passage-5">Passage 5

If you intend using humor in your talk to make people smile, you must know how to identify shared experiences and problems. Your humor must be relevant to the audience and should help to show them that you are one of them or that you understand their situation and are in sympathy with their point of view. Depending on whom you are addressing, the problems will be different. If you are talking to a group of managers, you may refer to the disorganized methods of their secretaries; alternatively if you are addressing secretaries, you may want to comment on their disorganized bosses.
Here is an example, which I heard at a nurses' convention, of a story which works well because the audience all shared the same view of doctors. A man arrives in heaven and is being shown around by St. Peter. He sees wonderful accommodations, beautiful gardens, sunny weather, and so on. Everyone is very peaceful, polite and friendly until, waiting in a line for lunch, the new arrival is suddenly pushed aside by a man in a white coat, who rushes to the head of the line, grabs his food and stomps over to a table by himself. "Who is that?” the new arrival asked St. Peter. “Oh, that's God," came the reply, "but sometimes he thinks he's a doctor."
If you are part of the group which you are addressing, you will be in a position to know the experiences and problems which are common to all of you and it'll be appropriate for you to make a passing remark about the inedible canteen food or the chairman's notorious bad taste in ties. With other audiences you mustn't attempt to cut in with humor as they will resent an outsider making disparaging remarks about their canteen or their chairman. You will be on safer ground if you stick to scapegoats like the Post Office or the telephone system.
If you feel awkward being humorous, you must practice so that it becomes more natural. Include a few casual and apparently off-the-cuff remarks which you can deliver in a relaxed and unforced manner. Often it's the delivery which causes the audience to smile, so speak slowly and remember that a raised eyebrow or an unbelieving look may help to show that you are making a light-hearted remark.
Look for the humor. It often comes from the unexpected. A twist on a familiar quote “If at first you don't succeed, give up" or a play on words or on a situation. Search for exaggeration and understatements. Look at your talk and pick out a few words or sentences which you can turn about and inject with humor.
To make your humor work, you should
take advantage of different kinds of audience
make fun of the disorganized people
address different problems to different people
show sympathy for your listeners
The joke about doctors implies that, in the eyes of nurses, they are
impolite to new arrivals
very conscious of their godlike role
entitled to some privileges
very busy even during lunch hours
It can be inferred from the text that public services
have benefited many people
are the focus of public attention
are an inappropriate subject for humor
have often been the laughing stock
To achieve the desired result, humorous stories should be delivered
in well-worded language
as awkwardly as possible
in exaggerated statements
as casually as possible
The best title for the text may be
Use Humor Effectively
Various Kinds of Humor
Add Humor to Speech
Different Humor Strategies
6
The Supreme Court's decisions on physician-assisted suicide carry important implications for how medicine seeks to relieve dying patients of pain and suffering.
Although it ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, the Court in effect supported the medical principle of "double effect," a centuries-old moral principle holding that an action having two effects—a good one that is intended and a harmful one that is foreseen—is permissible if the actor intends only the good effect.
Doctors have used that principle in recent years to justify using high doses of morphine to control terminally ill patients' pain, even though increasing dosages will eventually kill the patient.
Nancy Dubler, director of Montefiore Medical Center, contends that the principle will shield doctors who "until now have very, very strongly insisted that they could not give patients sufficient medication to control their pain if that might hasten death."
George Annas, chair of the health law department at Boston University, maintains that, as long as a doctor prescribes a drug for a legitimate medical purpose, the doctor has done nothing illegal even if the patient uses the drug to hasten death. "It's like surgery," he says. "We don't call those deaths homicides because the doctors didn't intend to kill their patients, although they risked their death. If you're a physician, you can risk your patient's suicide as long as you don't intend their suicide."
On another level, many in the medical community acknowledge that the assisted-suicide debate has been fueled in part by the despair of patients for whom modern medicine has prolonged the physical agony of dying.
Just three weeks before the Court's ruling on physician-assisted suicide, the National Academy of Science (NAS) released a two-volume report, Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life. It identifies the undertreatment of pain and the aggressive use of "ineffectual and forced medical procedures that may prolong and even dishonor the period of dying" as the twin problems of end-of-life care.
The profession is taking steps to require young doctors to train in hospices, to test knowledge of aggressive pain management therapies, to develop a Medicare billing code for hospital-based care, and to develop new standards for assessing and treating pain at the end of life.
Annas says lawyers can play a key role in insisting that these well-meaning medical initiatives translate into better care. "Large numbers of physicians seem unconcerned with the pain their patients are needlessly and predictably suffering," to the extent that it constitutes "systematic patient abuse." He says medical licensing boards "must make it clear... that painful deaths are presumptively ones that are incompetently managed and should result in license suspension."
(2002.4)
From the first three paragraphs, we learn that
doctors used to increase drug dosages to control their patients' pain
it is still illegal for doctors to help the dying end their lives
the Supreme Court strongly opposes physician-assisted suicide
patients have no constitutional right to commit suicide
Which of the following statements is true according to the text?
Doctors will be held guilty if they risk their patients' death.
Modern medicine has assisted terminally ill patients in painless recovery.
