A) Patients should control the working hours of their doctors.

B) Pilots and truck drivers work in safer environments than that of doctors’.

C) Patients are facing more risks if their doctors are not adequately-rested.

D) People concerned have the right to remove their doctors from their positions.





篇章剖析


本篇文章采用提出问题—分析问题—解决问题的模式指出了医生睡眠不足会带来的危害以及解决办法。第一段说明了睡眠对人的影响；第二段指出了医生睡眠不足的问题以及医生对此的态度；第三段至第四段以两个事例说明医生睡眠不足可能带来的危害；第四段介绍了政府针对这一问题所采取的措施以及医生对此的反应；最后一段分别对病人、相关人员及医生提出建议。





词汇注释


underlying /ˈʌndəˈlaɪɪŋ/ adj. 潜在的，隐晦的

resident /ˈrezɪdənt/ n. 住院医生

deprived /dɪˈpraɪvd/ adj. 缺乏的，不足的

neurosurgeon /ˌnjʊərəʊˈsɜːdʒən/ n. 神经外科医生

intoxicated /ɪnˈtɒksɪkeɪtɪd/ adj. 醉酒的

dismissal /dɪsˈmɪsəl/ n. 免职，解雇

anonymous /əˈnɒnɪməs/ adj. 匿名的

Turnpike /ˈtɜːnˌpaɪk/ n. 〈美〉 收费公路，收通行税的公路

provision /prəˈvɪʒən/ n. 规定；条款

staffer /ˈstɑːfə/ n. 职员

infallibility /ɪnˌfæləˈbɪlɪti/ n. 绝无错误，绝对可靠





难句突破


① A study out of the University of Buffalo last month reported that people who routinely sleep more than eight hours a day and are still tired are nearly three times as likely to die of stroke—probably as a result of an underlying disorder that keeps them from snoozing soundly.

主体句式：A study reported that...

结构分析：本句是个复杂长句，包含一个宾语从句（reported之后由that引导），两个定语从句（who引导的修饰people的从句和that引导的修饰disorder的从句），一个比较结构的省略形式（three times as likely to...）和一个容易理解错误的动词短语keep... from...。

句子译文：上个月由布法罗大学所做的一项研究显示那些每天习惯睡八个小时以上但仍然感觉疲劳的人死于中风的危险是普通人的近三倍——也许这是一种潜在的紊乱导致的结果，正是这种紊乱才让他们难以安睡。

② Curiously, surgeons who believe that operating under the influence is the reason for dismissal often don’t think twice about operating without enough sleep.

主体句式：Surgeons don’t think twice.

结构分析：本句涉及定语从句（who引导的修饰surgeons的从句），宾语从句（believe后面由that引导的从句），和一个英语习语think twice about something以及容易引起歧义的介词without。

句子译文：令人好奇的是，那些认为酒后作业应该被免职的外科医生却很少认真思考在睡眠不足的情况下操刀手术的后果。





题目分析


1. B 推理题。从第一段最后一句话中的“probably as a result of an underlying disorder that keeps them from snoozing soundly”可以看出潜在的紊乱可能导致人们睡眠质量不高，虽然睡眠时间长，但仍然感到疲惫。因此B项是正确的。

2. C 推理题。文章第二段最后一句话说医生们虽然认为醉酒后给病人做手术应该受到严惩，但对于在睡眠不足的情况下做手术却并不“think twice”。由此可见C是正确的。

3. D 细节题。文章第二段指出医生睡眠不足以及医生对此缺乏重视的问题，紧接着就在第三、四段里举了几个例子：医生的脸差点碰到伤口，医生开车时趴在方向盘上睡着、撞车或撞到公路收费站栏杆等。可见这些例子是要说明睡眠不足可能带来的危害。

4. B 语义题。对于政府制定法规解决医生睡眠不足的问题，文章第五段第三句说“Most doctors, however, resist such interference”，并进一步引用Charles Binkley医生的话进行论证，可见Charles Binkley也认为政府干预过多了。所以应该选择B。

5. C 细节题。文章在最后给医生提出建议，认为医生应该改正认为他们绝不出错的态度，得到充足的休息，否则“patients are on their own”，病人就只能听天由命了。由此可见C是正确答案。





参考译文


睡眠是一件有趣的事情。我们被教导每晚要睡七八个小时，但我们很多人并没有睡够这个时间却依然身体健康，而我们中的一些人实际上睡得过多。上个月由布法罗大学所做的一项研究显示，那些每天习惯睡八个小时以上但仍然感觉疲劳的人死于中风的危险是普通人的近三倍——也许这是一种潜在的紊乱导致的结果，正是这种紊乱才让他们难以安睡。

