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.

　　There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth's atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made. The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the National Academy, Bruce Albert, added this key point in the preface to the panel's report "Science never has all the answers. But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions."

　　Just as on smoking, voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it's OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the time 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.
Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it's obvious that a majority of the president's advisers still don't take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research -- a classic case of "paralysis by analysis."

　　To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research.  But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won't take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures. A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry, is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound.

28. What does the author mean by "paralysis by analysis"(Last line, Paragraph 4)?
[A] Endless studies kill action.
[B] Careful investigation reveals truth.
[C] Prudent planning hinders progress.
[D] Extensive research helps decision-making.

[答案] A

[解題思路]

　　"paralysis by analysis"這個詞組的字面意思是"分析性癱瘓"，前面的破折號說明這個詞組是對破折號前面內容的解釋。前面這句話提到，"Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research"（他們不但沒有制定切實可行的行動計劃，而是繼續督促進行更多的研究），也就是說，作者認為做了太多的研究但卻沒有什么實際行動，顯然只有A選項符合這個意思。

[題目譯文]

作者所謂的"paralysis by analysis"（第四段最后一行）意思是什么？
[A] 無休止的研究會扼殺行動
[B] 細心的調查可以揭示真相
[C] 謹慎的計劃會阻礙進步
[D] 廣泛的研究能保住決策制定