网友您好， 请在下方输入框内输入要搜索的题目：
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
The principal factor depressing life expectancy in developing countries has always been the high death rate for infants and children. The World Bank studies suggest that as much as two thirds of the difference in life-spans between people in developed countries and those in developing ones can be traced to differences in survival rates for children under five. It is here where the most improvement has come. According to UN estimates, significant regional drops in infant mortality - ranging from 25 percent to 60 percent and centering near 40 percent - appear to have taken place between the late 1950s and the late 1970s in northern Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Although sub-Saharan Africa' s mortality trends cannot be quantified with confidence, there is reason to believe that life expectancy has risen and infant mortality has declined in that region as well. There is little doubt that population growth has accelerated in sub-Saharan Africa since the 1950s; in fact, sub-Saharan Africa is widely thought to have the highest rate of population growth of any major region in the world. Only a small portion of that acceleration is likely to have been caused by increases in fertility (and increases in fertility, insofar as they have occurred, may also imply improvements in health and nutrition).
Mortality, of course, is not a perfect measure of nutritional change. Improved nutrition is only one of a number of forces that have been pushing down death rates in developing countries. Others include the upgrading of hygiene and sanitation; the extension of public health services; medical innovations; improvements in education, communications, transportation, and, in some areas, civil order. Even so, the extent to which improvements innutrition—both direct and indirect—have reduced mortality in developing countries has frequently been underestimated. For example, Sri Lanka experienced an abrupt jump in life expectancy shortly after the Second World War. Whereas this was long described as a "technical fix"—a triumph of DDT over the anopheles mosquito—years later researchers realized that abrupt and rapid drops in mortality had also taken place in Sri Lanka' s highlands, or "dry zones", where malaria had never been a serious problem. In both highlands and lowland regions health improved in tandem with access to food.
According to the author, life expectancy in developing countries is not high mainly because developing countries______.
A．have a low standard of living
B．have no public health services
C．have no public and private hygiene and sanitation
D．have low survival rates for infants and children
参考答案
更多 “ The principal factor depressing life expectancy in developing countries has always been the high death rate for infants and children. The World Bank studies suggest that as much as two thirds of the difference in life-spans between people in developed countries and those in developing ones can be traced to differences in survival rates for children under five. It is here where the most improvement has come. According to UN estimates, significant regional drops in infant mortality - ranging from 25 percent to 60 percent and centering near 40 percent - appear to have taken place between the late 1950s and the late 1970s in northern Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Although sub-Saharan Africa' s mortality trends cannot be quantified with confidence, there is reason to believe that life expectancy has risen and infant mortality has declined in that region as well. There is little doubt that population growth has accelerated in sub-Saharan Africa since the 1950s; in fact, sub-Saharan Africa is widely thought to have the highest rate of population growth of any major region in the world. Only a small portion of that acceleration is likely to have been caused by increases in fertility (and increases in fertility, insofar as they have occurred, may also imply improvements in health and nutrition).Mortality, of course, is not a perfect measure of nutritional change. Improved nutrition is only one of a number of forces that have been pushing down death rates in developing countries. Others include the upgrading of hygiene and sanitation; the extension of public health services; medical innovations; improvements in education, communications, transportation, and, in some areas, civil order. Even so, the extent to which improvements innutrition—both direct and indirect—have reduced mortality in developing countries has frequently been underestimated. For example, Sri Lanka experienced an abrupt jump in life expectancy shortly after the Second World War. Whereas this was long described as a "technical fix"—a triumph of DDT over the anopheles mosquito—years later researchers realized that abrupt and rapid drops in mortality had also taken place in Sri Lanka' s highlands, or "dry zones", where malaria had never been a serious problem. In both highlands and lowland regions health improved in tandem with access to food.According to the author, life expectancy in developing countries is not high mainly because developing countries______.A．have a low standard of livingB．have no public health servicesC．have no public and private hygiene and sanitationD．have low survival rates for infants and children ” 相关考题
考题
The author holds that______.A．mortality rates in developing countries have been brought down by a number of forcesB．medical innovations are the only way to reduce mortality rates in developing countriesC．the upgrading of hygiene and sanitation has played a crucial role in reducing mortality rates in developing countriesD．improved nutrition is the only one factor that reduces mortality rates in developing countries
考题
When people in developing countries worry about migration, they are usually concerned at the prospect of their best and brightest departure to Silicon Valsey or to hospitals and universities in the developed world. These are the kind of workers that countries like Britain Canada and Australia try to attract by using immigration rules that privilege college graduates.Lots of studies have found that well-education people form. developing counting are particularly likely to emigrants , A big survey of Indian households in 2004found that nearly 40% of emigrants had morn than a high-school education ,compared with around 3.3%of all Indian over the age of 25. This "brain drain" has long bothered policymakers in poor counties .They fear that it hurts their economies, depriving them of much-needed skilled worker who could have taught at their universities, worked in their hospital and come up with clever new product for their factories to make
考题
Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage?A.Americans used to get access to the Internet easily.B.The world’sTV sets will total 150million by 2013.C.45% of families in the developing countries had a TV in 2005.D.Over two thirds of families in the world will have a TV by 2013.
考题
请阅读短文，完成此题。
Move over Methuselah. Future generations could be living well into their second century andstill doing Sudoku, if life expectancy predictions are true. Increasing by two years every decade,they show no signs of flattening out. Average lifespan worldwide is already double what it was 200years ago. Since the 1980s, experts thought the increase in life expectancy would slow down andthen stop, but forecasters have repeatedly been proved wrong.
The reason behind the steady rise in life expectancy is "the decline in the death rate of theelderly", says Professor Tom Kirkwood from Newcastle University. He maintains that our bodies areevolving to maintain and repair themselves better and our genes are investing in this process to putoff the damage which will eventually lead to death. As a result, there is no ceiling imposed by thereahties of the ageing process."There is no use-by-date when we age. Ageing is not a fixed biological process," Tom says.
A large study of people aged 85 and over carried out by Professor Kirkwood discovered that there were a remarkable number of people enjoying good health and independence in their late 80s and beyond. With people reaching old age in better shape, it is safe to assume that this is all due to better eating habits, living conditions, education and medicine.
There are still many people who suffer from major health problems, but modem medicine means doctors are better at managing long-term health conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease."We are reaching old age with less accumulative damage than previous generations. We are less damaged," says Professor Kirkwood. Our softer lives and the improvements in nutrition and healthcare have had a direct impact on longevity.
