刷题刷出新高度,偷偷领先!偷偷领先!偷偷领先! 关注我们,悄悄成为最优秀的自己!

单选题

        Sugar shocked. That describes the reaction of many Americans this week following revelations that, 50 years ago, the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists for research that shifted the focus away from sugar’s role in heart disease—and put the spotlight (注意的中心) squarely on dietary fat.

        What might surprise consumers is just how many present-day nutrition studies are still funded by the food industry. Nutrition scholar Marion Nestle of New York University spent a year informally tracking industry-funded studies on food. “Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies favored the sponsor’s interest,” Nestle tells us. Other systematic reviews support her conclusions.

        For instance, studies funded by Welch Foods—the brand behind Welch’s 100% Grape Juice—found that drinking Concord grape juice daily may boost brain function. Another, funded by Quaker Oats, concluded, as a Daily Mail story put it, that “hot oatmeal (燕麦粥) breakfast keeps you full for longer.”

        Last year, The New York Times revealed how Coca-Cola was funding well-known scientists and organizations promoting a message that, in the battle against weight gain, people should pay more attention to exercise and less to what they eat and drink. Coca-Cola also released data detailing its funding of several medical institutions and associations between 2010 and 2015.

        “It’s certainly a problem that so much research in nutrition and health is funded by industry,” says Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “When the food industry pays for research, it often gets what it pays for.” And what it pays for is often a pro-industry finding.

        Given this environment, consumers should be skeptical (怀疑的) when reading the latest finding in nutrition science and ignore the latest study that pops up on your news feed. “Rely on health experts who’ve reviewed all the evidence,” Liebman says, pointing to the official government Dietary Guidelines, which are based on reviews of hundreds of studies.

        “And that expert advice remains pretty simple,” says Nestle. “We know what healthy diets are—lots of vegetables, not too much junk food, balanced calories. Everything else is really difficult to do experimentally.”

46. What did Harvard scientists do 50 years ago?

A
They raised public awareness of the possible causes of heart disease.
B
They turned public attention away from the health risks of sugar to fat.
C
They placed the sugar industry in the spotlight with their new findings.
D
They conducted large-scale research on the role of sugar in people’s health.
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

B

解析:

解析:B。根据题干中的Harvard scientists和50 years ago可定位到原文第一段第二句。该句提到,在50年前,制糖业资助哈佛科学家在其研究中转移人们的视线,在心脏致病因素中弱化了糖的作用,而使焦点直指膳食脂肪。B项与此内容相符,其中的turned public attention away对应定位句中的shifted the focus away,from the health risks of sugar to fat是对from sugar’s role in heart disease...fat的概括总结,故正确答案为B。

错项排除:原文中虽然提到了heart disease和可能的病因,但这里主要强调的是转移了人们关注的焦点,没有提到“提高公众的认识”,故排除A项。C项利用sugar industry和spotlight设置干扰,但原文中说的是哈佛科学家的研究将人们注意的中心转移到了脂肪而不是制糖业上,C项与此相悖,故排除。D项利用research和the role of sugar设置干扰,但其中的large-scale(大规模的)在原文中无依据,故排除。

创作类型:
原创

本文链接:46. What did Harvard scientists do 50 years ago?

版权声明:本站点所有文章除特别声明外,均采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议。转载请注明文章出处。

让学习像火箭一样快速,微信扫码,获取考试解析、体验刷题服务,开启你的学习加速器!

分享考题
share