考研英語閱讀理解精讀100篇unit19
Unit 19
As you read this, nearly 80,000 Americans are waiting for a new heart, kidney or some other organ that could save their life. Tragically, about 6,000 of them will die this year--nearly twice as many people as perished in the Sept. 11 attacks--because they won't get their transplant in time. The vast majority of Americans (86%, according to one poll) say they support organ donation. But only 20% actually sign up to do it. Why the shortfall?

Part of the problem is the way we handle organ donations. Americans who want to make this sort of gift have to opt in--that is, indicate on a driver's license that when they die, they want their organs to be made available. Many European and Asian countries take the opposite approach; in Singapore, for example, all residents receive a letter when they come of age informing them that their organs may be harvested unless they explicitly object. In Belgium, which adopted a similar presumed-consent system 12 years ago, less than 2% of the population has decided to opt out.

Further complicating the situation in the U.S. is the fact that whatever decision you make can be overruled by your family. The final say is left to your surviving relatives, who must make up their minds in the critical hours after brain death has been declared. There are as many as 50 body parts, from your skin to your corneas, that can save or transform the life of a potential recipient, but for many families lost in grief, the idea of dismembering a loved one is more than they can bear.

The U.S., like all medically advanced societies, has struggled to find a way to balance an individual's rightful sovereignty over his or her body with society's need to save its members from avoidable deaths. Given America's tradition of rugged individualism and native distrust of Big Brotherly interference, it's not surprising that voters resisted attempts to switch to a presumed-consent system when it was proposed in California, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Health Secretary Tommy Thompson last spring announced plans for a new initiative to encourage donations--including clearer consent forms--but its impact is expected to be modest. Given the crying need for organs, perhaps it's time we considered shifting to something closer to the presumed-consent model.

Meanwhile, if you want to ensure that your organs are donated when you die, you should say so in a living will or fill out a Uniform Donor Card (available from the American Medical Association). Make sure your closest relatives know about it. And if you don't want to donate an organ, you should make your wishes equally explicit.

注（1）：本文選自Time; 12/10/2001, p117；
注（2）：本文習題命題模仿對象2003年真題text 3；

1.       According to the author, one of the reasons for a shortage of organs in America is ______.

[A] most Americans are reluctant to donate their organs after death
[B] the information about organ donation is not popular in America
[C] the ways to handle organ donation is far from perfect
[D] people waiting for transplant are rapidly increasing in America

2.       What is most Americans’ attitude towards the organ donation?

[A] Indifferent.
[B] Indignant.
[C] Detached.
[D] Supportive.

3.       It can be inferred from paragraph 4 that ______.

[A] Americans have a long tradition of weak individualism
[B] all the states in America resist the presumed-consent system
[C] it’s not easy to find a way to serve the society’s need and at the same time to protect the individual’s right in the matter of organ donation
[D] the government is not active in solving the problem

4.       The term “presumed-consent” probably means ______.

[A] one’s organs should be donated whether they agree or not
[B] one is supposed to agree that their organ will be donated after death unless they explicitly object
[C] dismembering a dead body is inhuman
[D] one is assumed to be happy after they decide to donate their organs

5.       From the text, we can see the author’s attitude towards organ donation is ______.

[A] supportive
[B] indignant
[C] indifferent
[D] negative

答案：CDCBA

篇章剖析
本篇文章采用提出問題－分析問題－解決問題的模式，在提出了一個解決美國國內捐獻器官嚴重緊缺問題的解決辦法。第一段以人們的良好愿望和實際的嚴峻現實的強烈對比開始，第二段找出了產生這一問題的一個原因---運作方式有待提高，第三段找出了產生這一問題的令一個原因---人們的心理承受能力。第四段說明美國必須解決這個問題。最后一段指明在目前捐獻器官的方式及注意事項。

詞匯注釋
perish:[] v. 死；暴卒；毀滅
donation: [] n. 捐贈
shortfall: [] n. 不足之量，短缺的數額
opt: [] v. （常與for連用）決定做；選擇，選取
consent: []  n & v.  同意
overrule: [] v. 駁回, 否決
cornea: [] n. 角膜
dismember: [] v. 肢解
sovereignty:[] n. 完全獨立和自我統治
rugged: [] adj.  粗獷的