Nearly one-in-five people currently in the UK will live to see their lOOth birthday, the Office for National Statistics predicted last year. Life expectancy at birth has continued to increase in the UK--from 73.4 years for the period 1991 to 1993 to 77.85 years for 2007 to 2009. A report in Science from 2002 which looked at life expectancy patterns in different countries since 1840 concluded that there was no sign of a natural limit to life.
Researchers Jim Oeppen and Dr. James Vaupel found that people in the country with the highest life expectancy would live to an average age of 100 in about six decades. But they stoppedshort of predicting anything more.
"This is far from eternity: modest annual increments in life expectancy will never lead toimmortality," the researchers said.
We do not seem to be approaching anything like the limits of life expectancy, says Professor David Leon from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "There has been no flattening out of the best of the best--the groups which everyone knows have good life expectancy and low mortalit_y"he says.
These groups, which tend to be in the higher social and economic groups in society, can live for several years longer than people in lower social groups, prompting calls for an end to inequalities within societies.
Within populations, genes also have an important role to play in determining how long we could survive for---but environment is still the most important factor.
It is no surprise that healthy-living societies like Japan have the highest life expectancies in the world. But it would still be incredible to think that life expectancy could go on rising forever. "I would bet there will be further increases in life expectancy and then it will probably begin to slow," says Tom, "but we just donTt know."
Based on recent studies made by various scholars, which of the following factors plays afundamental role in man's longevity?
查看材料
A．Genes
B．Eating habits
C．Environment
D．Medical condition
考题
请阅读短文，完成此题。
Move over Methuselah. Future generations could be living well into their second century andstill doing Sudoku, if life expectancy predictions are true. Increasing by two years every decade,they show no signs of flattening out. Average lifespan worldwide is already double what it was 200years ago. Since the 1980s, experts thought the increase in life expectancy would slow down andthen stop, but forecasters have repeatedly been proved wrong.
The reason behind the steady rise in life expectancy is "the decline in the death rate of theelderly", says Professor Tom Kirkwood from Newcastle University. He maintains that our bodies areevolving to maintain and repair themselves better and our genes are investing in this process to putoff the damage which will eventually lead to death. As a result, there is no ceiling imposed by thereahties of the ageing process."There is no use-by-date when we age. Ageing is not a fixed biological process," Tom says.
A large study of people aged 85 and over carried out by Professor Kirkwood discovered that there were a remarkable number of people enjoying good health and independence in their late 80s and beyond. With people reaching old age in better shape, it is safe to assume that this is all due to better eating habits, living conditions, education and medicine.
There are still many people who suffer from major health problems, but modem medicine means doctors are better at managing long-term health conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease."We are reaching old age with less accumulative damage than previous generations. We are less damaged," says Professor Kirkwood. Our softer lives and the improvements in nutrition and healthcare have had a direct impact on longevity.
Nearly one-in-five people currently in the UK will live to see their lOOth birthday, the Office for National Statistics predicted last year. Life expectancy at birth has continued to increase in the UK--from 73.4 years for the period 1991 to 1993 to 77.85 years for 2007 to 2009. A report in Science from 2002 which looked at life expectancy patterns in different countries since 1840 concluded that there was no sign of a natural limit to life.
Researchers Jim Oeppen and Dr. James Vaupel found that people in the country with the highest life expectancy would live to an average age of 100 in about six decades. But they stoppedshort of predicting anything more.
"This is far from eternity: modest annual increments in life expectancy will never lead toimmortality," the researchers said.
We do not seem to be approaching anything like the limits of life expectancy, says Professor David Leon from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "There has been no flattening out of the best of the best--the groups which everyone knows have good life expectancy and low mortalit_y"he says.
These groups, which tend to be in the higher social and economic groups in society, can live for several years longer than people in lower social groups, prompting calls for an end to inequalities within societies.
Within populations, genes also have an important role to play in determining how long we could survive for---but environment is still the most important factor.
It is no surprise that healthy-living societies like Japan have the highest life expectancies in the world. But it would still be incredible to think that life expectancy could go on rising forever. "I would bet there will be further increases in life expectancy and then it will probably begin to slow," says Tom, "but we just donTt know."
The purpose of the prediction saying that future generations could be doing Sudoku when they are over 100 is to________.
查看材料
A．report that doing Sudoku is a healthy living style
B．prove that doing Sudoku helps people move to Methuselah
C．predict that future generations will like Sudoku since it is very popular now
D．indicate that future generations could remain smart and energetic even if they are over 100
考题
请阅读Passage l，完成第小题。
Passage 1
Move over Methuselah. Future generations could be living well into their second century and still doing Sudoku, if life expectancy predictions are true. Increasing by two years every decade,they show no signs of flattening out. Average lifespan worldwide is already double what it was 200 years ago. Since the 1980s, experts thought the increase in life expectancy would slow down and then stop, but forecasters have repeatedly been proved wrong.
The reason behind the steady rise in life expectancy is "the decline in the death rate of the elderly", says Professor Tom Kirkwood from Newcastle University. He maintains that our bodies are evolving to maintain and repair themselves better and our genes are investing in this process to put off the damage which will eventually lead to death. As a result, there is no ceiling imposed by the realities of the ageing process. "There is no use-by-date when we age. Ageing is not a fixed biological process," Tom says.
A large study of people aged 85 and over carried out by Professor Kirkwood discovered that there were a remarkable number of people enjoying good health and independence in their late 80s and beyond. With people reaching old age in better shape, it is safe to assume that this is all due to better eating habits, living conditions, education and medicine.
There are still many people who suffer from major health problems, but modern medicine means doctors are better at managing long-term health conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. "We are reaching old age with less accumulative damage than previous generations. We are less damaged," says Professor Kirkwood. Our softer lives and the improvements in nutrition and healthcare have had a direct impact on longevity.
Nearly one-in-five people currently in the UK will live to see their 100th birthday, the Office for National Statistics predicted last year. Life expectancy at birth has continued to increase in the UK--from 73.4 years for the period 1991 to 1993 to 77.85 years for 2007 to 2009. A report in Science from 2002 which looked at life expectancy patterns in different countries since 1840 concluded that there was no sign of a natural limit to life.
Researchers Jim Oeppen and Dr. James Vaupel found that people in the country with the highest life expectancy would live to an average age of 100 in about six decades. But they stopped short of predicting anything more.
