Unit 88
WHAT do you do when everyone hates you? That is the problem faced by America's pharmaceutical industry. Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms （see chart）. Last week, at a conference organised by The Economist in Philadelphia, the drug industry was offered some advice from an unlikely source: a tobacco firm. Steven Parrish of Altria, the conglomerate that includes Philip Morris, gave his perspective on how an industry can improve its tarnished public image.
Comparing the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem absurd, or even offensive. "Their products kill people. Our products save people's lives," says Alan Holmer, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry association. Yet the drug giants currently face an unprecedented onslaught of class-action lawsuits and public scrutiny; industry bosses are being grilled by lawmakers asking who knew what and when. It is all reminiscent of what happened to the tobacco industry in 1994.
Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics. Rather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about. （Philip Morris now acknowledges, for example, that cigarettes are addictive and deadly, and is trying to develop less harmful products.） Not everyone is open to persuasion, so focus on those who are, he said. But changing opinions takes time and demands deeds as well as words: "This is not about spin, this is about change."
The pharmaceutical industry is pursuing a range of initiatives to mollify its critics, Mr Holmer noted in his own speech. But Mr Parrish suggested that speaking with one voice through a trade association might be counter-productive, since it can give the impression that the industry is a monolithic cartel. And too much advertising, he said, can actually antagonise people further.
The audience was generally receptive, claims Mr Parrish. This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics. At a conference at the University of Michigan last year, he offered America's State Department advice on improving America's image in the Middle East. So does his prescription work? There has been a positive shift in attitudes towards tobacco firms, if only a small one. But at least, for once, a tobacco firm is peddling a cure, rather than a disease.
GRAPH: Unpopularity contest
Economist; 11/27/2004, Vol. 373 Issue 8403, p64-64, 1/3p, 1 graph
注（1）：本文選自Economist; 11/27/2004, p64-64, 1/3p, 1 graph；
注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象第1題2004年真題text 4第1題，第2題模仿1994年真題text 3第1題，第3題模仿1996年真題text 3第3題，第4題模仿1997年真題text 3第2題，第5題2004年真題text 4第5題；
1. Why is America's pharmaceutical industry so unpopular?
[A] Because it, like tobacco and oil firms, does harm to people's health and environment.
[B] Because it fails to cure disease and make people live longer.
[C] Because the prices of its products are too high and its profit margin is too wide.
[D] Because it exploits its employees.
2. Alan Holmer is quoted to illustrate that __________.
[A] the comparison between tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem ridiculous, or even insulting
[B] the pharmaceutical industries agree that they are similar to tobacco industry
[C] tobacco products do more harm to people than pharmaceutical products
[D] pharmaceutical industries are currently facing lots of problems
3. According to the text, Mr. Parrish gives the following suggestions to drug firms except______.
[A] To acknowledge the problems and try to do something to improve their images.
[B] Not to react to the public in one voice through the drug association.
[C] Not to care about the past.
[D] To try to spend time and energy to persuade the majority of the audience who are open to persuasion.
4. The word “mollify” （Line 1, Paragraph 4） might mean?
[A] placate.
[B] enrage.
[C] fight.
[D] relieve.
5. What does the author imply by saying “This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics.“?
[A] Mr. Parrish has offered his advice to other on dealing with tough critics for several times.
[B] Mr. Parrish has dealt successfully with other critics himself.
[C] Mr. Parrish has given sound advice to drug firms.
[D] Mr. Parrish has been of help to others on critical moments.
