题目内容
The single most shattering statistic about life in America in the late 1990s was that tobacco killed more people than the combined total of those who died from AIDS, car accidents, alcohol, murder, suicide, illegal drugs and fire. The deaths of more than 400, 000 Americans each year, 160, 000 of them from lung cancer, make a strong case for the prohibition of tobacco, and particularly of cigarettes. The case, backed by solid evidence, has been made in every public arena since the early 1950s, when the first convincing link between smoking and cancer was established in clinical and epidemiological studies—yet 50 million Americans still go on smoking. tobacco-related illness. It is a remarkable story, clearly told, astonishingly well documented and with a transparent moral motif. Most smokers in America eventually manage to quit, and local laws banning smoking in public have become common, but the industry prospers. The tobacco companies have survived virtually everything their opponents have thrown at them. At the end of his story, Mr. Brandt writes: "The legal assault on Big Tobacco had been all but repelled. The industry was decidedly intact, ready to do business profitably at home and abroad. "Although the conclusion is not to his liking, Mr. Brandt’s is the first full and convincing explanation of how they pulled it off. Cigarettes overcame any lingering opposition to the pleasure they gave when American soldiers came to crave them during the World War I. War, says Mr. Brandt, was "a critical watershed in establishing the cigarette as a dominant product in modern consumer culture. " Cigarettes were sexy, and the companies poured money into advertising. By 1950 Americans smoked 350 billion cigarettes a year and the industry accounted for 3.5% of consumer spending on non-durables. The first 50 years of the"cigarette century"were a golden era for Big Tobacco. That was simply because, until the 1940s, not enough men had been smoking for long enough to develop fatal cancers (women did not reach this threshold until the 1970s). The first clinical and epidemiological studies linking eigarette-smoking and lung cancer were published only in 1950. By 1953 the six leading companies had agreed that a collective response was required. They paid handsomely for a public-relations campaign that insistently denied any proof of a causal connection between smoking and cancer. This worked well until 1964, when a devastating report from the surgeon-general’s advisory committee in effect ended medical uncertainty about the harmfulness of smoking. But Big Tobacco rode the punches. When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that health warnings must appear on each pack, the industry, consented. But it shrewdly exploited the warning: "In a culture that emphasised individual responsibility, smokers would bear the blame for willful risk-taking," notes Mr. Brandt. Many cases for damages against the companies foundered on that rock. Cigarette-makers also marshaled their numerous allies in Congress to help the passage of a law that bypassed federal agencies such as the FTC, and made Congress itself solely responsible for tobacco regulation. Describing the pervasive influence of tobacco lobbyists, he says: "Legislation from Congress testified to the masterful preparation and strategic command of the tobacco industry. " However, the industry was powerless to prevent a flood of damaging internal documents, leaked by insiders. The companies were shown, for instance, to have cynically disregarded evidence from their in-house researchers about the addictive properties of nicotine. Internal papers also showed that extra nicotine was added to cigarettes to guarantee smokers sufficient" satisfaction". Despite such public-relations disasters, the industry continued to win judgments, most significantly when the Supreme Court rejected by five votes to four a potentially calamitous attack that would have given the Federal Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products. The industry’s shrewdest move was to defuse a barrage of eases brought by individual states, aiming to reclaim the cost of treating sick smokers. The states in 1998 accepted a settlement of $246 billion over 25 years (the price of a pack rose by 45 cents shortly afterwards). In return, the states agreed to end all claims against the companies. But the settlement tied the state governments to tobacco’s purse-strings; they now had an interest in the industry’s success. For those who thought the settlement was akin to" dancing with the devil", it appeared in retrospect that the devil had indeed had the best tunes, reports Mr. Brandt. To his credit, he manages to keep his historian’s hat squarely on his head. But you can feel the anguish. To protect the industry, the tobacco companies did all the following EXCEPT
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