"This is far from eternity: modest annual increments in life expectancy will never lead to immortality," the researchers said.
We do not seem to be approaching anything like the limits of life expectancy, says Professor David Leon from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "There has been no flattening out of the best of the best--the groups which everyone knows have good life expectancy and low mortality," he says.
These groups, which tend to be in the higher social and economic groups in society, can live for several years longer than people in lower social groups, prompting calls for an end to inequalities within societies.
Within populations, genes also have an important role to play in determining how long we could survive for--but environment is still the most important factor.
It is no surprise that healthy-living societies like Japan have the highest life expectancies in the world. But it would still be incredible to think that life expectancy could go on rising forever. "I would bet there will be further increases in life expectancy and then it will probably begin to slow," says Tom, "but we just don't know."
The underlined phrase "low mortality" in Paragraph 8 could best be replaced by“__________ ”.
查看材料
A．short life span
B．low death rate
C．low illness rate
D．good health condition
考题
请阅读Passage l，完成第小题。
Passage 1
Move over Methuselah. Future generations could be living well into their second century and still doing Sudoku, if life expectancy predictions are true. Increasing by two years every decade,they show no signs of flattening out. Average lifespan worldwide is already double what it was 200 years ago. Since the 1980s, experts thought the increase in life expectancy would slow down and then stop, but forecasters have repeatedly been proved wrong.
The reason behind the steady rise in life expectancy is "the decline in the death rate of the elderly", says Professor Tom Kirkwood from Newcastle University. He maintains that our bodies are evolving to maintain and repair themselves better and our genes are investing in this process to put off the damage which will eventually lead to death. As a result, there is no ceiling imposed by the realities of the ageing process. "There is no use-by-date when we age. Ageing is not a fixed biological process," Tom says.
A large study of people aged 85 and over carried out by Professor Kirkwood discovered that there were a remarkable number of people enjoying good health and independence in their late 80s and beyond. With people reaching old age in better shape, it is safe to assume that this is all due to better eating habits, living conditions, education and medicine.
There are still many people who suffer from major health problems, but modern medicine means doctors are better at managing long-term health conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. "We are reaching old age with less accumulative damage than previous generations. We are less damaged," says Professor Kirkwood. Our softer lives and the improvements in nutrition and healthcare have had a direct impact on longevity.
Nearly one-in-five people currently in the UK will live to see their 100th birthday, the Office for National Statistics predicted last year. Life expectancy at birth has continued to increase in the UK--from 73.4 years for the period 1991 to 1993 to 77.85 years for 2007 to 2009. A report in Science from 2002 which looked at life expectancy patterns in different countries since 1840 concluded that there was no sign of a natural limit to life.
Researchers Jim Oeppen and Dr. James Vaupel found that people in the country with the highest life expectancy would live to an average age of 100 in about six decades. But they stopped short of predicting anything more.
"This is far from eternity: modest annual increments in life expectancy will never lead to immortality," the researchers said.
We do not seem to be approaching anything like the limits of life expectancy, says Professor David Leon from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "There has been no flattening out of the best of the best--the groups which everyone knows have good life expectancy and low mortality," he says.
These groups, which tend to be in the higher social and economic groups in society, can live for several years longer than people in lower social groups, prompting calls for an end to inequalities within societies.
Within populations, genes also have an important role to play in determining how long we could survive for--but environment is still the most important factor.
It is no surprise that healthy-living societies like Japan have the highest life expectancies in the world. But it would still be incredible to think that life expectancy could go on rising forever. "I would bet there will be further increases in life expectancy and then it will probably begin to slow," says Tom, "but we just don't know."
Which statement below is TRUE concerning life expectancy according to the passage?
查看材料
A．Life expectancy goes on rising forever.
B．There could be further increases in life expectancy.
C．Life expectancy has slowed down since 1950s and it will stop.
D．Life expectancy in Japan doubles what it was 200 years ago.
考题
请阅读短文，完成此题。
Move over Methuselah. Future generations could be living well into their second century andstill doing Sudoku, if life expectancy predictions are true. Increasing by two years every decade,they show no signs of flattening out. Average lifespan worldwide is already double what it was 200years ago. Since the 1980s, experts thought the increase in life expectancy would slow down andthen stop, but forecasters have repeatedly been proved wrong.
The reason behind the steady rise in life expectancy is "the decline in the death rate of theelderly", says Professor Tom Kirkwood from Newcastle University. He maintains that our bodies areevolving to maintain and repair themselves better and our genes are investing in this process to putoff the damage which will eventually lead to death. As a result, there is no ceiling imposed by thereahties of the ageing process."There is no use-by-date when we age. Ageing is not a fixed biological process," Tom says.
A large study of people aged 85 and over carried out by Professor Kirkwood discovered that there were a remarkable number of people enjoying good health and independence in their late 80s and beyond. With people reaching old age in better shape, it is safe to assume that this is all due to better eating habits, living conditions, education and medicine.
There are still many people who suffer from major health problems, but modem medicine means doctors are better at managing long-term health conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease."We are reaching old age with less accumulative damage than previous generations. We are less damaged," says Professor Kirkwood. Our softer lives and the improvements in nutrition and healthcare have had a direct impact on longevity.
Nearly one-in-five people currently in the UK will live to see their lOOth birthday, the Office for National Statistics predicted last year. Life expectancy at birth has continued to increase in the UK--from 73.4 years for the period 1991 to 1993 to 77.85 years for 2007 to 2009. A report in Science from 2002 which looked at life expectancy patterns in different countries since 1840 concluded that there was no sign of a natural limit to life.
Researchers Jim Oeppen and Dr. James Vaupel found that people in the country with the highest life expectancy would live to an average age of 100 in about six decades. But they stoppedshort of predicting anything more.
"This is far from eternity: modest annual increments in life expectancy will never lead toimmortality," the researchers said.
We do not seem to be approaching anything like the limits of life expectancy, says Professor David Leon from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "There has been no flattening out of the best of the best--the groups which everyone knows have good life expectancy and low mortalit_y"he says.
These groups, which tend to be in the higher social and economic groups in society, can live for several years longer than people in lower social groups, prompting calls for an end to inequalities within societies.
Within populations, genes also have an important role to play in determining how long we could survive for---but environment is still the most important factor.
It is no surprise that healthy-living societies like Japan have the highest life expectancies in the world. But it would still be incredible to think that life expectancy could go on rising forever. "I would bet there will be further increases in life expectancy and then it will probably begin to slow," says Tom, "but we just donTt know."
