题目内容
Excessive dependence on automobiles has profound negative impacts on human health: decreased opportunities for physical activity, increased exposure to air pollution, raised vulnerability to chronic diseases and the mounting incidence of traffic crashes that alone cost a staggering $180 billion. The determination of the magnitude of the health impact is notoriously so tricky as to end up with an astronomical figure probably. No calculation can be complete without formulating practical standards or models for estimating health costs. Costs associated with obesity, breathing illness, and injuries are evidenced by research. Growing recognition of the close connection between transportation, social cohesion and health has resulted in some studies that have achieved compelling findings.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
50（）
Many countries have made it illegal to talk into a hand-held mobile phone while driving. But the latest research provides further confirmation that the danger lies less in what a motorist’s hands do when he takes a call than in what the conversation does to his brain. Even using a "hands-free" device can impair a driver’s attention to an alarming extent.Melina Kunar of the University of Warwick and Todd Horowitz of the Harvard Medical School ran a series of experiments in which two groups of volunteers had to pay attention and respond to a series of moving tasks on a computer screen that were reckoned equivalent in difficulty to driving. One group was left undistracted while the other had to engage in a conversation about their hobbies using a speakerphone. As Dr. Kunar and Dr. Horowitz report in Psycbonomic Bulletin & Review, those who were making the equivalent of a hands-free call had an average reaction time 212 milliseconds slower than those who were not. That, they calculate, would add 5.7 meters to the braking distance of a car traveling at 100 kph. They found that the group using the hands-free kit made 83 percent more errors in their tasks than those who were not talking.They also explored the effect of simply listening to something—such as a radio programme. For this they played a recording of the first chapter of Bram Stoker’s "Dracula." Even though the test subjects were told to pay attention because they would be asked questions about the story afterwards, it had little effect on their reaction time. The research led by Frank Drews of the University of Utah suggests the same thing is true of the idle chatter of a passenger. Dr. Kunar reckons that having to think about responses during a phone conversation competes for the brain’s resources in a way that listening to a monologue does not.Punishing people for using hand-held gadgets while driving is difficult enough, even though they can be seen from outside the car. Stopping people making hands-free calls would probably be impossible—especially because more and more vehicles are now being fitted with the necessary equipment as standard. Persuading people to switch their phones off altogether when they get behind the wheel might be the only answer. Who knows, they might even come to enjoy not having to take calls. And they’ll be more likely to arrive in one piece. The purpose of the passage is to（）
Many countries have made it illegal to talk into a hand-held mobile phone while driving. But the latest research provides further confirmation that the danger lies less in what a motorist’s hands do when he takes a call than in what the conversation does to his brain. Even using a "hands-free" device can impair a driver’s attention to an alarming extent.Melina Kunar of the University of Warwick and Todd Horowitz of the Harvard Medical School ran a series of experiments in which two groups of volunteers had to pay attention and respond to a series of moving tasks on a computer screen that were reckoned equivalent in difficulty to driving. One group was left undistracted while the other had to engage in a conversation about their hobbies using a speakerphone. As Dr. Kunar and Dr. Horowitz report in Psycbonomic Bulletin & Review, those who were making the equivalent of a hands-free call had an average reaction time 212 milliseconds slower than those who were not. That, they calculate, would add 5.7 meters to the braking distance of a car traveling at 100 kph. They found that the group using the hands-free kit made 83 percent more errors in their tasks than those who were not talking.They also explored the effect of simply listening to something—such as a radio programme. For this they played a recording of the first chapter of Bram Stoker’s "Dracula." Even though the test subjects were told to pay attention because they would be asked questions about the story afterwards, it had little effect on their reaction time. The research led by Frank Drews of the University of Utah suggests the same thing is true of the idle chatter of a passenger. Dr. Kunar reckons that having to think about responses during a phone conversation competes for the brain’s resources in a way that listening to a monologue does not.Punishing people for using hand-held gadgets while driving is difficult enough, even though they can be seen from outside the car. Stopping people making hands-free calls would probably be impossible—especially because more and more vehicles are now being fitted with the necessary equipment as standard. Persuading people to switch their phones off altogether when they get behind the wheel might be the only answer. Who knows, they might even come to enjoy not having to take calls. And they’ll be more likely to arrive in one piece. In Kunar and Horowitz’s experiments, the subjects who performed tasks while talking（）
In these times of fast media and ever-growing Internet, we are under so many external influences that it is anything but easy to think for ourselves. Unless you are a cunning, very aware person, you most likely don’t even know when your thinking is not your own.Not that all outside influence is bad to form your own views, but being unable to think for yourself can make you miserable at best, or a puppet of someone else’s programming, at worst.Admittedly, we are all born into societies or cultures where the norms and customs are already established. We have little choice but to conform to what is already in place. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however, it can be confining and controlling if we accept everything blindly and never question the status quo.Does this mean all of your ideas can be original and unlike everyone else’s Not at all!Nor does it require being contrary and argumentative just to be defiant or stand out. To think for yourself means that whatever opinions you hold will be well thought out and arise from thorough investigation and thoughtful analysis. It means choosing not to compromise the facts for the sake of consensus or fitting in. It is not unlike critical thinking—it just brings about a broader scope of choices and decision-making in your life.For example, how many of us feel the need to keep up with "the latest" We wear clothes, listen to music and follow trends that the media tells us we should in order to be cool. Marketing companies create ads that tempt us into a herd mentality as we fall into debt, wear fashions that are unbecoming, and get caught up in a cycle of over-spending and then stressing out over it. We are living lives designed for us by the powers without our conscious participation.Another trap we fall into when we don’t think for ourselves is groupthink. Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that takes place within a group of people who try to avoid conflict and reach agreement without critically evaluating options or alternative ideas. The problem with groupthink is that it hinders finding the best solutions, impedes creative ideas and frustrates independent thinking. Wanting to be part of the crowd can certainly have its drawbacks! The ability to think for yourself means that（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付