题干

根据短文内容,选择正确答案。

B

    Sam was a fifteen­year­old boy living with his little sister, Julie. Their parents passed away long ago. Sam had to take care of Julie by himself.

One day, Sam woke up at three in the morning as usual. When Julie was sleeping alone, Sam left their little house to send newspapers. When he found an old man sitting in front of their house, Sam was so surprised that he stopped to look at him closely. It was an icy morning and he looked very cold.

    The poor old man didn't have anything to cover himself with. Sam went into his house to get the old man a blanket(毯子). However, there were no extra blankets, so Sam thought hard and took his father's coat. It was the only thing of his father's that he had left. Sam wrote a short note. "Sir, I found you sleeping in front of my house. This is my father's coat. I hope it fits you well." He put the note in a pocket of the coat and covered the old man with the coat. Then he went to work. When he came back, both the man and the coat were gone. Sam thought that it was the best thing he could do with his father's coat.

    That afternoon, Sam hurried home after school because Julie was at home alone. However, Julie and the old man were standing in front of the house, and Julie shouted to Sam, "Brother! He's our grandfather!"

    The grandfather smiled and said, "Sam, thank you for giving me the coat and letting me know how good my grandson is. This coat was the one that I gave my son a long time ago!"

上一题 下一题 0.0难度 选择题 更新时间:2017-12-25 06:48:18

答案(点此获取答案解析)

同类题2

阅读《转基因食品该强制标识吗》,完成下列各题。

转基因食品该强制标识吗?

    2016年7月14日,美国众议院以306票对117票通过一部要求转基因食品强制标识的法案。该法案规定,商家可自主选择标识形式,使用文字,符号或用智能手机读取二维码都可以,这意味着美国消费者将有权知道他们的食品中是否含有转基因成分,根据该法案,也不将在两年时间内制定具体的标识方案,并出台相关执法程序等,美国政府此前并不要求强制标识,理由是转基因食品与传统食品“实质等同”。

    那么转基因食品该不该强制标识呢?

正方:

    转基因食品至少跟传统食品一样安全。科学家培养转基因作物时,能确切知道转过去的基因的结构与功能,这样就能知道转基因作物同传统作物在成分上是否有本质区别,有哪些不同的成分。而用传统育种方法将两种亲本进行杂交时,我们对杂交出来的作物基因信息基本上是茫然无知的,无法预知其可能的风险,在这个意义上,我们对转基因作物的安全性有更大的把握。目前,批准上市的转基因食品都经过了严格的安全检验,在安全性上是不用担心的。由于检验成本所限,传统食品反而做不到这一点。转基因食品强制标示有何必要?

反方:

有两种亲本存在,大自然理论上也可以自行产生出他们的杂交品种,人工杂交只是加快了这一进程。但转基因可不一样,在自然演化下,一个物种的基因自行转移到另一个物种的基因组上,概率接近于零。人类?这是人工制造出新的物种,本身就蕴含着新的风险,一个基因很可能有多个功能,再转到另一个物种的基因组时科学家很可能只了解其部分功能,这意味着不可预知的风险,在这个意义上,转基因食品与传统食品真的实质等同、一样安全吗?能给将来一切可能的转基因食品背书吗?对批准的转基因食品进行强制标识,恰是一种对科学负责,对消费者负责的态度,是尊重消费者知情权的体现。

正方:

    转基因食品当然有风险,就像传统作物有风险一样,关键在于转基因作物的风险是否显著大于传统作物?如果不是,凭什么把转基因食品单独拉出来强制标识?由于一些人对转基因技术的妖魔化,部分民众对转基因食品存在没有根据的恐慌与负面评价。如果强制标识会强化公众对转基因食品的负面印象。因此必须反对强制标识,还应该把“转基因农业”改名为“精准农业”,以弱化公众对转基因食品的负面印象,增加公众对转基因食品的接受度。

反方:

    公众对转基因作物安全性有顾虑,不是很正常的吗?在某种意义上,转基因作物是新创造出来的物种,人们不随随便便接受一种新物种食物,恰恰是刻在基因上的自我保护本能在起作用,也是一种合适的慎重态度,以为改成“精准农业”就能消除这种疑虑,太天真了吧?在强制标识之后,认同转基因食品安全性的人,就可以选择吃;对转基因食品安全性有顾虑的人,现在可以选择不吃,将来观念改变了也可以选择吃。两不干扰,有何不可?

正方:

    强制标识会拍高转基因食品的价格,对穷人不利。强制标识不仅是标注一行字或一个符号,还需要检测,实施起来成本太大。因为一种食品往往包含多种成分,逐一检测是否转基因。一次检测,就是一大笔费用。如果消费者愿意对非转基因食品支付滥价,厂家会主动标识“非转基因”授其所好。

反方:

    如果你生产的食品某些成分的原料是转基因作物,你会不知道?标注一下有多大成本?至于检测也不是那回事。监管机构可以通过抽样检测来确认商家有没有在标注上作假,检测成本占生产成本的比例是微不足道的。

(《南方周末·第一争议》2016﹣07﹣25)