Which statement below is TRUE concerning life expectancy according to the passage?
查看材料
A．Life expectancy goes on rising forever.
B．There could be further increases in life expectancy.
C．Life expectancy has slowed down since 1980s and it will stop.
D．Life expectancy in Japan doubles what it was 200 years ago.
考题
请阅读Passage l，完成第小题。
Passage 1
Move over Methuselah. Future generations could be living well into their second century and still doing Sudoku, if life expectancy predictions are true. Increasing by two years every decade,they show no signs of flattening out. Average lifespan worldwide is already double what it was 200 years ago. Since the 1980s, experts thought the increase in life expectancy would slow down and then stop, but forecasters have repeatedly been proved wrong.
The reason behind the steady rise in life expectancy is "the decline in the death rate of the elderly", says Professor Tom Kirkwood from Newcastle University. He maintains that our bodies are evolving to maintain and repair themselves better and our genes are investing in this process to put off the damage which will eventually lead to death. As a result, there is no ceiling imposed by the realities of the ageing process. "There is no use-by-date when we age. Ageing is not a fixed biological process," Tom says.
A large study of people aged 85 and over carried out by Professor Kirkwood discovered that there were a remarkable number of people enjoying good health and independence in their late 80s and beyond. With people reaching old age in better shape, it is safe to assume that this is all due to better eating habits, living conditions, education and medicine.
There are still many people who suffer from major health problems, but modern medicine means doctors are better at managing long-term health conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. "We are reaching old age with less accumulative damage than previous generations. We are less damaged," says Professor Kirkwood. Our softer lives and the improvements in nutrition and healthcare have had a direct impact on longevity.
Nearly one-in-five people currently in the UK will live to see their 100th birthday, the Office for National Statistics predicted last year. Life expectancy at birth has continued to increase in the UK--from 73.4 years for the period 1991 to 1993 to 77.85 years for 2007 to 2009. A report in Science from 2002 which looked at life expectancy patterns in different countries since 1840 concluded that there was no sign of a natural limit to life.
Researchers Jim Oeppen and Dr. James Vaupel found that people in the country with the highest life expectancy would live to an average age of 100 in about six decades. But they stopped short of predicting anything more.
"This is far from eternity: modest annual increments in life expectancy will never lead to immortality," the researchers said.
We do not seem to be approaching anything like the limits of life expectancy, says Professor David Leon from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "There has been no flattening out of the best of the best--the groups which everyone knows have good life expectancy and low mortality," he says.
These groups, which tend to be in the higher social and economic groups in society, can live for several years longer than people in lower social groups, prompting calls for an end to inequalities within societies.
Within populations, genes also have an important role to play in determining how long we could survive for--but environment is still the most important factor.
It is no surprise that healthy-living societies like Japan have the highest life expectancies in the world. But it would still be incredible to think that life expectancy could go on rising forever. "I would bet there will be further increases in life expectancy and then it will probably begin to slow," says Tom, "but we just don't know."
The underlined phrase "this process" in Paragraph 2 refers to __________process.
查看材料
A．the ageing
B．the body-evolving
C．the genes-repairing
D．the body's putting-off-damage
考题
When countries develop economically,people live longer lives.Development experts have long Delieved this is because having more money expands lifespan,but a massive new study suggests that education may play a bigger role.The finding has huge implications for public health spending.Back in 1975,economists plotted rising life expectancies against countries'wealth,and concluded that wealth itself increases longevity.It seemed self-evident:everything people need to be health from food to medical care--costs money But soon it emerged that the data didn't always fit that theory.Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives.In addition,for reasons that weren't clear,a given gain in gross domestic product（GDP）caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time,as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life.Me moreover,in the 1980s researchers found ga ins in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than gains in wealth were Finally,the more educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less educated compatriots.But such people also tend to be wealthier,so it has been difficult to untangle which factor is increasing lifespan Permanent change Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and colleagues have now done that by compiling average data on GDP per person,lifespans,and years of education from 174 countries,dating from 1970 to 2010 They found that,Just as in 1975,wealth correlated with longevity.But the correlation between longevity and years of schooling was closer,with a direct relationship that did not change over time way wealth does When the team put both these factors into the same mathematical model,they found that differences in education closely predicted differences in life expectancy,while changes in wealth barely mattered Lutz argues that because schooling happens many years before a person has attained their life expectancy,this correlation reflects cause:better education drives longer life.It also tends to lead to more wealh,which is why wealth and longevity are also correlated.But what is important,says Lutz,is that wealth does not seem to be driving longevity,as experts thought-in fact,education is driving both of them Lifestyle choices Some medical professionals may not like these findings,"says Lutz,as they suggest schools may be a better health investment than high-tech hospitals.But RudigerKrech at the World Health Organization welcomes the study."It confirms education as a major social determinant of health,"he says-aconcept WHO actively promotes.But if medical health experts welcome the findings,economists are less comfortable Sangheon Lee,at the UN International Labour Organisation in Geneva,Switzerland agrees education affects lifespan but doubts that simple models like Lutz's can fully resolve cause and effect."It's a very difficult econometric problem,"he says,with health,wealth and education all affecting each other But Lutz says that extreme examples are telling.Cuba is dead poor but has a higher life expectancy than the US because it is well educated.Meanwhile in oil-rich but poorly-educated Equatorial Guinea,people rarely reach 60
What does the word"plot"（Line 1,Para.2）mean?A.To make a secret plan to harm somebody
B.To make a diagram that shows how things develop
C.To suggest something as a plan or course of action
D.To mark the path of an aircraft or ship on a map
考题
When countries develop economically,people live longer lives.Development experts have long Delieved this is because having more money expands lifespan,but a massive new study suggests that education may play a bigger role.The finding has huge implications for public health spending.Back in 1975,economists plotted rising life expectancies against countries'wealth,and concluded that wealth itself increases longevity.It seemed self-evident:everything people need to be health from food to medical care--costs money But soon it emerged that the data didn't always fit that theory.Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives.In addition,for reasons that weren't clear,a given gain in gross domestic product（GDP）caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time,as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life.Me moreover,in the 1980s researchers found ga ins in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than gains in wealth were Finally,the more educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less educated compatriots.But such people also tend to be wealthier,so it has been difficult to untangle which factor is increasing lifespan Permanent change Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and colleagues have now done that by compiling average data on GDP per person,lifespans,and years of education from 174 countries,dating from 1970 to 2010 They found that,Just as in 1975,wealth correlated with longevity.But the correlation between longevity and years of schooling was closer,with a direct relationship that did not change over time way wealth does When the team put both these factors into the same mathematical model,they found that differences in education closely predicted differences in life expectancy,while changes in wealth barely mattered Lutz argues that because schooling happens many years before a person has attained their life expectancy,this correlation reflects cause:better education drives longer life.It also tends to lead to more wealh,which is why wealth and longevity are also correlated.But what is important,says Lutz,is that wealth does not seem to be driving longevity,as experts thought-in fact,education is driving both of them Lifestyle choices Some medical professionals may not like these findings,"says Lutz,as they suggest schools may be a better health investment than high-tech hospitals.But RudigerKrech at the World Health Organization welcomes the study."It confirms education as a major social determinant of health,"he says-aconcept WHO actively promotes.But if medical health experts welcome the findings,economists are less comfortable Sangheon Lee,at the UN International Labour Organisation in Geneva,Switzerland agrees education affects lifespan but doubts that simple models like Lutz's can fully resolve cause and effect."It's a very difficult econometric problem,"he says,with health,wealth and education all affecting each other But Lutz says that extreme examples are telling.Cuba is dead poor but has a higher life expectancy than the US because it is well educated.Meanwhile in oil-rich but poorly-educated Equatorial Guinea,people rarely reach 60
Which of the following is true according to the findings of Wolfgang Lutz?A.The correlation between longevity and wealth changes as time goes by
B.His findings are roughly the same as the research made in 1975.