答案：C A C A C
篇章剖析
本篇文章介紹了煙草商帕里什就制藥商受民眾指責(zé)問(wèn)題，提出的若干建議。第一段作者介紹了制藥業(yè)面臨的危機(jī)，并引出來(lái)自煙草公司的建議。第二段介紹了制藥業(yè)對(duì)這一建議來(lái)源的反應(yīng)以及制藥業(yè)面臨的困境。 第三段介紹了帕里什給出的第一條建議：不要回避批評(píng)，而是要正面回應(yīng)批評(píng)。第四段針對(duì)制藥也采取的一致口徑，帕里甚至出這種做法容易引起人們的反感。第五段作者評(píng)價(jià)了帕里什的建議。
詞匯注釋
pharmaceutical: [7fB:mE5sju:tikEl] adj. 制藥的
longevity: [lCn5dVeviti] n. 長(zhǎng)壽，壽命
soaring: [5sC:riN] adj. 飛漲的
bumper: [5bQmpE] adj. 豐厚的
exploitative: [iks5plCitEtiv] adj. 剝削的
conglomerate: [kCn5^lCmErit] n. 集團(tuán)企業(yè)
tarnished: [5tB:niFd] adj. 受到玷污的，
unprecedented: [Qn5presidEntid] adj. 空前的
onslaught: [5RnslC:t] n. 沖擊
class-action n. 共同起訴
lawsuit: [5lC:su:t] n. 訴訟
scrutiny: [5skru:tini] n. 詳細(xì)審查
grill: [^ril] v. 嚴(yán)加盤(pán)問(wèn)
reminiscent: [remI5nIs（E）nt] adj. 回憶往事的
bunker: [5bQNkE] n. 掩蔽，掩體
mentality: [men5tAliti] n. 心理，思想情況
addictive: [E5diktiv] adj. 上癮的
initiative: [i5niFiEtiv] n. 主動(dòng)
monolithic: [7mCnE5liWik] adj. 巨大的
cartel: [kB:5tel] n. 企業(yè)聯(lián)合
antagonize: [An5tA^EnaIz] v. 是反抗，使敵對(duì)
receptive: [ri5septiv] adj. 善于接受的
implacable: [im5plAkEbl] adj. 不緩和的
peddle: [5pedl] v. 叫賣(mài)，散播
難句突破
1． Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms （see chart）.
主體句式：soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that…
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：該句的難點(diǎn)是結(jié)構(gòu)復(fù)雜。句子開(kāi)頭部分的介詞短語(yǔ)“Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity,”用作讓步狀語(yǔ)：“soaring health-care costs and bumper profits”為本句的并列主語(yǔ)：“that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms （see chart）.”該部分是“mean”的賓語(yǔ)從句。但其中有并列謂語(yǔ)：“viewed as……” 和“regarded as…”：“regarded as…”又有同級(jí)比較成份“regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms”將制藥業(yè)歸入同煙草業(yè)和石油業(yè)一樣不受人歡迎的行業(yè)。
句子譯文：雖然在治療疾病和延長(zhǎng)壽命方面這一行業(yè)做得很成功，但高昂的醫(yī)療保健成本和豐厚的利潤(rùn)意味著大型制藥企業(yè)被普遍視為剝削者，其聲譽(yù)幾乎和煙草以及石油公司一樣差（見(jiàn)圖）。
2． Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics.（line 1, paragraph 3）
主體句式：Parrish advised … firms to abandon … and engage …
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：本句的難點(diǎn)是如何正確理解bunker mentality和engage with their critics. 即使不知道這兩個(gè)短語(yǔ)的意思，也可以通過(guò)下文細(xì)節(jié)句：Rather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about. （Philip Morris now acknowledges, for example, that cigarettes are addictive and deadly, and is trying to develop less harmful products.）他建議說(shuō)，不要對(duì)過(guò)去糾纏不清，而是要繼續(xù)發(fā)展，這樣才能讓民眾淡忘過(guò)去，看到進(jìn)步。（菲利普·莫里斯現(xiàn)在承認(rèn)吸煙上癮，也能致命，并宣稱(chēng)他們正努力開(kāi)發(fā)危害性較小的產(chǎn)品。）從這個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)句中可以分析出他建議制藥業(yè)也采取煙草業(yè)的做法，承認(rèn)錯(cuò)誤，并提出改進(jìn)措施。 “bunker”表示“掩體”同“mentality”一起表示“掩飾錯(cuò)誤的心理”。engage with 表示“與…交鋒”。
句子譯文：帕里什建議制藥商擯棄他們那種文過(guò)飾非的心理，正面回應(yīng)批評(píng)。
題目分析
