问题 阅读理解

阅读理解。

     Ideas about polite behavior are different from one culture to another. Some societies, such as America

and Australia are mobile and very open, people here change jobs and move house quite often. As a result,

they have a lot of relationships that often last only a short time. So it's normal to have friendly conversations

with people that they have just met, and you can talk about things that other cultures would regard as personal.

      On the other hand there are more crowded and less mobile societies where long-term relationships are

more important. A Malaysian or Mexican business person will want to get to know you very well before he

or she feels happy to start business. But when you do get to know each other, the relationship becomes much

deeper than it would in a mobile society.

     To Americans, both Europeans and Asians seem cool and formal at first. On the other hand, as a passenger

from a less mobile society put it, it's no fun spending several hours next to a stranger who wants to tell you all

about his or her life and asks you all sorts of questions that you don't want to answer.

     Cross-cultural differences aren't just a problem for travelers, but also for the flights that carry them. All

flights want to provide the best service, but ideas about good service are different place to place. This can be

seen most clearly in the way that problems are dealt with.

     Some societies have "universalist" cultures. These societies strongly respect rules, and they treat every

person and situation in basically the same way. "Particularist" societies, on the other hand, also have rules,

but they are less important than the society's unwritten ideas about what is right or wrong for a particular

situation or a particular person. So the normal rules are changed to fit the needs of the situation or the

importance of the person.

     This difference can cause problems. A traveler from a particularist society, India, is checking in for a

flight in Germany, a country which has a universalist culture. The Indian traveler has too much luggage,

but he explains that he has been away from home for a long time and the suitcases are full of presents for

his family. He expects that the check-in official will understand his problem and will change the rules for

him. The check-in official explains that if he was allowed to have too much luggage, it wouldn't be fair to

the other passengers. But the traveler thinks this is unfair, because the other passengers don't have his

problem.

1. Often moving from one place to another makes people like Americans and Australians ____.

 A. like traveling better

B. easy to communicate with

C. difficult to make real friends

D. have a long-term relationship with their neighbors

2. A person from a less mobile society will feel it _____ when a stranger keeps talking to him or

    her, and asking him or her questions.

A. boring

B. friendly

C. normal

D. rough

3. In "particularist societies", ______.

A. they have no rules for people to obey

B. people obey the society's rules completely

C. no one obeys the society's rules though they have

D. the society's rules can be changed with different persons or situations

4. The writer of the passage thinks that the Indian and the German have different ideas about rules

    because of different ______.

A. interests

B. cultures

C. habits and customs

D. ways of life

答案

1-4: BADB

单项选择题
问答题

It took nearly eight years for the new heart drug BiDil to win approval from the Food and Drug Administration—and it won that approval only after its maker, a small company called NitroMed, repositioned it as a treatment earmarked for African Americans. But if NitroMed thought getting BiDil past the FDA was hard, wait until it tries marketing the drug to its target group. Even during its clinical trials, BiDil ran into resistance. Says Dr. Theodore Addai of Nashville’s Meharry Medical College, who had to enlist black patients for a 2001 trial: "We had to try to persuade them that this was not another Tuskegee. "
He’s referring to the infamous Tuskegee experiment, conducted by the U. S. government from the 1930s to the early ’70s, during which doctors denied nearly 400 black men in Alabama treatment for syphilis in order to observe the disease’s long-term effects. The scars left by Tuskegee are slow to heal in the African-American community, and many blacks remain deeply suspicious of anything that approaches the emotionally charged intersection of race and medicine.
The AIDS epidemic is a prime example. According to the Centers for Disease Control, blacks account for 50% of new HIV and AIDS cases in the U. S., although they represent only 13% of the population. African-American women are especially at risk; their annual AIDS case rate is 25 times that of white women. Citing those statistics, significant numbers of black Americans subscribe to various AIDS conspiracy theories. According to a poll conducted for the Rand Corp. last January, 53% of black Americans surveyed believe there is a cure for AIDS that is being withheld from the poor, and 15% believe the disease was created by the government in order to control the black population. Phil Wilson, director of the Black AIDS Institute, says such attitudes are hampering his work with antiretroviral drugs, "The most common thing we hear with AIDS drugs is, ’Oh, they’re going to experiment on you,’" he says. "The most cited example is the Tuskegee trials, even though most of us don’t even know what Tuskegee was."
Tuskegee aside, the discrepancies in medical care between blacks and whites in the U. S. are real and persistent and not explained by differences in economic status alone. In March 2002 a study by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy Of Sciences found that even after controlling for such factors as income and insurance coverage, minorities in the U. S. routinely received lower-quality health care than whites. Matters were not improved in the early ’90s when some Governors and state officials tried to mandate the use of a newly approved five-year birth control device called Norplant as a way of curbing teenage pregnancy and reducing welfare costs, a campaign that instantly acquired racial overtones.
In that context, it’s not surprising that the idea behind BiDil—the first drug approved for a specific race—has been controversial from the start. The drug is actually a combination of two older, generic medicines. When it was first tested on the general population as a treatment for congestive heart failure—a gradual weakening of the heart-the FDA ruled that the results were not statistically significant. It was only when the drug was retested on patients who identified themselves as African Americans that tangible benefits emerged: a 43% reduction in the death rate and a 39% reduction in hospitalizations.
Critics point out that while the trials showed that BiDil saved lives, they failed to show whether the drug worked better in blacks than in other groups or that it worked only in blacks. "Race is a placeholder for something else," says Dr. Clyde Yancy, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a BiDil investigator. "And that’s probably a mix of biomarkers, demographics and genes."
NitroMed declined to comment on its marketing strategy, but some doctors voiced concern that the company remains sensitive to African-American fears. "I hope they market BiDil with great caution and care," says Gary Puckrein, executive director of the National Minority Health Month foundation. "This really isn’t a race drug but a drug that works in specific populations for reasons we don’t yet understand.\

Why did it take the FDA so long (nearly eight years) to approve the use of BiDil