C.Longevity is driven directly by both of one's education and wealth
D.Life expectancy can be accurately predicted by one s education.
考题
When countries develop economically,people live longer lives.Development experts have long Delieved this is because having more money expands lifespan,but a massive new study suggests that education may play a bigger role.The finding has huge implications for public health spending.Back in 1975,economists plotted rising life expectancies against countries'wealth,and concluded that wealth itself increases longevity.It seemed self-evident:everything people need to be health from food to medical care--costs money But soon it emerged that the data didn't always fit that theory.Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives.In addition,for reasons that weren't clear,a given gain in gross domestic product（GDP）caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time,as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life.Me moreover,in the 1980s researchers found ga ins in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than gains in wealth were Finally,the more educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less educated compatriots.But such people also tend to be wealthier,so it has been difficult to untangle which factor is increasing lifespan Permanent change Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and colleagues have now done that by compiling average data on GDP per person,lifespans,and years of education from 174 countries,dating from 1970 to 2010 They found that,Just as in 1975,wealth correlated with longevity.But the correlation between longevity and years of schooling was closer,with a direct relationship that did not change over time way wealth does When the team put both these factors into the same mathematical model,they found that differences in education closely predicted differences in life expectancy,while changes in wealth barely mattered Lutz argues that because schooling happens many years before a person has attained their life expectancy,this correlation reflects cause:better education drives longer life.It also tends to lead to more wealh,which is why wealth and longevity are also correlated.But what is important,says Lutz,is that wealth does not seem to be driving longevity,as experts thought-in fact,education is driving both of them Lifestyle choices Some medical professionals may not like these findings,"says Lutz,as they suggest schools may be a better health investment than high-tech hospitals.But RudigerKrech at the World Health Organization welcomes the study."It confirms education as a major social determinant of health,"he says-aconcept WHO actively promotes.But if medical health experts welcome the findings,economists are less comfortable Sangheon Lee,at the UN International Labour Organisation in Geneva,Switzerland agrees education affects lifespan but doubts that simple models like Lutz's can fully resolve cause and effect."It's a very difficult econometric problem,"he says,with health,wealth and education all affecting each other But Lutz says that extreme examples are telling.Cuba is dead poor but has a higher life expectancy than the US because it is well educated.Meanwhile in oil-rich but poorly-educated Equatorial Guinea,people rarely reach 60
The case of Cuba in the last paragraph is used toA.demonstrate that Cuba is a developing country with long life expectancy
B.show Cuba is a developing country and is often depicted as a very poor count
C.show that it ranks much better than most countries in Latin America in education
D.illustrate more education is what makes people live longer,not more money
考题
When countries develop economically,people live longer lives.Development experts have long Delieved this is because having more money expands lifespan,but a massive new study suggests that education may play a bigger role.The finding has huge implications for public health spending.Back in 1975,economists plotted rising life expectancies against countries'wealth,and concluded that wealth itself increases longevity.It seemed self-evident:everything people need to be health from food to medical care--costs money But soon it emerged that the data didn't always fit that theory.Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives.In addition,for reasons that weren't clear,a given gain in gross domestic product（GDP）caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time,as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life.Me moreover,in the 1980s researchers found ga ins in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than gains in wealth were Finally,the more educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less educated compatriots.But such people also tend to be wealthier,so it has been difficult to untangle which factor is increasing lifespan Permanent change Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and colleagues have now done that by compiling average data on GDP per person,lifespans,and years of education from 174 countries,dating from 1970 to 2010 They found that,Just as in 1975,wealth correlated with longevity.But the correlation between longevity and years of schooling was closer,with a direct relationship that did not change over time way wealth does When the team put both these factors into the same mathematical model,they found that differences in education closely predicted differences in life expectancy,while changes in wealth barely mattered Lutz argues that because schooling happens many years before a person has attained their life expectancy,this correlation reflects cause:better education drives longer life.It also tends to lead to more wealh,which is why wealth and longevity are also correlated.But what is important,says Lutz,is that wealth does not seem to be driving longevity,as experts thought-in fact,education is driving both of them Lifestyle choices Some medical professionals may not like these findings,"says Lutz,as they suggest schools may be a better health investment than high-tech hospitals.But RudigerKrech at the World Health Organization welcomes the study."It confirms education as a major social determinant of health,"he says-aconcept WHO actively promotes.But if medical health experts welcome the findings,economists are less comfortable Sangheon Lee,at the UN International Labour Organisation in Geneva,Switzerland agrees education affects lifespan but doubts that simple models like Lutz's can fully resolve cause and effect."It's a very difficult econometric problem,"he says,with health,wealth and education all affecting each other But Lutz says that extreme examples are telling.Cuba is dead poor but has a higher life expectancy than the US because it is well educated.Meanwhile in oil-rich but poorly-educated Equatorial Guinea,people rarely reach 60
Why did RudigerKrech support the findings of Wolfgang Lutz?A.Because it is identical to the notion of Who.