The Court ruled that high-dosage pain-relieving medication can be prescribed.
A doctor's medication is no longer justified by his intentions.
According to the NAS's report, one of the problems in end-of-life care is
prolonged medical procedures
inadequate treatment of pain
systematic drug abuse
insufficient hospital care
Which of the following best defines the word "aggressive" (line 3, paragraph 7)?
Bold.
Harmful.
Careless.
Desperate.
George Annas would probably agree that doctors should be punished if they
manage their patients incompetently
give patients more medicine than needed
reduce drug dosages for their patients
prolong the needless suffering of the patients
7
Wild Bill Donovan would have loved the Internet. The American spymaster who built the Office of Strategic Services in World War II and later laid the roots for the CIA was fascinated with information. Donovan believed in using whatever tools came to hand in the "great game" of espionage—spying as a "profession." These days the Net, which has already re-made such everyday pastimes as buying books and sending mail, is reshaping Donovan's vocation as well.
The latest revolution isn't simply a matter of gentlemen reading other gentlemen's e-mail. That kind of electronic spying has been going on for decades. In the past three or four years, the World Wide Web has given birth to a whole industry of point-and-click spying. The spooks call it "open-source intelligence," and as the Net grows, it is becoming increasingly influential. In 1995 the CIA held a contest to see who could compile the most data about Burundi. The winner, by a large margin, was a tiny Virginia company called Open Source Solutions, whose clear advantage was its mastery of the electronic world.
Among the firms making the biggest splash in this new world is Straitford, Inc., a private intelligence-analysis firm based in Austin, Texas. Straitford makes money by selling the results of spying (covering nations from Chile to Russia) to corporations like energy-services firm McDermott International. Many of its predictions are available online at www.straitford.com.
Straitford president George Friedman says he sees the online world as a kind of mutually reinforcing tool for both information collection and distribution, a spymaster's dream. Last week his firm was busy vacuuming up data bits from the far corners of the world and predicting a crisis in Ukraine. "As soon as that report runs, we'll suddenly get 500 new Internet sign-ups from Ukraine," says Friedman, a former political science professor. "And we'll hear back from some of them." Open-source spying does have its risks, of course, since it can be difficult to tell good information from bad. That's where Straitford earns its keep.
Friedman relies on a lean staff of 20 in Austin. Several of his staff members have military-intelligence backgrounds. He sees the firm's outsider status as the key to its success. Straitford’s briefs don't sound like the usual Washington back-and-forthing, whereby agencies avoid dramatic declarations on the chance they might be wrong. Straitford, says Friedman, takes pride in its independent voice.
(2003.1)
The emergence of the Net has
received support from fans like Donovan
remolded the intelligence services
restored many common pastimes
revived spying as a profession
Donovan's story is mentioned in the text to
introduce the topic of online spying
show how he fought for the U.S.
give an episode of the information war
honor his unique services to the CIA
The phrase "making the biggest splash" (Line 1, Paragraph 3) most probably means
causing the biggest trouble
exerting the greatest effort
achieving the greatest success
enjoying the widest popularity
It can be learned from paragraph 4 that
Straitford's prediction about Ukraine has proved true
Straitford guarantees the truthfulness of its information
Straitford's business is characterized by unpredictability
Straitford is able to provide fairly reliable information
Straitford is most proud of its
official status
nonconformist image
efficient staff
military background
8
To paraphrase 18th-century statesman Edmund Burke, "all that is needed for the triumph of a misguided cause is that good people do nothing." One such cause now seeks to end biomedical research because of the theory that animals have rights ruling out their use in research. Scientists need to respond forcefully to animal rights advocates, whose arguments are confusing the public and thereby threatening advances in health knowledge and care. Leaders of the animal rights movement target biomedical research because it depends on public funding, and few people understand the process of health care research. Hearing allegations of cruelty to animals in research settings, many are perplexed that anyone would deliberately harm an animal.
For example, a grandmotherly woman staffing an animal rights booth at a recent street fair was distributing a brochure that encouraged readers not to use anything that comes from or is tested in animals—no meat, no fur, no medicines. Asked if she opposed immunizations, she wanted to know if vaccines come from animal research. When assured that they do, she replied, "Then I would have to say yes." Asked what will happen when epidemics return, she said, "Don't worry, scientists will find some way of using computers." Such well-meaning people just don't understand.
Scientists must communicate their message to the public in a compassionate, understandable way—in human terms, not in the language of molecular biology. We need to make clear the connection between animal research and a grandmother's hip replacement, a father's bypass operation, a baby's vaccinations, and even a pet's shots. To those who are unaware that animal research was needed to produce these treatments, as well as new treatments and vaccines, animal research seems wasteful at best and cruel at worst.
Much can be done. Scientists could "adopt" middle school classes and present their own research. They should be quick to respond to letters to the editor, lest animal rights misinformation go unchallenged and acquire a deceptive appearance of truth. Research institutions could be opened to tours, to show that laboratory animals receive humane care. Finally, because the ultimate stakeholders are patients, the health research community should actively recruit to its cause not only well-known personalities such as Stephen Cooper, who has made courageous statements about the value of animal research, but all who receive medical treatment. If good people do nothing, there is a real possibility that an uninformed citizenry will extinguish the precious embers of medical progress.