The single most shattering statistic about life in America in the late 1990s was that tobacco killed more people than the combined total of those who died from AIDS, car accidents, alcohol, murder, suicide, illegal drugs and fire. The deaths of more than 400, 000 Americans each year, 160, 000 of them from lung cancer, make a strong case for the prohibition of tobacco, and particularly of cigarettes. The case, backed by solid evidence, has been made in every public arena since the early 1950s, when the first convincing link between smoking and cancer was established in clinical and epidemiological studies—yet 50 million Americans still go on smoking. tobacco-related illness. It is a remarkable story, clearly told, astonishingly well documented and with a transparent moral motif. Most smokers in America eventually manage to quit, and local laws banning smoking in public have become common, but the industry prospers. The tobacco companies have survived virtually everything their opponents have thrown at them. At the end of his story, Mr. Brandt writes: "The legal assault on Big Tobacco had been all but repelled. The industry was decidedly intact, ready to do business profitably at home and abroad. "Although the conclusion is not to his liking, Mr. Brandt’s is the first full and convincing explanation of how they pulled it off. Cigarettes overcame any lingering opposition to the pleasure they gave when American soldiers came to crave them during the World War I. War, says Mr. Brandt, was "a critical watershed in establishing the cigarette as a dominant product in modern consumer culture. " Cigarettes were sexy, and the companies poured money into advertising. By 1950 Americans smoked 350 billion cigarettes a year and the industry accounted for 3.5% of consumer spending on non-durables. The first 50 years of the"cigarette century"were a golden era for Big Tobacco. That was simply because, until the 1940s, not enough men had been smoking for long enough to develop fatal cancers (women did not reach this threshold until the 1970s). The first clinical and epidemiological studies linking eigarette-smoking and lung cancer were published only in 1950. By 1953 the six leading companies had agreed that a collective response was required. They paid handsomely for a public-relations campaign that insistently denied any proof of a causal connection between smoking and cancer. This worked well until 1964, when a devastating report from the surgeon-general’s advisory committee in effect ended medical uncertainty about the harmfulness of smoking. But Big Tobacco rode the punches. When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that health warnings must appear on each pack, the industry, consented. But it shrewdly exploited the warning: "In a culture that emphasised individual responsibility, smokers would bear the blame for willful risk-taking," notes Mr. Brandt. Many cases for damages against the companies foundered on that rock. Cigarette-makers also marshaled their numerous allies in Congress to help the passage of a law that bypassed federal agencies such as the FTC, and made Congress itself solely responsible for tobacco regulation. Describing the pervasive influence of tobacco lobbyists, he says: "Legislation from Congress testified to the masterful preparation and strategic command of the tobacco industry. " However, the industry was powerless to prevent a flood of damaging internal documents, leaked by insiders. The companies were shown, for instance, to have cynically disregarded evidence from their in-house researchers about the addictive properties of nicotine. Internal papers also showed that extra nicotine was added to cigarettes to guarantee smokers sufficient" satisfaction". Despite such public-relations disasters, the industry continued to win judgments, most significantly when the Supreme Court rejected by five votes to four a potentially calamitous attack that would have given the Federal Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products. The industry’s shrewdest move was to defuse a barrage of eases brought by individual states, aiming to reclaim the cost of treating sick smokers. The states in 1998 accepted a settlement of $246 billion over 25 years (the price of a pack rose by 45 cents shortly afterwards). In return, the states agreed to end all claims against the companies. But the settlement tied the state governments to tobacco’s purse-strings; they now had an interest in the industry’s success. For those who thought the settlement was akin to" dancing with the devil", it appeared in retrospect that the devil had indeed had the best tunes, reports Mr. Brandt. To his credit, he manages to keep his historian’s hat squarely on his head. But you can feel the anguish. The phrase"rode the punches"in Paragraph 6 can be interpreted as
Which one is NOT included in the clue that helped the police identify the man
According to news, the West Virginia coal mine disaster