医生们也有自己特殊的睡眠问题。住院医生以缺少睡眠而著称。我在受训成为一名神经外科医生的时候，时常会连续工作40个小时。我们大多数人对此不以为意，自信我们仍然能够给病人提供最高质量的医疗护理。也许我们不应该对自己这么自信。《美国医学会杂志》上刊登的一篇文章指出，一个人如果连续24小时不睡，那么到了早晨，他的运动能力就和那些饮酒后酒精浓度超标的人差不多。令人好奇的是，那些认为醉酒后做手术应该被免职的外科医生却很少认真思考在睡眠不足的情况下操刀手术的后果。

“我可以告诉你一些恐怖的故事，”美国医学生学会主席杰雅·阿格拉瓦说。阿格拉瓦经营着一个网站，住院医生们可以在那里匿名留言，讲一些奇闻轶事。有一些故事非常可怕。“我当时在做手术，已经有36个小时没有睡觉了，”其中一人写道。“我差不多站着睡着了，而且我的脸几乎碰到了伤口。”

“实际上我认识的每个外科住院医生都曾经有过在下班开车回家的路上趴在方向盘上睡着的经历，”另一人写道。“我听说有三个人还曾经撞在停放好的汽车上。另一个人在纽约收费公路上行驶时以65英里的时速撞上了一个收费站栏杆。”“你自己的病人都成了敌人，”第三个人写道，因为“是他们使你无缘几个小时的睡眠。”

阿格拉瓦的组织支持由密歇根众议员约翰·科尼尔斯去年11月提出的“2001年病人和医生安全保护规定”。该规定模仿纽约州的法规，其关键规定包括一周工作80小时，最多24小时轮一次班等。不过，大多数医生讨厌这种干涉。查尔斯·宾克利是密歇根大学的一位资深住院外科医生，他也认为需要采取一些措施，但在他看来“医生应该受到个人良心的约束，而不是政府的管制。”

在美国，飞行员和卡车司机的工作时间都有着严格的控制。但除非也给医生们制定这样一套规定，否则病人就得听天由命了。如果你担心给你或你爱的人治病的人，你可以大胆问他们每天睡几个小时，可不可以找到休息得更好的职员。对医生来说，他们不能继续摆出一副从不出错的样子，而应该得到必要的休息。





Unit 90


Watching a child struggle to breathe during an asthma attack is frightening for any parent. So it is only natural that most moms and dads will try just about anything—including spending a lot of money—to keep an attack at bay. Trouble is, more than half of parents are trying strategies that simply don’t work and wasting hundreds of dollars in the process, according to a study published last week in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

The report, based on interviews with the parents of 896 asthmatic children in 10 different cities, contained some good news. Eighty percent of parents had a handle on at least one of the triggers that worsened their children’s asthma. After that, however, many parents seemed to go astray, taking precautions that weren’t helpful “and made little sense,” according to Dr. Michael Cabana, a pediatrician at the University of Michigan’s C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, who led the study.

One of the most common mistakes was to buy a mattress cover to protect against dust mites for a child whose asthma was exacerbated instead by plant pollen. Many of those parents then neglected to do what would have helped a lot more: shut the windows to keep pollen out. Another was using a humidifier for a child who was allergic to dust mites; a humidifier tends to be a place where dust mites like to breed. With those allergies, a dehumidifier works better.

Worst of all was the number of smokers with asthmatic children who didn’t even try to quit or at least limit themselves to smoking outdoors rather than just moving to another room or the garage. Second-hand smoke has been proved, over and over again, to be a major trigger of asthma attacks. Many smoking parents purchased expensive air filters that have what Cabana called “questionable utility.”

Part of the problem, Dr. Cabana and his colleagues believe, is that parents are bombarded by television ads that encourage them to buy products such as air and carpet fresheners, ionizers and other remedies that are often expensive but medically unnecessary. And doctors may not always take the time, or have the time, to explain to parents what will and won’t work in their child’s particular case. For example, allergies are usually a problem for older children with asthma, while kids 5 and younger more frequently have trouble with viral respiratory infections. So make sure you understand what’s really triggering your child’s asthma. And remember, the best solutions are not always the most expensive ones.

注（1）：本文选自Time；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2004年真题Text 1。



1. What does the study by Dr. Michael Cabana indicate?

A) Parents are eager to cure their children’s disease.

B) Many parents are wasting money for their children’s frightening disease.

C) Many parents fail to find the effective way for their children’s disease.

D) Parents feel worried about their children’s disease.