1.答案是C，屬推理判斷題。第一段第2—4行“Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms （see chart）.”一句中的“soaring health-care costs and bumper profits”是正確回答該問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵?！癝oaring” 表示“飛漲的”?！癰umper” 表示通常表示“豐盛的，豐收的”例如，“a bumper crop”表示“大豐收”；但該詞在本句中與“profits”連用，表示“豐厚的利潤(rùn)”。
2.答案是A，屬推理判斷題。該題的關(guān)鍵在于正確判斷出第二段第一句是概括句，而緊隨其
后的引言是細(xì)節(jié)句。細(xì)節(jié)句是為說(shuō)明概括句服務(wù)的。由此可以看出引言是用來(lái)說(shuō)明“Comparing the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem absurd, or even offensive.”。
3.答案是D，屬推理判斷題。本題的關(guān)鍵在于正確理解第三、第四段中帕爾什提出的幾條建
議。根據(jù)關(guān)鍵詞：advice及其同義詞和句型suggest，better to, so do sth.等，我們可以從第三段和第四段中挑出以下句子，如果能正確理解這些句子，就能順利完成該題。第三段第一句話(huà)：“Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics.” “帕里什先生建議制藥商擯棄他們的掩蔽心理，正面回應(yīng)批評(píng)?！薄癛ather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about.” “他建議說(shuō)，不要對(duì)過(guò)去糾纏不清，而是要繼續(xù)發(fā)展，這樣才能讓民眾淡忘過(guò)去的一切，看到進(jìn)步?！?“Not everyone is open to persuasion, so focus on those who are, he said.”“帕里什還指出，并不是人人都能被說(shuō)服的。因此集中精力說(shuō)服那些聽(tīng)的進(jìn)取的人?！盉ut Mr Parrish suggested that speaking with one voice through a trade association might be counter-productive, “但帕里什先生說(shuō)，通過(guò)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)發(fā)布一致看法有可能適得其反”。
4.答案是B，屬猜詞題。根據(jù)上文提到的對(duì)制藥業(yè)的批評(píng)，可以判斷“The pharmaceutical
industry is pursuing a range of initiatives to mollify its critics “中的”mollify its critics“表示”平息批評(píng)“。
5.答案是C，屬推理判斷題。 從本句“This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on
dealing with implacable critics.“，以及下面舉出的例子：他為美國(guó)國(guó)務(wù)院提建議。結(jié)合在一起可以看出作者隱含的意思是：他認(rèn)為帕里什先生為制藥業(yè)提的建議有道理，會(huì)奏效。
參考譯文：
要是所有人都討厭你，你該怎么辦？如今美國(guó)的制藥行業(yè)就面臨這一難題。雖然在治療疾病和延長(zhǎng)壽命方面這一行業(yè)做得很成功，但高昂的醫(yī)療保健成本和豐厚的利潤(rùn)意味著大型制藥企業(yè)被普遍視為剝削者，其聲譽(yù)幾乎和煙草以及石油公司一樣差。上周，在一個(gè)由《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》組織的費(fèi)城會(huì)議上，制藥行業(yè)得到了一些建議，而建議的提出者多少有些出人意料：一家煙草公司。斯蒂文·帕里什來(lái)自麾下?lián)碛蟹评铡つ锼辜瘓F(tuán)的埃爾特利亞集團(tuán)，他就一個(gè)行業(yè)如何改善自己不佳的公眾形象提出了自己的見(jiàn)解。
將煙草和制藥業(yè)進(jìn)行對(duì)比看似荒謬，甚至令人不快?！八麄兊漠a(chǎn)品會(huì)致人死亡。我們的產(chǎn)品卻會(huì)救人性命，”艾倫·霍爾默說(shuō)道。他是一家行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)“美國(guó)藥物研究和生產(chǎn)聯(lián)合會(huì)”的主席。不過(guò)這些制藥巨頭目前面臨的是前所未有的共同起訴和公眾審查的沖擊。這些公司大老板不得不面對(duì)立法者們的嚴(yán)厲盤(pán)問(wèn)：都知道些什么，何時(shí)發(fā)生的。這一切不禁讓人回想起1994年煙草業(yè)的遭遇。
帕里什建議制藥商擯棄他們那種文過(guò)飾非的心理，正面回應(yīng)批評(píng)。他建議說(shuō)，不要對(duì)過(guò)去糾纏不清，而是要繼續(xù)發(fā)展，這樣才能讓民眾淡忘過(guò)去，看到進(jìn)步。（菲利普·莫里斯現(xiàn)在承認(rèn)吸煙會(huì)讓人上癮，也能致命，并宣稱(chēng)他們正努力開(kāi)發(fā)危害性較小的產(chǎn)品。）帕里什還指出，并不是人人都能被說(shuō)服的。因此集中精力說(shuō)服那些聽(tīng)的進(jìn)去的人。然而改變?nèi)藗兊目捶ú粌H需要時(shí)間、行動(dòng)，更需要反復(fù)勸說(shuō)：“現(xiàn)在要的不是兜圈子，而是要改變?！?BR> 赫爾瑪在演講中指出，制藥業(yè)正采取各種行動(dòng)平息公眾的批評(píng)。但帕里什說(shuō)，通過(guò)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)發(fā)布一致看法有可能適得其反，因?yàn)檫@容易使人們將煙草業(yè)看成壟斷企業(yè)聯(lián)合體。他還指出，過(guò)多的廣告會(huì)進(jìn)一步加深民眾的反感情緒。