B.Because it is contrary to economists'concept.
C.Because it helps promote people’s longevity
D.Because it can fully revolve the cause and effect
考题
共用题干
Life Expectancy in the Last Hundred YearsA hundred years ago,life expectancy in developed countries was about 47;in the early 21 st century,men in the United States and the United Kingdom can expect to live to about 74,women to about 80, and these______(51)are rising all the time .What has brought______(52) these changes?When we look at the life______(53)of people 100 years ago,we need to look at the greatest______(54)of the time .In the early 20th century,these were the acute and of-ten______(55)infectious diseases such as smallpox.Many children died very young from these diseases and others,and the weak and elderly were always at risk.In the______(56)world these diseases are far______(57)today,and in some cases have almost disappcarcd.A number of______(58)have led to this:improvements in sanita- tion and hygiene,the discovery and use of antibiotics,which______(59)bacterial diseases much less dangerous,and vaccinations______(60)common diseases.______(61), people's general health has improved with improvements in our general environment:cleaner air,better means of preserving food,better and warmer housing,and better understanding of nutrition.Genetically,we should all be able to live to about 85 but______(62)people do live longer today,there are still some big killers around that are preventing us from consistently reaching that age .The problems that affect people today are the more chronic illnesses,such as heart disease and strokes,and those______(63)by viruses,such as influenza and AIDS.Of course,cancer is a huge killer as well.In most cases these diseases affect______(64)people,but there are worrying trends in the developed world with problems such as obesity______(65)more heart disease and illnesses such as diabetes at younger ages.The killers today can be classed as"lifestyle diseases",which means that it may be possiblem to halt their progress.56._________A: developedB: less developedC: undevelopedD: developing
考题
共用题干
第一篇Why So Many ChildrenIn many of the developing countries in Africa and Asia,the population is growing fast.The reason for this is simple.Women in these countries have a high birth rate一from 3.0 to 7.0 children per woman.The majority of these women are poor,without the food or resources to care for their families.Why do they have so many children?Why don't they limit the size of their families?There are several reasons for this.One reason is economic.In a traditional agricultural economy,large families are helpful.Having more children means having more workers in the fields and someone to take care of the parents in old age.In an industrial economy,the situation is different.Many children do not help a family;instead,they are an ex- pense.Thus,industrialization has generally brought down the birth rate.This was the case in Italy,which was industrialized quite recently and rapidly.In the early part of the twentieth century,Italy was a poor,largely agricultural country with a high birth rate.After World War II,Italy's economy was rapidly modernized and industrialized. By the end of the century,the birth rate had dropped to 1.3 children per woman,the world's lowest.However,the economy is not the only important factor that influences birth rate.Saudi Arabia,for exam- pie,does not have an agriculture-based economy,and it has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.Nevertheless,it also has a very high birth rate(7.0).Mexico and Indonesia,on the other hand,are poor countries,with largely agricultural economies,but they have recently reduced their population growth.Clearly,other factors are involved.The most important of these is the condition of women.A high birth rate almost always goes together with lack of education and low status for women.This would explain the high birth rate of Saudi Arabia.There,the traditional culture gives women little education or independence and few possibilities outside the home.On the other hand,the improved condition of women in Mexico,Thailand,and indonesia explains the decline in birth rates in these countries.Their governments have taken measures to provide more education and opportunities for women.Another key factor in the birth rate is birth control.Women may want to limit their families but have no way to do so.In countries where governments have made birth control easily available and inexpensive,birth rates have gone down.This is the case in Singapore,Sri Lanka,and India,as well as in Indonesia,Thailand, Mexico,and Brazil.In these countries,women have also been provided with health care and help in planning their families.These trends show that an effective program to reduce population growth does not have to de- pend on better economic conditions.When countries become industrialized,_________.A:the birth rate generally goes downB:families often become largerC:women usually decide not to have a familyD:the population generally grows rapidly
考题
共用题干
第一篇Why So Many ChildrenIn many of the developing countries in Africa and Asia,the population is growing fast.The reason for this is simple.Women in these countries have a high birth rate一from 3.0 to 7.0 children per woman.The majority of these women are poor,without the food or resources to care for their families.Why do they have so many children?Why don't they limit the size of their families?There are several reasons for this.One reason is economic.In a traditional agricultural economy,large families are helpful.Having more children means having more workers in the fields and someone to take care of the parents in old age.In an industrial economy,the situation is different.Many children do not help a family;instead,they are an ex- pense.Thus,industrialization has generally brought down the birth rate.This was the case in Italy,which was industrialized quite recently and rapidly.In the early part of the twentieth century,Italy was a poor,largely agricultural country with a high birth rate.After World War II,Italy's economy was rapidly modernized and industrialized. By the end of the century,the birth rate had dropped to 1.3 children per woman,the world's lowest.However,the economy is not the only important factor that influences birth rate.Saudi Arabia,for exam- pie,does not have an agriculture-based economy,and it has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.Nevertheless,it also has a very high birth rate(7.0).Mexico and Indonesia,on the other hand,are poor countries,with largely agricultural economies,but they have recently reduced their population growth.Clearly,other factors are involved.The most important of these is the condition of women.A high birth rate almost always goes together with lack of education and low status for women.This would explain the high birth rate of Saudi Arabia.There,the traditional culture gives women little education or independence and few possibilities outside the home.On the other hand,the improved condition of women in Mexico,Thailand,and indonesia explains the decline in birth rates in these countries.Their governments have taken measures to provide more education and opportunities for women.Another key factor in the birth rate is birth control.Women may want to limit their families but have no way to do so.In countries where governments have made birth control easily available and inexpensive,birth rates have gone down.This is the case in Singapore,Sri Lanka,and India,as well as in Indonesia,Thailand, Mexico,and Brazil.In these countries,women have also been provided with health care and help in planning their families.These trends show that an effective program to reduce population growth does not have to de- pend on better economic conditions.Saudi Arabia is mentioned because it shows that_________.A:the most important factor influencing birth rate is the economyB:women who have a high income usually have few childrenC:the birth rate depends on per capita incomeD:factors other than the economy influence birth rate
考题
共用题干