2. Which of the following is NOT the trigger of asthma attacks?

A) Humidifier.

B) Second-hand smoke.

C) Plant pollen.

D) Dust mites.

3. The expression “to keep an attack at bay” （Line 3, Paragraph 1） most probably means ______.

A) to ease the attack

B) to lessen the attack

C) to continue the attack

D) to prevent the attack

4. Why are the parents in such a dilemma?

A) The doctors are not responsible enough.

B) Parents are influenced much by ads.

C) Parents are ignorant of the disease.

D) The quality of medical products is not good.

5. Which of the following is TRUE according to the text?

A) Parents shouldn’t spend too much money on the children.

B) The expensive products are not always good.

C) To know the real trigger of the disease is very important.

D) Parents often make mistakes.





篇章剖析


本文采用提出问题—说明问题—分析问题的模式，指出哮喘病患儿的家长在防治哮喘方面存在的问题及错误。第一段提出有关哮喘病的一项研究成果；第二段进一步补充第一段的论点，指出很多家长对孩子的病情无计可施这一现象；第三段和第四段指出家长的错误做法；第五段分析其原因并提出建议。





词汇注释


asthma /ˈæsmə;(US)ˈæzmə/ n. 【医】哮喘

keep at bay阻止；挡住

allergy /ˈælədʒi/ n. 【医】敏感症；〈口〉反感

immunology /ɪmjuːˈnɒlədʒi/ n. 【生】免疫学

have a handle on理解，明白

trigger /ˈtrɪgə(r)/ n. 能引起反应的刺激物

go astray 误入迷途

pediatrician /ˌpiːdɪəˈtrɪʃən/ n. 儿科医师

dust mite 尘螨

humidifier /hjuːmɪdɪˈfaɪə(r)/ n. 加湿器

allergic /əˈlɜːdʒɪk/ adj. 【医】过敏的，患过敏症的

bombard /bɒmˈbɑːd/ vt. 炮轰；轰击；攻击；质问

ionizer /ˈaɪənaɪzə/ n. 离子发生器

respiratory /rɪˈspɪrətəri;(US)-tɔːri/ adj. 呼吸的





难句突破


Part of the problem, Dr. Cabana and his colleagues believe, is that parents are bombarded by television ads that encourage them to buy products such as air and carpet fresheners, ionizers and other remedies that are often expensive but medically unnecessary.

主体句式：Part of the problem is that...

结构分析：本句有一个表语从句。句子主语是part of the problem，Dr. Cabana and his colleagues believe是插入语，that引导表语从句；在从句中，又有that引导的定语从句修饰ads；在定语从句中又有that引导的定语从句修饰remedies。

句子译文：卡巴娜博士和他的同事认为，部分问题在于家长经不住电视广告的狂轰滥炸。这些电视广告怂恿他们购买那些往往昂贵却没有医疗效果的产品，比如空气和地毯清洁剂、离子发生器和其他一些药品。





题目分析


1. C 推理题。原文对应信息是首段的“Trouble is, more than half of parents are trying strategies that simply don’t work and wasting hundreds of dollars in the process.”在第二段中，作者又进一步论证了这一点，指出家长采取的预防措施是“ weren’t helpful ‘and made little sense’”。

2. A 细节题。文章第三段提到了两种过敏源：尘螨和花粉；第四段提到的过敏源是二手烟；加湿器不是过敏源，而是在某种情况下会为过敏源提供滋生地，从而诱发哮喘。

3. D 语义题。本文开头第一、二句为因果关系。第一句提到“Watching a child struggle to breathe during an asthma attack is frightening for any parent. ”那么家长为了避免孩子哮喘病发作想尽一切办法甚至花费大笔钱财的做法是再自然不过的了。根据短语所在的语境可猜出语义。

4. B 细节题。原文对应信息是“Part of the problem is that parents are bombarded by television ads that encourage them to buy products such as... that are often expensive but medically unnecessary.”做父母的爱子心切，只要是对孩子的病情有用的东西真是不惜一切代价弄到。广告的强大攻势更是对父母产生了较强的影响，加之对孩子的病情又不是特别了解，从而丧失了判断力。

5. C 细节题。原文对应信息是末段的“So make sure you understand what’s really triggering your child’s asthma.”





参考译文


对每一位家长来说，看到自己的孩子哮喘病发作而挣扎着呼吸真是令人胆战心惊。因此，大多数父母想尽一切办法甚至不惜花费大笔钱财来预防其子女哮喘病发作的做法也就再自然不过了。但问题是，有一多半父母采取的应对措施并没有发挥效应，他们只是在浪费大把的钱财——这个结论是依据上周出版的《过敏症和临床免疫学》杂志上刊载的一项研究结果得出来的。