帕里什先生說(shuō)，絕大多數(shù)民眾是能被說(shuō)服的。這不是他第一次為解決難以化解的危機(jī)出謀劃策。去年，在密歇根大學(xué)舉行的一次研討會(huì)上，就如何改善美國(guó)在中東地區(qū)的形象問(wèn)題，他曾為美國(guó)國(guó)務(wù)院獻(xiàn)計(jì)獻(xiàn)策。他開(kāi)的藥方會(huì)奏效嗎？無(wú)論藥方是否奏效，人們對(duì)煙草商的態(tài)度有所好轉(zhuǎn)，盡管只是稍稍有所好轉(zhuǎn)。 畢竟這是煙草商破天荒第一次兜售治病良方，而不是傳播疾病。
WHAT do you do when everyone hates you? That is the problem faced by America's pharmaceutical industry. Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms （see chart）. Last week, at a conference organised by The Economist in Philadelphia, the drug industry was offered some advice from an unlikely source: a tobacco firm. Steven Parrish of Altria, the conglomerate that includes Philip Morris, gave his perspective on how an industry can improve its tarnished public image.
Comparing the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem absurd, or even offensive. "Their products kill people. Our products save people's lives," says Alan Holmer, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry association. Yet the drug giants currently face an unprecedented onslaught of class-action lawsuits and public scrutiny; industry bosses are being grilled by lawmakers asking who knew what and when. It is all reminiscent of what happened to the tobacco industry in 1994.
Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics. Rather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about. （Philip Morris now acknowledges, for example, that cigarettes are addictive and deadly, and is trying to develop less harmful products.） Not everyone is open to persuasion, so focus on those who are, he said. But changing opinions takes time and demands deeds as well as words: "This is not about spin, this is about change."
The pharmaceutical industry is pursuing a range of initiatives to mollify its critics, Mr Holmer noted in his own speech. But Mr Parrish suggested that speaking with one voice through a trade association might be counter-productive, since it can give the impression that the industry is a monolithic cartel. And too much advertising, he said, can actually antagonise people further.
The audience was generally receptive, claims Mr Parrish. This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics. At a conference at the University of Michigan last year, he offered America's State Department advice on improving America's image in the Middle East. So does his prescription work? There has been a positive shift in attitudes towards tobacco firms, if only a small one. But at least, for once, a tobacco firm is peddling a cure, rather than a disease.
GRAPH: Unpopularity contest
Economist; 11/27/2004, Vol. 373 Issue 8403, p64-64, 1/3p, 1 graph
注（1）：本文選自Economist; 11/27/2004, p64-64, 1/3p, 1 graph；
注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象第1題2004年真題text 4第1題，第2題模仿1994年真題text 3第1題，第3題模仿1996年真題text 3第3題，第4題模仿1997年真題text 3第2題，第5題2004年真題text 4第5題；
1. Why is America's pharmaceutical industry so unpopular?
[A] Because it, like tobacco and oil firms, does harm to people's health and environment.