Story telling is an ancient and honored art. Story tellers entertained during the long dark hours before sleep arrived after the sun disappeared over the western horizon. But the story teller’s job is more than just entertainment Before the printed page appeared, story tellers provided cultural continuity, preserving the past to serve as guide through the future. Storytellers told tales of heroes to provide positive examples, the legends that held the tribe together and provided its identity, and the stories of foolish or evil beings to remind young and old the penalties for not riving correctly. Even behavior too horrible to speak of directly, such as cannibalism, cowardice or death, could be examined through the mediation of a story. Even today, books, magazines, radio, television and movies still have not replaced the storyteller. None of these permanent, reproducible media are able to deliver a personal, individualized message with the impact of a well-told story. Whether the purpose of a story is to set a mood, to entertain, to teach a lesson, to amuse or to scare, nothing works like a good story at the right moment. A story with an obvious message concerning the results of another person’s misbehavior can deliver a warning and deterrent that a direct confrontation can not produce and the story will do so without hurting egos. A positive relationship can be maintained and, sometimes, even strengthened while still delivering an unwelcome message. This is the power of the storyteller. Not every story will fit every situation. The story teller needs to select a story which will meet the needs of the situation and thon the story teller must tailor the story to fit the time available, the age of the audience, the location and the mood desired. A good story choice will capture the interest of the audience. Audience members will relate to a location, experience or emotion that they share in common with the story teller and will suspend disbelief long enough to be drawn into the story as it unfolds. Good stories build to a climax with a beginning, a middle and an end. The elements of the story revealed in each section will lead to the next. Predicaments and solutions will depend on the details of the story revealed in an earlier section. However, better stories may add a twist to make the ending unexpected and, therefore, more interesting. Scary stories should be matched to the age of the audience. A little feeling of fright as the story is told may be beneficial in learning how to deal with scary things, but the use of lingering fear that is carried away from the stow is simply terrorizing a susceptible person and helps no one. It is the responsibility of the story miler to determine what is appropriate and not to abuse the audience’s good faith. Stories can come from nearly anywhere. Folk tales, myths, legends, history (especially local history), Indian stories, adventure yams and other stow tellers are all sources of inspiration. A short listing of collected stories is appended along with several examples of good stories. However, the best sources of stories for good stow tellers are their own experiences. When inspiration and opportunity unite, a story is ready to be born. No matter what the source, the best stories are those of which the story teller has some personal experience or knowledge. This can be combined with other sources and a little practice to produce the tale to be told. When personal experience is the base on which a story is built, the stow will "ring true" to the audience and have a greater vitality. A dislike of insects crawling on your skin, an encounter with a wild animal or the memory of a weird noise experienced when you were home alone can each provide the experience or feeling that will form the basis of a story. The experience need only be a wee part of the story, but that can be enough. When you have chosen a source from a book or another story teller, learn the stow thoroughly before giving it publicly. Do not memorize the story! Memorize the outline and flow of the stow. Take special note of key points, events and names that the story hinges on. Also note where and how they fit in the narrative. If there are key phrases make sure you anchor them in your memory so they come out naturally where they should. Don’t try to deliver a stow verbatim, a story should be told in your own words. Make the story a part of you and then share that part with you. Live the stow as you tell it. As you continue, you will find that telling a story is more than choosing the right words to say, it also involves establishing your presence. When you are the stow teller, you are in control. Walk confidently forward to your place, stand, pause, relax, gather your thoughts and become part of your story as you build anticipation, wait for quiet and attention, and then and only then, quietly start your story. Try not to explain what you are about to do, instead choose a first sentence that will capture the audience’s interest. Speak slowly in your normal voice, establish a tempo and a mood appropriate to your stow. Use gestures as needed, but avoid gestures that distract from the story. Use your words and their visual images to carry and the audience along. Establish contact with your audience, watch their body language and responses. Use these to guide and pace your delivery. Live the stow as you tell it. According to the passage, the purposes of story telling include all of the following EXCEPT ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付