難句突破
1.       They are as many as 50 body parts, from your skin to your corneas, that can save or transform the life of a potential recipient, but for many families lost in grief, the idea of dismembering a loved one is more than they can bear.
主體句式：they are…,but the idea…is…
結構分析：這句是由but 做連接詞的兩個分句。第一個分句中包含一個由 that 引導的定語從句修飾body parts；第二個分句的主語是the idea。
句子譯文：人身上有50中可捐獻的器官，皮膚和角膜都包括在內。每種都可能救活一個人或改變他們的命運。但對正沉浸在喪失親人之痛的人來說，把逝去的親人大卸八塊是他們承受不了的。
2.       The U.S., like all medically advanced societies, has struggled to find a way to balance an individual’s rightful sovereignty over his or her body with society’s need to save its members from avoidable deaths.
主體句式：The U.S. … has struggled to find a way to balance …with…
結構分析：其中短語 “balance…with…”的含義是“使…和…相平衡”。
句子譯文：像其他醫學發達的國家一樣，美國也在努力尋求個人和國家之間的最佳平衡點。既使個人對自己的身體有合法的擁有權，又能滿足社會救死扶傷的需要。

題目分析
1．答案是C，屬事實細節題。從一、二段可以讀出，絕大多數美國人愿意捐出自己的器官，只是運作方式還有待提高。
2．答案是D，屬推理判斷題。從第一段 “The vast majority of Americans say that support organ donation。”可以看出。
3．答案是C，屬事實細節題。政府也想改變目前這種狀況，只不過措施不那么有效。
4．答案是B，屬猜測詞義題。從第二段的對新加坡和比利時的描述中可以得出結論。
5．答案是A，屬推理判斷題。作者認為解決這個器官短缺這個難題，應該向新加坡和比利時學習，采取新的強有力的措施。最后一段作者給出了想捐獻器官的做法以及應注意的問題，這也可以看出作者支持的態度。

參考譯文
就在你讀這篇短文的時候，大約有八萬美國人正等著可以救命的心臟、腎臟或其他器官。不幸的是，因為不能及時得到所需的器官，他們中的大約六千人將要死去，比9•11事件中死去的人們將近多一倍。絕大多數的美國人（根據一項民意測驗，有86%的美國人）表示支持器官捐獻，但只有2%的人簽了捐獻協議。為什么會有這么大的差距呢？

問題之一在于我們處理這件事情的方式。在美國，那些想捐器官的人必須自己做出抉擇。也就是說，他們必須在駕照上寫明死后器官可以被征用。許多歐亞國家卻采取了相反的做法。比如在新加坡，所有的居民在成年后會收到一封信，內容是如果他們不明確表示反對，那他們的器官就有可能死后被捐獻。比利時12年前也采取了類似的“假定捐獻人同意”的辦法，只有2%的人決定不捐獻。

在美國，還有一個更為復雜的問題。那就是，不管你做出什么決定，家人都有可能表示反對。最后的發言權掌握在那些活著的人手里。他們必須在你被宣布腦死亡之后的關鍵時刻決定捐還是不捐。人身上有50中可捐獻的器官，皮膚和角膜都包括在內。每種都可能救活一個人或改變他們的命運。但對正沉浸在喪失親人之痛的人來說，把逝去的親人肢解是他們承受不了的。

像其他醫學發達的國家一樣，美國也在努力尋求個人和國家之間的最佳平衡點，既使個人對自己的身體有合法的擁有權，又能滿足社會救死扶傷的需要。美國人向來推崇強硬的個人主義，對老大哥式干涉他人生活的做法持懷疑態度。所以當加利福尼亞州、俄勒岡州、明尼蘇達州、賓夕法尼亞州、馬里蘭州提議采用“假定同意捐獻”辦法時，那里的居民投票抵制也就毫不奇怪了。去年春天，衛生部長湯米•托姆森宣布計劃出臺新舉措來鼓勵人們捐獻器官，新舉措包括更為明確的同意表格。但這些舉措的影響力微乎其微。鑒于全國各地器官緊缺，我們或許真該考慮改變當前的做法，采取接近于“假定同意”式的方式。

目前，如果你想確保自己死后器官被捐獻，你應該在遺囑中說明或填寫統一的捐獻卡（可從美國醫學協會獲得），也必須讓你的親屬知道你的意圖。當然，如果你不想捐獻，也要把自己的意愿表達清楚。

二：資料下載

更多資料請訪問：考試吧考研欄目