[B] Because it fails to cure disease and make people live longer.
[C] Because the prices of its products are too high and its profit margin is too wide.
[D] Because it exploits its employees.
2. Alan Holmer is quoted to illustrate that __________.
[A] the comparison between tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem ridiculous, or even insulting
[B] the pharmaceutical industries agree that they are similar to tobacco industry
[C] tobacco products do more harm to people than pharmaceutical products
[D] pharmaceutical industries are currently facing lots of problems
3. According to the text, Mr. Parrish gives the following suggestions to drug firms except______.
[A] To acknowledge the problems and try to do something to improve their images.
[B] Not to react to the public in one voice through the drug association.
[C] Not to care about the past.
[D] To try to spend time and energy to persuade the majority of the audience who are open to persuasion.
4. The word “mollify” （Line 1, Paragraph 4） might mean?
[A] placate.
[B] enrage.
[C] fight.
[D] relieve.
5. What does the author imply by saying “This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics.“?
[A] Mr. Parrish has offered his advice to other on dealing with tough critics for several times.
[B] Mr. Parrish has dealt successfully with other critics himself.
[C] Mr. Parrish has given sound advice to drug firms.
[D] Mr. Parrish has been of help to others on critical moments.
答案：C A C A C
篇章剖析
本篇文章介紹了煙草商帕里什就制藥商受民眾指責(zé)問(wèn)題，提出的若干建議。第一段作者介紹了制藥業(yè)面臨的危機(jī)，并引出來(lái)自煙草公司的建議。第二段介紹了制藥業(yè)對(duì)這一建議來(lái)源的反應(yīng)以及制藥業(yè)面臨的困境。 第三段介紹了帕里什給出的第一條建議：不要回避批評(píng)，而是要正面回應(yīng)批評(píng)。第四段針對(duì)制藥也采取的一致口徑，帕里甚至出這種做法容易引起人們的反感。第五段作者評(píng)價(jià)了帕里什的建議。
詞匯注釋
pharmaceutical: [7fB:mE5sju:tikEl] adj. 制藥的
longevity: [lCn5dVeviti] n. 長(zhǎng)壽，壽命
soaring: [5sC:riN] adj. 飛漲的
bumper: [5bQmpE] adj. 豐厚的
exploitative: [iks5plCitEtiv] adj. 剝削的
conglomerate: [kCn5^lCmErit] n. 集團(tuán)企業(yè)
tarnished: [5tB:niFd] adj. 受到玷污的，
unprecedented: [Qn5presidEntid] adj. 空前的
onslaught: [5RnslC:t] n. 沖擊
class-action n. 共同起訴
lawsuit: [5lC:su:t] n. 訴訟
scrutiny: [5skru:tini] n. 詳細(xì)審查
grill: [^ril] v. 嚴(yán)加盤(pán)問(wèn)
reminiscent: [remI5nIs（E）nt] adj. 回憶往事的
bunker: [5bQNkE] n. 掩蔽，掩體
mentality: [men5tAliti] n. 心理，思想情況
addictive: [E5diktiv] adj. 上癮的
initiative: [i5niFiEtiv] n. 主動(dòng)
monolithic: [7mCnE5liWik] adj. 巨大的
cartel: [kB:5tel] n. 企業(yè)聯(lián)合
antagonize: [An5tA^EnaIz] v. 是反抗，使敵對(duì)
receptive: [ri5septiv] adj. 善于接受的
implacable: [im5plAkEbl] adj. 不緩和的
peddle: [5pedl] v. 叫賣(mài)，散播
難句突破
1． Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms （see chart）.