Why So Many ChildrenIn many of the developing countries in Africa and Asia,the population is growing fast.The reason for this is simple:Women in these countries have a high birth rate—from 3 .0 to 7.0 chil-dren per woman.The majority of these women are poor,without the food or resources to care for their families .Why do they have so many children?Why don't they limit the size of their fami-lies?The answer may be that they often have no choice.There are several reasons for this.One reason is economic .In a traditional agricultural economy,large families are helpful. Having more children means having more workers in the fields and someone to take care of the parents in old age.In an industrial economy,the situation is different.Many children do not help a family;instead,they are an expense.Thus,industrialization has generally brought down the birth rate .This was the case in Italy,which was industrialized quite recently and rapidly.In the early part of the twentieth century,Italy was a poor,largely agricultural country with a high birth rate .After World War Ⅱ,Italy's economy was rapidly modernized and industrialized.By the end of the century,the birth rate had dropped to 1.3 children per woman,the world's lowest.However,the economy is not the only important factor that influences birth rate.Saudi Ara-bia,for example,does not have an agriculture-based economy,and it has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.Nevertheless,it also has a very high birth rate(7.0).Mexico and Indonesia,on the other hand,are poor countries,with largely agricultural economies,but they have recently reduced their population growth.Clearly,other factors are involved.The most important of these is the condition of women.A high birth rate almost always goes together with lack of education and low status for women.Thiswould explain the high birth rate of Saudi Arabia .There,the traditional culture gives women little education or independence and few possibilities outside the home.On the other hand,the im-proved condition of women in Mexico,Thailand,and Indonesia explains the decline in birth rates in these countries.Their governments have taken measures to provide more education and oppotunities for women.Another key factor in the birth rate is birth control.Women may want to limit their families but have no way to do so．In countries where governments have made birth control easily available and inexpensive,birth rates have gone down.This is the case in Singapore,Sri Lanka,and India，as well as in Indonesia,Thailand,Mexico,and Brazil.In these countries,women have also been provided with health care and help in planning their families．These trends show that an effective program to reduce population growth does not have to de-pend on better economic conditions.It can be effective if it aims to help women and meet their needs .Only then,in fact,does it have any real chance of success． Saudi Arabia is mentioned in the passage because it shows that____.A: the most important factor influencing birth rate is the economyB: factors other than the economy influence birth rateC: women who have a high income usually have few childrenD: the birth rate depends on per capita income
考题
共用题干
第一篇Why So Many ChildrenIn many of the developing countries in Africa and Asia,the population is growing fast.The reason for this is simple.Women in these countries have a high birth rate一from 3.0 to 7.0 children per woman.The majority of these women are poor,without the food or resources to care for their families.Why do they have so many children?Why don't they limit the size of their families?There are several reasons for this.One reason is economic.In a traditional agricultural economy,large families are helpful.Having more children means having more workers in the fields and someone to take care of the parents in old age.In an industrial economy,the situation is different.Many children do not help a family;instead,they are an ex- pense.Thus,industrialization has generally brought down the birth rate.This was the case in Italy,which was industrialized quite recently and rapidly.In the early part of the twentieth century,Italy was a poor,largely agricultural country with a high birth rate.After World War II,Italy's economy was rapidly modernized and industrialized. By the end of the century,the birth rate had dropped to 1.3 children per woman,the world's lowest.However,the economy is not the only important factor that influences birth rate.Saudi Arabia,for exam- pie,does not have an agriculture-based economy,and it has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.Nevertheless,it also has a very high birth rate(7.0).Mexico and Indonesia,on the other hand,are poor countries,with largely agricultural economies,but they have recently reduced their population growth.Clearly,other factors are involved.The most important of these is the condition of women.A high birth rate almost always goes together with lack of education and low status for women.This would explain the high birth rate of Saudi Arabia.There,the traditional culture gives women little education or independence and few possibilities outside the home.On the other hand,the improved condition of women in Mexico,Thailand,and indonesia explains the decline in birth rates in these countries.Their governments have taken measures to provide more education and opportunities for women.Another key factor in the birth rate is birth control.Women may want to limit their families but have no way to do so.In countries where governments have made birth control easily available and inexpensive,birth rates have gone down.This is the case in Singapore,Sri Lanka,and India,as well as in Indonesia,Thailand, Mexico,and Brazil.In these countries,women have also been provided with health care and help in planning their families.These trends show that an effective program to reduce population growth does not have to de- pend on better economic conditions.In Mexico,as in Thailand and Indonesia,the government_________.A:is not concerned about the status of womenB:has tried to improve the condition of womenC:has tried to industrialize the country rapidly D:does not allow women to work outside the home
考题
共用题干
第一篇Why So Many ChildrenIn many of the developing countries in Africa and Asia,the population is growing fast.The reason for this is simple.Women in these countries have a high birth rate一from 3.0 to 7.0 children per woman.The majority of these women are poor,without the food or resources to care for their families.Why do they have so many children?Why don't they limit the size of their families?There are several reasons for this.One reason is economic.In a traditional agricultural economy,large families are helpful.Having more children means having more workers in the fields and someone to take care of the parents in old age.In an industrial economy,the situation is different.Many children do not help a family;instead,they are an ex- pense.Thus,industrialization has generally brought down the birth rate.This was the case in Italy,which was industrialized quite recently and rapidly.In the early part of the twentieth century,Italy was a poor,largely agricultural country with a high birth rate.After World War II,Italy's economy was rapidly modernized and industrialized. By the end of the century,the birth rate had dropped to 1.3 children per woman,the world's lowest.However,the economy is not the only important factor that influences birth rate.Saudi Arabia,for exam- pie,does not have an agriculture-based economy,and it has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.Nevertheless,it also has a very high birth rate(7.0).Mexico and Indonesia,on the other hand,are poor countries,with largely agricultural economies,but they have recently reduced their population growth.Clearly,other factors are involved.The most important of these is the condition of women.A high birth rate almost always goes together with lack of education and low status for women.This would explain the high birth rate of Saudi Arabia.There,the traditional culture gives women little education or independence and few possibilities outside the home.On the other hand,the improved condition of women in Mexico,Thailand,and indonesia explains the decline in birth rates in these countries.Their governments have taken measures to provide more education and opportunities for women.Another key factor in the birth rate is birth control.Women may want to limit their families but have no way to do so.In countries where governments have made birth control easily available and inexpensive,birth rates have gone down.This is the case in Singapore,Sri Lanka,and India,as well as in Indonesia,Thailand, Mexico,and Brazil.In these countries,women have also been provided with health care and help in planning their families.These trends show that an effective program to reduce population growth does not have to de- pend on better economic conditions.italy today is an example of an_________.A:agricultural country with a high birth rateB:agricultural country with a low birth rateC:industrialized country with a low birth rateD:industrialized country with a high birth rate