这篇报道采访了10个不同城市的896名哮喘患儿的父母，其中还是有好消息的。80%的父母至少知道一种使孩子病情恶化的诱因。但是，除此以外，很多家长就无计可施了，采取的预防措施帮助不大，“而且毫无道理”，迈克尔·卡巴纳博士如是说。他是牵头这一研究的密歇根大学C. S. Mott儿童医院的儿科医生。

其中一种最为常见的错误就是为由于植物花粉过敏而导致哮喘病加重的孩子购买床褥保护套去抵挡尘螨的侵扰。很多家长忘记了一个更为有效的办法：关紧窗户，避免花粉干扰。另一种常见错误就是为对尘螨过敏的孩子购买加湿器；殊不知加湿器是尘螨最易于繁殖的地方。对于这类过敏症，使用干燥器作用会更大些。

最糟糕的一种情况是家有患哮喘病的孩子，可抽烟的家长不但不戒烟，还不到外面抽，也不换个房间或到车库去抽。吸二手烟一次又一次地被证实是哮喘病发作的主要诱因。很多抽烟的家长不惜花大价钱购买被卡巴纳称为“值得怀疑的器具”的空气过滤器。

卡巴纳博士和他的同事认为，部分问题在于家长经不住电视广告的狂轰滥炸。这些电视广告怂恿他们购买那些往往昂贵却没有医疗效果的产品，比如空气和地毯清洁剂、离子发生器和其他一些药品。医生可能也不会花时间，或者说有时间去向父母解释对于孩子的具体病例什么有用、什么没用。比如说，大龄哮喘病儿童患者通常是过敏症，而五岁或五岁以下的儿童常常是病毒性呼吸道感染疾病。所以你一定得弄清楚孩子患哮喘病的真正诱因，并且记住，花钱最多的办法并不一定就是最好的办法。





Unit 91


IF YOU’RE CONFUSED BY ALL the news about the health effects of eating fish, you’re not alone. On one hand, the omega-3 fatty acids in fish are known to reduce the risk of heart disease, as the American Heart Association reminded us two weeks ago when it restated its recommendation that everybody eat at least two fish servings a week. On the other hand, fish that live in contaminated waterways contain high levels of mercury, which can lead to cognitive problems in developing brains. That’s why pregnant women and nursing mothers are advised to limit their consumption.

As if that weren’t confusing enough, two new studies published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine investigated the possible effects of mercury on the heart, and they seem to have reached contradictory conclusions. One found no clear link between mercury levels and heart disease; the other found that men with high levels of mercury in their toenails were more likely to suffer a heart attack than those with low levels. What are we to make of this? The first thing to remember is that this is how science proceeds, by fits and starts and seemingly contradictory results that get resolved only by further study. The second is that not all fish are created equal.

Compared with all the other things you might eat, fish are an excellent source of protein. They tend to eat algae as part of their natural life cycle, converting it into omega-3 fatty acids that can improve your cholesterol profile. But it’s also true that our waterways have become increasingly contaminated with all sorts of pollutants, including mercury, and that these pollutants tend to accumulate at different levels in different species. The fish most at risk are predators high in the pelagic food chain, such as swordfish and sharks.

It was to test the effects of mercury on the heart that the two new studies compared the mercury levels in clippings from toenails, where heavy metals tend to be deposited. In one study, researchers led by Dr. Eliseo Guallar at Johns Hopkins found that European and Israeli men with the highest mercury levels were nearly 2.2 times as likely to have a heart attack as those with the lowest levels. The other study, led by Dr. Walter Willett at the Harvard School of Public Health, looked at a selection of American men and found no connection between mercury exposure and risk of heart disease, although Willett told me a “weak association” cannot be ruled out.

For most of us, eating two servings of fish a week should not pose any problems. Guallar, who hails from coastal Spain, continues to flavor his paella with salmon, which has negligible mercury levels. Willett eats swordfish only about twice a month—because of its expense, not any fear of mercury. Fish-oil supplements are high in omega-3 fatty acids and probably don’t contain as much mercury as whole fish. But they don’t taste nearly as good.

注（1）：本文选自Time；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2005真题Text 1。



1. In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by ______.

A) making a comparison

B) justifying an assumption

C) posing a contrast

D) explaining a phenomenon

2. The phrase “by fits and starts”（Line 6, Paragraph 2）most probably means ______.

A) something happens smoothly

B) something keeps starting and then stops again