主體句式：soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that…
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：該句的難點(diǎn)是結(jié)構(gòu)復(fù)雜。句子開(kāi)頭部分的介詞短語(yǔ)“Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity,”用作讓步狀語(yǔ)：“soaring health-care costs and bumper profits”為本句的并列主語(yǔ)：“that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms （see chart）.”該部分是“mean”的賓語(yǔ)從句。但其中有并列謂語(yǔ)：“viewed as……” 和“regarded as…”：“regarded as…”又有同級(jí)比較成份“regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms”將制藥業(yè)歸入同煙草業(yè)和石油業(yè)一樣不受人歡迎的行業(yè)。
句子譯文：雖然在治療疾病和延長(zhǎng)壽命方面這一行業(yè)做得很成功，但高昂的醫(yī)療保健成本和豐厚的利潤(rùn)意味著大型制藥企業(yè)被普遍視為剝削者，其聲譽(yù)幾乎和煙草以及石油公司一樣差（見(jiàn)圖）。
2． Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics.（line 1, paragraph 3）
主體句式：Parrish advised … firms to abandon … and engage …
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：本句的難點(diǎn)是如何正確理解bunker mentality和engage with their critics. 即使不知道這兩個(gè)短語(yǔ)的意思，也可以通過(guò)下文細(xì)節(jié)句：Rather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about. （Philip Morris now acknowledges, for example, that cigarettes are addictive and deadly, and is trying to develop less harmful products.）他建議說(shuō)，不要對(duì)過(guò)去糾纏不清，而是要繼續(xù)發(fā)展，這樣才能讓民眾淡忘過(guò)去，看到進(jìn)步。（菲利普·莫里斯現(xiàn)在承認(rèn)吸煙上癮，也能致命，并宣稱(chēng)他們正努力開(kāi)發(fā)危害性較小的產(chǎn)品。）從這個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)句中可以分析出他建議制藥業(yè)也采取煙草業(yè)的做法，承認(rèn)錯(cuò)誤，并提出改進(jìn)措施。 “bunker”表示“掩體”同“mentality”一起表示“掩飾錯(cuò)誤的心理”。engage with 表示“與…交鋒”。
句子譯文：帕里什建議制藥商擯棄他們那種文過(guò)飾非的心理，正面回應(yīng)批評(píng)。
題目分析
1.答案是C，屬推理判斷題。第一段第2—4行“Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms （see chart）.”一句中的“soaring health-care costs and bumper profits”是正確回答該問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵?！癝oaring” 表示“飛漲的”?！癰umper” 表示通常表示“豐盛的，豐收的”例如，“a bumper crop”表示“大豐收”；但該詞在本句中與“profits”連用，表示“豐厚的利潤(rùn)”。
2.答案是A，屬推理判斷題。該題的關(guān)鍵在于正確判斷出第二段第一句是概括句，而緊隨其
后的引言是細(xì)節(jié)句。細(xì)節(jié)句是為說(shuō)明概括句服務(wù)的。由此可以看出引言是用來(lái)說(shuō)明“Comparing the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem absurd, or even offensive.”。
3.答案是D，屬推理判斷題。本題的關(guān)鍵在于正確理解第三、第四段中帕爾什提出的幾條建
