development would
slow. Here lies the American dilemma. Who is all this splendid medicine for? Should our
health-care system continue its drive toward the best of the best, even though rising numbers of
patients can’t afford it? Or should we direct our wealth toward letting everyone in on today’s level
of care? Measured by saved lives, the latter is almost certainly the better course.
To defend their profits, the drug companies have warned Canadian wholesalers and
pharmacies(药房) not to sell to Americans by mail, and are cutting back supplies to those who
dare.
Meanwhile, the administration is playing the fear card. Officials from the Food and Drug
Administration will argue that Canadian drugs might be fake, mishandled, or even a potential
threat to life.
Do bad drugs fly around the Internet? Sure-and the more we look, the more we’ll find, But I
haven’t heard of any raging epidemics among the hundreds of thousands of people buying
cross-border.
Most users of prescription drugs don’s worry about costs a lot.
They’re sheltered by employee insurance, owing just a $20 co-pay.
The financial blows rain, instead, on the uninsured, especially the chronically ill who need
expensive drugs to live, This group will still include middle-income seniors on Medicare, who’ll
have to dig deeply into their pockets before getting much from the new drug benefit that starts in
2006.
26. What is said about the consequence of the rocketing drug prices in the U.S.?
A) A quarter of Americans can’t afford their prescription drugs.
B) Many Americans can’t afford to see a doctor when they fall ill.
C) Many Americans have to go to Canada to get medical treatment.
D) The inflation rate has been more than doubled over the years.