题目内容
Paragraph 1 Our risk of cancer rises dramatically as we age. So it makes sense that the elderly should be routinely screened for new tumors—or doesn’t itParagraph 2 While such vigilant (警觉) tracking of cancer is a good thing in general, researchers are increasingly questioning whether all of this testing is necessary for the elderly. With the percentage of people over age 65 expected to nearly double by 2050, it’s important to weigh the health benefits of screening against the risks and costs of routine testing.Paragraph 3 In many cases, screening can lead to surgeries to remove cancer, while the cancers themselves may be slow-growing and may not pose serious health problems in patients’ remaining years. But the message that everyone must screen for cancer has become so deep-rooted that when health care experts recommended that women under 50 and over 74 stop screening for breast cancer, it caused a riotous reaction among doctors, patients and advocacy groups.Paragraph 4 It’s hard to uproot deeply held beliefs about cancer screening with scientific data. Certainly, there are people over age 75 who have had cancers detected by routine screening, and gained several extra years of life because of treatment. And clearly, people over age 75 who have other risk factors for cancer, such as a family history or prior personal experience with the disease, should continue to get screened regularly. But for the remainder, the risk of cancer, while increased at the end of life, must be balanced with other factors like remaining life expectancy (预期寿命).Paragraph 5 A recent study suggests that doctors start to make more objective decisions about who will truly benefit from screening—especially considering the explosion of the elderly that will soon swell our population.Paragraph 6 It’s not an easy calculation to make, but one that makes sense for all patients. Dr. Otis Brawley said, "Many doctors are ordering screening tests purely to cover themselves. We need to think about the rational use of health care."Paragraph 7 That means making some difficult decisions with elderly patients, and going against the misguided belief that when it comes to health care, more is always better. Why do many doctors prescribe routine screening for cancer（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Paragraph 1 Kodak’s decision to file for bankruptcy (破产) protection is a sad, though not unexpected, turning point for a leading American corporation that pioneered consumer photography and dominated the film market for decades, but ultimately failed to adapt to the digital revolution.Paragraph 2 Although many attribute Kodak’s downfall to "complacency (自满)," that explanation doesn’t acknowledge the lengths to which the company went to reinvent itself. Decades ago, Kodak anticipated that digital photography would overtake film-and in fact, Kodak invented the first digital camera in 1975—but in a fateful decision, the company chose to shelf its new discovery to focus on its traditional film business.Paragraph 3 It wasn’t that Kodak was blind to the future, said Rebecca Henderson, a professor at Harvard Business School, but rather that it failed to execute on a strategy to confront it. By the time the company realized its mistake, it was too late.Paragraph 4 Kodak is an example of a firm that was very much aware that they had to adapt, and spent a lot of money trying to do so, but ultimately failed. Large companies have a difficult time switching to new markets because there is a temptation to put existing assets into the new businesses.Paragraph 5 Although Kodak anticipated the inevitable rise of digital photography, its corporate (企业的)culture was too rooted in the successes of the past for it to make the clean break necessary to fully embrace the future. They were a company stuck in time. Their history was so important to them. Now their history has become a liability.Paragraph 6 Kodak’s downfall over the last several decades was dramatic. In 1976, the company commanded 90% of the market for photographic film and 85% of the market for cameras. But the 1980s brought new competition from Japanese film company Fuji Photo, which undermined Kodak by offering lower prices for film and photo supplies. Kodak’s decision not to pursue the role of official film for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was a major miscalculation. The bid went instead to Fuji, which exploited its sponsorship to win a permanent foothold in the marketplace. What was Kodak’s fatal mistake（）
Paragraph 1 In times of economic crisis, Americans turn to their families for support. If the Great Depression is any guide, we may see a drop in our skyhigh divorce rate. But this won’t necessarily represent an increase in happy marriages. In the long run, the Depression weakened American families, and the current crisis will probably do the same.Paragraph 2 We tend to think of the Depression as a time when families pulled together to survive huge job losses. By 1932, when nearly one-quarter of the workforce was unemployed, the divorce rate had declined by around 25% from 1929. But this doesn’t mean people were suddenly happier with their marriages. Rather, with incomes decreasing and insecure jobs, unhappy couples often couldn’t afford to divorce. They feared neither spouse could manage alone.Paragraph 3 Today, given the job losses of the past year, fewer unhappy couples will risk starting separate households. Furthermore, the housing market meltdown will make it more difficult for them to finance their separations by selling their homes.Paragraph 4 After financial disasters family members also tend to do whatever they can to help each