議。根據(jù)關(guān)鍵詞：advice及其同義詞和句型suggest，better to, so do sth.等，我們可以從第三段和第四段中挑出以下句子，如果能正確理解這些句子，就能順利完成該題。第三段第一句話(huà)：“Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics.” “帕里什先生建議制藥商擯棄他們的掩蔽心理，正面回應(yīng)批評(píng)?！薄癛ather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about.” “他建議說(shuō)，不要對(duì)過(guò)去糾纏不清，而是要繼續(xù)發(fā)展，這樣才能讓民眾淡忘過(guò)去的一切，看到進(jìn)步?！?“Not everyone is open to persuasion, so focus on those who are, he said.”“帕里什還指出，并不是人人都能被說(shuō)服的。因此集中精力說(shuō)服那些聽(tīng)的進(jìn)取的人?！盉ut Mr Parrish suggested that speaking with one voice through a trade association might be counter-productive, “但帕里什先生說(shuō)，通過(guò)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)發(fā)布一致看法有可能適得其反”。
4.答案是B，屬猜詞題。根據(jù)上文提到的對(duì)制藥業(yè)的批評(píng)，可以判斷“The pharmaceutical
industry is pursuing a range of initiatives to mollify its critics “中的”mollify its critics“表示”平息批評(píng)“。
5.答案是C，屬推理判斷題。 從本句“This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on
dealing with implacable critics.“，以及下面舉出的例子：他為美國(guó)國(guó)務(wù)院提建議。結(jié)合在一起可以看出作者隱含的意思是：他認(rèn)為帕里什先生為制藥業(yè)提的建議有道理，會(huì)奏效。
參考譯文：
要是所有人都討厭你，你該怎么辦？如今美國(guó)的制藥行業(yè)就面臨這一難題。雖然在治療疾病和延長(zhǎng)壽命方面這一行業(yè)做得很成功，但高昂的醫(yī)療保健成本和豐厚的利潤(rùn)意味著大型制藥企業(yè)被普遍視為剝削者，其聲譽(yù)幾乎和煙草以及石油公司一樣差。上周，在一個(gè)由《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》組織的費(fèi)城會(huì)議上，制藥行業(yè)得到了一些建議，而建議的提出者多少有些出人意料：一家煙草公司。斯蒂文·帕里什來(lái)自麾下?lián)碛蟹评铡つ锼辜瘓F(tuán)的埃爾特利亞集團(tuán)，他就一個(gè)行業(yè)如何改善自己不佳的公眾形象提出了自己的見(jiàn)解。
將煙草和制藥業(yè)進(jìn)行對(duì)比看似荒謬，甚至令人不快?！八麄兊漠a(chǎn)品會(huì)致人死亡。我們的產(chǎn)品卻會(huì)救人性命，”艾倫·霍爾默說(shuō)道。他是一家行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)“美國(guó)藥物研究和生產(chǎn)聯(lián)合會(huì)”的主席。不過(guò)這些制藥巨頭目前面臨的是前所未有的共同起訴和公眾審查的沖擊。這些公司大老板不得不面對(duì)立法者們的嚴(yán)厲盤(pán)問(wèn)：都知道些什么，何時(shí)發(fā)生的。這一切不禁讓人回想起1994年煙草業(yè)的遭遇。
帕里什建議制藥商擯棄他們那種文過(guò)飾非的心理，正面回應(yīng)批評(píng)。他建議說(shuō)，不要對(duì)過(guò)去糾纏不清，而是要繼續(xù)發(fā)展，這樣才能讓民眾淡忘過(guò)去，看到進(jìn)步。（菲利普·莫里斯現(xiàn)在承認(rèn)吸煙會(huì)讓人上癮，也能致命，并宣稱(chēng)他們正努力開(kāi)發(fā)危害性較小的產(chǎn)品。）帕里什還指出，并不是人人都能被說(shuō)服的。因此集中精力說(shuō)服那些聽(tīng)的進(jìn)去的人。然而改變?nèi)藗兊目捶ú粌H需要時(shí)間、行動(dòng)，更需要反復(fù)勸說(shuō)：“現(xiàn)在要的不是兜圈子，而是要改變?！?BR> 赫爾瑪在演講中指出，制藥業(yè)正采取各種行動(dòng)平息公眾的批評(píng)。但帕里什說(shuō)，通過(guò)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)發(fā)布一致看法有可能適得其反，因?yàn)檫@容易使人們將煙草業(yè)看成壟斷企業(yè)聯(lián)合體。他還指出，過(guò)多的廣告會(huì)進(jìn)一步加深民眾的反感情緒。
帕里什先生說(shuō)，絕大多數(shù)民眾是能被說(shuō)服的。這不是他第一次為解決難以化解的危機(jī)出謀劃策。去年，在密歇根大學(xué)舉行的一次研討會(huì)上，就如何改善美國(guó)在中東地區(qū)的形象問(wèn)題，他曾為美國(guó)國(guó)務(wù)院獻(xiàn)計(jì)獻(xiàn)策。他開(kāi)的藥方會(huì)奏效嗎？無(wú)論藥方是否奏效，人們對(duì)煙草商的態(tài)度有所好轉(zhuǎn)，盡管只是稍稍有所好轉(zhuǎn)。 畢竟這是煙草商破天荒第一次兜售治病良方，而不是傳播疾病。