题目内容
Ireland is the best place in the world to live for 2005, (31) a life quality ranking that appeared in Britain’s Economist magazine last .week.The ambitious (32) to compare happiness levels around the world is based on the principle that wealth is not the only (33) of human satisfaction and well-being. The index of 111 countries uses (34) on incomes, health, unemployment, climate, political stability, job security equality between men and women as well as what the magazine calls "freedom, family and community life".Despite the bad weather troubled health service, traffic problems, and the high cost of living, Ireland scored an impressive 8.33 points (35) 10. That put it well ahead of second-place Switzerland, which man- aged 8,07. Zimbabwe (津巴布韦), troubled by political insecurity and hunger, is’rated the lowest, (36) only 3.89 points."Although rising incomes and increased individual choices in developed countries are (37) valued," the report said, "some of the factors associated with (38) such as the breakdown in traditional institutions and family values in part take away from a positive impact."Ireland wins because it successfully combines the most desirable elements of the new—the fourth high- est gross domestic product per head in the world in 2005, low unemployment, political (39) —with the preservation of certain warm elements of the old, such as (40) family and community life.\ 31（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to caily graves.There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth’s atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made, The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the Nation- al Academy, Bruce Alberts, added this key point in the preface to the panel’s report "Science never has all the answers but science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that out nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions.Just as on smoking voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it’s OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it’s obvious that a majority of the president’s advisers still don’t take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research—a classic ease of "paralysis by analysis".To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won’t take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound. An argument made by supporters of smoking was that （）.
It is said that in England death is pressing, in Canada inevitable and in California optional Small wonder. Americans’ life expectancy has nearly doubled over the past century. Failing hips can be replaced, clinical depression controlled, cataracts removed in a 30-minutes surgical procedure. Such advances offer the aging population a quality of life that was unimaginable when I entered medicine 50 years ago. But not even a great health-care system can cure death—and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of OURS.Death is normal; we are genetically programmed to disintegrate and perish, even under ideal conditions. We all understand that at some level, yet as medical consumers we treat death as a problem to be solveD. Shielded by third-party payers from the cost of our care, we demand everything that can possibly be done for us, even if it’s useless. The most obvious example is late-stage cancer care. Physicians-frustrated by their in- ability to cure the disease and fearing loss of hope in the patien—too often offer aggressive treatment far be- yond what is scientifically justified.In 1950, the U..S. spent $12. 7 billion on health care. In 2002, the cost will be $1540 billion. Anyone can see this trend is unsustainable. Yet few seem willing to try to reverse it. Some scholars conclude that a government with finite resources should simply stop paying for medical care that sustains life beyond a certain age—say 83 or so. Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has been quoted as saying that the old and in- firm "have a duty todie and get out of the way" , so that younger, healthier people can realize their potential.I would not go that far. Energetic people now routinely work through their 60s and beyond, and remain dazzlingly productive. At 78, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone jokingly claims to be 53. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is in her 70s, and former surgeon general C. Everett Koop chairs an Internet start-up in his 80s. These leaders are living proof that prevention works and that we can manage the health problems that come naturally with age. As a mere 68-year-old, I wish to age as productively as they have.Yet there are limits to what a society can spend in this pursuit. Ask a physician, I know the most costly and dramatic measures may be ineffective and painful. I also know that people in Japan and Sweden, countries that spend far less on medical care, have achieved longer, healthier lives than we have. As a nation, we may be overfunding the quest for unlikelycures while underfunding research on humbler therapies that could improve people’s lives. In contrast to the U. S. , Japan and Sweden are funding their medical care （）.
Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to caily graves.There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth’s atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made, The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the Nation- al Academy, Bruce Alberts, added this key point in the preface to the panel’s report "Science never has all the answers but science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that out nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions.Just as on smoking voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it’s OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it’s obvious that a majority of the president’s advisers still don’t take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research—a classic ease of "paralysis by analysis".To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won’t take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound. According to the author, what should the Administration do about （）.
It is said that in England death is pressing, in Canada inevitable and in California optional Small wonder. Americans’ life expectancy has nearly doubled over the past century. Failing hips can be replaced, clinical depression controlled, cataracts removed in a 30-minutes surgical procedure. Such advances offer the aging population a quality of life that was unimaginable when I entered medicine 50 years ago. But not even a great health-care system can cure death—and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of OURS.Death is normal; we are genetically programmed to disintegrate and perish, even under ideal conditions. We all understand that at some level, yet as medical consumers we treat death as a problem to be solveD. Shielded by third-party payers from the cost of our care, we demand everything that can possibly be done for us, even if it’s useless. The most obvious example is late-stage cancer care. Physicians-frustrated by their in- ability to cure the disease and fearing loss of hope in the patien—too often offer aggressive treatment far be- yond what is scientifically justified.In 1950, the U..S. spent $12. 7 billion on health care. In 2002, the cost will be $1540 billion. Anyone can see this trend is unsustainable. Yet few seem willing to try to reverse it. Some scholars conclude that a government with finite resources should simply stop paying for medical care that sustains life beyond a certain age—say 83 or so. Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has been quoted as saying that the old and in- firm "have a duty todie and get out of the way" , so that younger, healthier people can realize their potential.I would not go that far. Energetic people now routinely work through their 60s and beyond, and remain dazzlingly productive. At 78, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone jokingly claims to be 53. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is in her 70s, and former surgeon general C. Everett Koop chairs an Internet start-up in his 80s. These leaders are living proof that prevention works and that we can manage the health problems that come naturally with age. As a mere 68-year-old, I wish to age as productively as they have.Yet there are limits to what a society can spend in this pursuit. Ask a physician, I know the most costly and dramatic measures may be ineffective and painful. I also know that people in Japan and Sweden, countries that spend far less on medical care, have achieved longer, healthier lives than we have. As a nation, we may be overfunding the quest for unlikelycures while underfunding research on humbler therapies that could improve people’s lives. What is implied in the first sentence ？（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付