考题
共用题干
第三篇Global Cancer Rates to Rise by 50% by 2020The number of new cancer cases worldwide is expected to increase by 50%by the year 2020.But a new report suggests that as many as a third of new cancers could be avoided by adopting healthier lifestyles and through public health action.The World Cancer Report,released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer,shows that cancer has now emerged as a major public health threat in developing countries as well as rich ones.Overall,cancer was responsible for 12%of all deaths in 2000.But in many countries more than a quarter of all deaths are caused by cancer.The report shows that 1 0 million new cancers were diagnosed globally in 2000,and that number is expected to rise to 15 million by 2020.Researchers say most of that increase will mainly be due to steadily aging populations in both developed and developing countries and current trends in smoking and other unhealthy habits."Cancer has emerged as a major public health problem in developing countries for the first time, matching its effect in industrialized（工业化的）countries , " said researcher Paul Kleihues,MD,director of IARC,in a news release."Once considered a'Western' disease,the Report highlights that more than 50 percent of the world's cancer burden,in terms of both numbers of cases and deaths,already occurs in developing countries."The risk of being diagnosed with cancer in developed countries is double that in less-developed ones.However,the risk of dying from cancer is much higher in developing countries , where 80% of cancer patients already have late-stage incurable tumors（肿瘤） at the time of diagnosis.Researchers say cancer rates have traditionally been higher in developed countries due to greater exposure to tobacco,occupational carcinogens（致癌物）,and an unhealthy Western diet and lifestyle.As less-developed countries become industrialized and more prosperous,they tend to adopt the high-fat diet and low physical activity levels typically seen in the West,which increase cancer rates. The risk of dying from cancer in developed countries isA:double that in developing countries.B:much higher than that in developing countries.C:the same as that in developing countries.D:much lower than that in developing countries.
考题
共用题干
Need for Emphasis on TreatmentAIDS programs in developing countries put too little emphasis on treatment,the World Health Organization said Tuesday,asking for more small community-based clinics to be opened to treat HIV-infected people?An estimated 36 million to 46 million people are living with AIDS,two-thirds of them in Africa,but only 440,000 people in developing countries were receiving treatment by the end of 2003,the UN health agency said in its annual report."Without treatment,all of them will die a premature and in most cases painful death,"the WHO said in the? 169-page World Health Report.WHO Director General Lee Jong-wook said community-based treatment should be added to disease pre-vention and care for sufferers in AIDS programs."Future generations will judge our time in large part by our response to the AIDS disease,"Lee said."By tackling it decisively we will also be building health systems that can meet the health needs of today and tomorrow.This is a historic opportunity we cannot afford to miss,"he added.Antiretroviral drugs enable people hit by AIDS to live longer.The annual cost of treatment,which was about$10,000 when the drugs were first developed,has dropped to about$150.Treatment programs also help AIDS prevention efforts,the report said,citing great demands for testing and counseling where treatment has been made available.Good counseling in turn leads to more effective prevention in those who are uninfected,and significantly reduces the potential for HIV carriers to pass on the infection,the report said.Since its discovery in the l980s,more than 20 million have died of AIDS,mostly in poor countries?Which is true of many AIDS sufferers in developing countries?A:They put too little emphasis on treatment.B:They are not receiving any treatment.C:They refuse to be treated.D:They live longer than those in developed countries.
考题
共用题干
第二篇Need for Emphasis on TreatmentAIDS programs in developing countries put too little emphasis on treatment,the World Health Organization said Tuesday,asking for more small community-based clinics to be opened to treat HIV-infected people.An estimated 36 million to 46 million people are living with AIDS,two-thirds of them in Africa,but only 440,000 people in developing countries were receiving treatment by the end of 2003,the UN health agency said in its annual report."Without treatment,all of them will die a premature and in most cases painful death,"the WHO said in the 169-page World Health Report.WHO Director General Lee Jong-wook said community-based treatment should be added to disease pre- vention and care for sufferers in AIDS programs."Future generations will judge our time in large part by our response to the AIDS disease,"Lee said. "By tackling it decisively we will also be building health systems that can meet the health needs oftoday and tomorrow. This is a historic opportunity we cannot afford to miss,"he added.Antiretroviral drugs enable people hit by AIDS to live longer. The annual cost of treatment,which was about $10,000 when the drugs were first developed,has dropped to about$150.Treatment programs also help AIDS prevention efforts,the report said,citing great demands for testing and counseling where treatment has been made available.Good counseling in turn leads to more effective prevention in those who are uninfected,and significantly reduces the potential for HIV carriers to pass on the infection,the report said.Since its discovery in the 1980s,more than 20 million have died of AIDS,mostly in poor countries.Which is true of many AIDS sufferers in developing countries?A:They put too little emphasis on treatment.B:They are not receiving any treatment.C:They refuse to be treated.D:They live longer than those in developed countries.
考题
单选题The sentence “Our planet has shrunk” underlined in Paragraph 1 means that.A
the earth has become physically smallerB
the more advanced ways of traveling has made the distance between countries shorterC
the traditional concept of our planet has become out-of-dateD
modern means of communication has made it much easier for people to communicate with each other from different parts of the world
考题
单选题The sentence “Our planet has shrunk” underlined in Paragraph 1 means that __________.A
the earth has become physically smallerB
the more advanced ways of traveling has made the distance between countries shorterC
the traditional concept of our planet has become out-of-dateD
modern means of communication has made it much easier for people to communicate with each other from different parts of the world
考题
单选题Which of the following statements is true about Japan?A
It has a very short life-expectancy on average.B
It has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world.C
Young people want to have more children.D
The number of young people fit for work is decreasing.
考题
单选题What does the world bank study show?A
The use of tobacco results in a global net loss of US $200 billion per year in the developing world.B
Economic loss caused by tobacco in the developing countries equals that of the developed countries.C
Huge amount of economic loss has been incurred by closing down tobacco factories in the developing countries.D
The use of tobacco results in a global net loss of US $200 billion per year, but it does not affect the quality of life of smokers or their families.
考题
单选题The proportion of older people _____.A
is bigger in developed countries than in developing countriesB
is one-seventh of the population in developing countriesC
will increase much faster in China than in FranceD
will be sixty percent in developing countries by 2020
热门标签
最新试卷