other and their communities. A 1940 book, The Unemployed Man and His Family, described a family in which the husband initially reacted to losing his job "with tireless search for work." He was always active, looking for odd jobs to do.Paragraph 5 The problem is that such an impulse is hard to sustain. Across the country, many similar families were unable to maintain the initial boost in morale (士气). For some, the hardships of life without steady work eventually overwhelmed their attempts to keep their families together. The divorce rate rose again during the rest of the decade as the recovery took hold.Paragraph 6 Millions of American families may now be in the initial stage of their responses to the current crisis, working together and supporting one another through the early months of unemployment.Paragraph 7 Today’s economic crisis could well generate a similar number of couples whose relationships have been irreparably (无法弥补地) ruined. So it’s only when the economy is healthy again that we’ll begin to see just how many broken families have been created. In the Great Depression many unhappy couples chose to stick together because （）
Paragraph 1 People are being lured (引诱) onto Facebook with the promise of a fun, free service, without realizing they’re paying for it by giving up loads of personal information. Facebook then attempts to make money by selling their data to advertisers that want to send targeted messages.Paragraph 2 Most Facebook users don’t realize this is happening. Even if they know what the company is up to, they still have no idea what they’re paying for Facebook, because people don’t really know what their personal data is worth.Paragraph 3 The biggest problem, however, is that the company keeps changing the rules. Early on, you could keep everything private. That was the great thing about Facebook—you could create your own little private network. Last year, the company changed its privacy rules so that many things—your city, your photo, your friends’ names—were set, by default (默认), to be shared with everyone on the Internet.Paragraph 4 According to Facebook’s vice-president Elliot Schrage, the company is simply making changes to improve its service, and if people don’t share information, they have a "less satisfying experience."Paragraph 5 Some critics think this is more about Facebook looking to make more money. Its original business model, which involved selling ads and putting them at the side of the page, totally failed. Who wants to look at ads when they’re online connecting with their friendsParagraph 6 The privacy issue has already landed Facebook in hot water in Washington. In April, Senator Charles Schumer called on Facebook to change its privacy policy. He also urged the Federal Trade Commission to set guidelines for social-networking sites. "I think the senator rightly communicated that we had not been clear about what the new products were and how people could choose to use them or not to use them," Schrage admits.Paragraph 7 I suspect that whatever Facebook has done so far to invade our privacy, it’s only the beginning. Which is why I’m considering deactivating (撤销) my account. Facebook is a handy site, but I’m upset by the idea that my information is in the hands of people I don’t trust. That’s too high a price to pay. What does Senator Charles Schumer advocate（）
Paragraph 1 Junk food is everywhere. We’re eating way too much of it. Most of us know what we’re doing and yet we do it anyway.Paragraph 2 So here’s a suggestion offered by two researchers at the Rand Corporation: Why not take a lesson from alcohol control policies and apply them to where food is sold and how it’s displayedParagraph 3 "Many policy measures to control obesity (肥胖症) assume that people consciously and rationally choose what and how much they eat and therefore focus on providing information and more access to healthier foods," note the two researchers.Paragraph 4 "In contrast," the researchers continue, "many regulations that don’t assume people make rational choices have been successfully applied to control alcohol, a substance—like food—of which immoderate consumption leads to serious health problems."Paragraph 5 The research references studies of people’s behavior with food and alcohol and results of alcohol restrictions, and then lists five regulations that the researchers think might be promising if applied to junk foods. Among them:Paragraph 6 Density restrictions: licenses to sell alcohol aren’t handed out unplanned to all comers but are allotted (分配) based on the number of places in an area that already sell alcohol. These make alcohol less easy to get and reduce the number of psychological cues to drink.Paragraph 7 Similarly, the researchers say, being presented with junk food stimulates our desire to eat it. So why not limit the density of food outlets, particularly ones that sell food rich in empty calories And why not limit sale of food in places that aren’t primarily food storesParagraph 8 Display and sales restrictions: California has a rule prohibiting alcohol displays near the cash registers in gas stations, and in most places you can’t buy alcohol at drive-through facilities. At supermarkets, food companies pay to have their wares in places where they’re easily seen. One could remove junk food to the back of the store and ban them from the shelves at checkout lines. The other measures include restricting portion sizes, taxing and prohibiting special price deals for junk foods, and placing warning labels on the products. What do the Rand researchers think of many of the policy measures to control obesity（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付