Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.

思考题：

An argument made by supporters of smoking was that ________.

[A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death

[B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant

[C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life

[D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense

词汇突破：

1. correlation 联系

2. nonsense 胡说八道

3. argument 论点 (一些语境下也可以是论据;)

4. inconclusive 无定论的，不确定的，没有说服力的;

5. lobby 游说团体

6. buy 相信

题干中的定位词有两点很关键：

1. argument：这个说明需要找观点;

2. supporters of smoking 这个词说明需要找谁的观点;

句：(第三个小分句是符合题干定位要求的句子)

Do you remember all those years/when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure?

切分：

1. Do you remember all those years?

还记得那些日子吗?

2. when scientists argued that smoking would kill us.

科学家认为吸烟会杀了我们。

3. But the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure.

但是怀疑者坚持认为我们还不能确定地知道。

第二句：(符合题干定位要求的句子)

That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain?

切分：

新闻媒体开头喜欢标新立异，有些用法就不是很规范，比如这里的that其实就是句中insist后的that;所以第二句就是doubters的观点：(问号其实还是句中个小分句的问号，本身这个句子是没有疑问语气的。)

1. the evidence was inconclusive,

2. the science(was)uncertain. (并列引起省略,补全!)

第三句：(符合题干定位要求的句子)

That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way?

这句同样是句中insist的宾语从句：

切分：

1.the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life

吸烟的游说团体正准备摧毁我们的生活方式。

2.the government should stay out of the way

政府应该别插手。

第四句：(不符合题干定位要求的句子，这是作者观点，不是吸烟支持者的观点。)

切分：

1.Lots of Americans bought that nonsense,

很多美国人都相信了这种胡说八道。

2.over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.

过去的三十年间，有大约一千万吸烟者过早的死去。

只能用下面的句子和选项进行比对，和这些句子无关的选项就属于定位错误：

1.the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure.

2. the evidence was inconclusive,

3. the science(was)uncertain.

4.the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life

5.the government should stay out of the way

首先：

[B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant

过去十年间，由于吸烟死亡的人数微不足道。

这个选项和以上句子不相关，而且整个段落道都没有insignificant的表达。

排除!

[D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense

反对吸烟的人通常在胡说八道

这个选项和以上句子都不相关。

而且从原文可以知道是“作者认为支持吸烟的人在胡说八道”

接着：

[A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death

这个选项和第2小分句有关：

2. the evidence was inconclusive,

证据不确定。

原文中的evidence是科学家提出的证据，

所以就可以等于选项中的：scientific evidence

of the correlation between smoking and death，也是文章中出现的，可以接受。

但是我们仔细的看一下选项：

there was no scientific evidence

(不存在科学证据)

出题人很狡猾!

原文说的是证据不确定!

选项说的是不存在证据!

这是典型的偷换否定对象啊!

不确定≠不存在 排除!是不是666!

[C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life

(人们有选择生活方式的自由。)

对应句子：

The antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way

反对吸烟的游说团体准备摧毁我们的生活方式，政府应该别插手。

所以该选项是正话反说!正确!

有同学对于“正话反说”和“未提及”分不太清楚：

正话反说：一句话的正反表达，不涉及该句外的判断。

我举例给大家讲一下：

例子一：

原文：穷人家的孩子要是犯错了，就只能回到原点。

选项：穷人家的孩子不太可能去犯错。(正话反说)

选项：穷人家的孩子比富人家的孩子犯错的可能性小。(未提及)

例子二：

原文：这些客户打赢这种官司的可能性不大。

选项：这些客户打这种官司的可能性不大。(正话反说)

选项：这些客户更愿意找政府解决问题。(未提及!)

例子三：

原文：一个国家有进口车和国产车，国产车的份额下降了。

选项：这个国家进口车的份额上升了。(正话反说)

选项：消费者更喜欢进口车。(未提及!)

例子四：

原文：竞争对于经济是没有负面影响的。

选项：竞争对于经济可能有正面影响。(正话反说)

选项：竞争比合作更能促进经济。(未提及!)