(2003.2)
The author begins his article with Edmund Burke's words to
call on scientists to take some actions
criticize the misguided cause of animal rights
warn of the doom of biomedical research
show the triumph of the animal rights movement
Misled people tend to think that using an animal in research is
cruel but natural
inhuman and unacceptable
inevitable but vicious
pointless and wasteful
The example of the grandmotherly woman is used to show the public's
discontent with animal research
ignorance about medical science
indifference to epidemics
anxiety about animal rights
The author believes that, in face of the challenge from animal rights advocates, scientists should
communicate more with the public
employ hi-tech means in research
feel no shame for their cause
strive to develop new cures
From the text we learn that Stephen Cooper is
a well-known humanist
a medical practitioner
an enthusiast in animal rights
a supporter of animal research
9
In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into supersystems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounted for under 70 percent of the total ton-miles moved by rails. Next year, after a series of mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over 90 percent of all the freight moved by major rail carriers.
Supporters of the new supersystems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordinated service. Any threat of monopoly, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat.
The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one rail company. Railroads typically charge such "captive" shippers 20 to 30 percent more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal to the federal government's Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time-consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases.
Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone's cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It's a theory to which many economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. "Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace?" asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shippers.
Many captive shippers also worry they will soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the 10.2 billion bid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail's net railway operating income in 1996 was just 427 million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction. Who's going to pay for the rest of the bill? Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market.
(2003.3)
According to those who support mergers, railway monopoly is unlikely because
cost reduction is based on competition
services call for cross-trade coordination
outside competitors will continue to exist
shippers will have the railway by the throat
What is many captive shippers' attitude towards the consolidation in the rail industry?
Indifferent.
Supportive.
Indignant.
Apprehensive.
It can be inferred from paragraph 3 that
shippers will be charged less without a rival railroad
there will soon be only one railroad company nationwide
overcharged shippers are unlikely to appeal for rate relief
a government board ensures fair play in railway business
The word "arbiters" (Line 6, Paragraph 4) most probably refers to those
who work as coordinators
who function as judges
who supervise transactions
who determine the price
According to the text, the cost increase in the rail industry is mainly caused by
the continuing acquisition
the growing traffic
the cheering Wall Street
the shrinking market
10
It is said that in England death is pressing, in Canada inevitable and in California optional. Small wonder. Americans' life expectancy has nearly doubled over the past century. Failing hips can be replaced, clinical depression controlled, cataracts removed in a 30-minute surgical procedure. Such advances offer the aging population a quality of life that was unimaginable when I entered medicine 50 years ago. But not even a great health-care system can cure death—and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of ours.
Death is normal; we are genetically programmed to disintegrate and perish, even under ideal conditions. We all understand that at some level, yet as medical consumers we treat death as a problem to be solved. Shielded by third-party payers from the cost of our care, we demand everything that can possibly be done for us, even if it's useless. The most obvious example is late-stage cancer care. Physicians—frustrated by their inability to cure the disease and fearing loss of hope in the patient—too often offer aggressive treatment far beyond what is scientifically justified.
In 1950, the U.S. spent 12.7 billion on health care. In 2002, the cost will be 1,540 billion. Anyone can see this trend is unsustainable. Yet few seem willing to try to reverse it. Some scholars conclude that a government with finite resources should simply stop paying for medical care that sustains life beyond a certain age—say 83 or so. Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has been quoted as saying that the old and infirm "have a duty to die and get out of the way," so that younger, healthier people can realize their potential.
I would not go that far. Energetic people now routinely work through their 60s and beyond, and remain dazzlingly productive. At 78, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone jokingly claims to be 53. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is in her 70s, and former surgeon general C. Everett Koop chairs an Internet start-up in his 80s. These leaders are living proof that prevention works and that we can manage the health problems that come naturally with age. As a mere 68-year-old, I wish to age as productively as they have.
Yet there are limits to what a society can spend in this pursuit. As a physician, I know the most costly and dramatic measures may be ineffective and painful. I also know that people in Japan and Sweden, countries that spend far less on medical care, have achieved longer, healthier lives than we have. As a nation, we may be overfunding the quest for unlikely cures while underfunding research on humbler therapies that could improve people's lives.
(2003.4)
What is implied in the first sentence?
Americans are better prepared for death than other people.
Americans enjoy a higher life quality than ever before.
Americans are over-confident of their medical technology.
Americans take a vain pride in their long life expectancy.
The author uses the example of cancer patients to show that
medical resources are often wasted
doctors are helpless against fatal diseases
some treatments are too aggressive
medical costs are becoming unaffordable
The author's attitude toward Richard Lamm's remark is one of
strong disapproval
reserved consent
slight contempt
enthusiastic support
In contrast to the U.S., Japan and Sweden are funding their medical care
more flexibly
more extravagantly
more cautiously
more reasonably
The text intends to express the idea that
medicine will further prolong people's lives
life beyond a certain limit is not worth living
death should be accepted as a fact of life
excessive demands increase the cost of health care