5. Какое предложение во 2 абзаце дает ответ на вопрос:
«Is it difficult to separate genetics from behavior considering the causes of obesity?»
6. В 3 абзаце определите, что обобщает местоимение these, что означает marginalize.
7. Прочитайте следующие 2 абзаца и на основании понятных предложений составьте краткое содержание.
8. Сократите предложения в 4 и 5 абзацах, выделив основную мысль за счет слов, не несущих информацию.
9. Проанализируйте, как интернациональные слова в медицинском тексте помогают понять его смысл. Какие интернациональные слова в 6 абзаце помогают ответить на вопрос:
What medications can be a cause of obesity?
II
1. Прочитайте текст еще раз.
2. Выделите основные мысли каждого абзаца.
3. Вставьте в абзац следующие связки (субтекст): and, but, for, yet, nevertheless, however. Определите функции союза (союзного слова).
4. Оформите логическую структуру абзацев, введя следующие вводные слова: first, second, third, then, finally.
5. Обобщите в одно целое все полученные сведения.
6. Составьте реферативную аннотацию:
I. Вводная часть
II. Описательная часть
III. Заключительная часть
Text 5
Legalization of drugs
by J. Ross Eshleman
Debates still range about the best way to win the war on drugs. The most controversial policy, which has not been enacted in the United States, is legalization of drugs (also referred to as "decriminalization" or "narcotics-by-regulation"). There are strong arguments for and against this idea. | to range – тянуться controversial – противоречивый |
The Argument for Legalization According to supporters of legalization, drug prohibition causes more harm than good. Treating drug use as a crime rather than a health issue has created problems that cannot be solved through enforcement. These problems include the inability to control the flow of illegal drugs, violent drug wars, drug-related crime, and the creation of highly dangerous drugs. | prohibition – запрет to treat – лечить, рассматривать enforcement – принуждение |
Supporters of legalization claim that the high prices resulting from drug prohibition make it impossible to stop or control drug traffic. The sale of illegal drugs generates over $20 billion annually. Addicts often commit crimes such as prostitution, mugging, and burglary in order to support their expensive drug pporters of legalization feel that the lower price and accessibility of drugs that would come with decriminalization would eliminate drug related crimes. | profits – прибыль mugging – азартные игры в карты burglary – кража |
The enormous profit from the sale of illegal drugs has led to the creation of more dangerous drugs, such as crack cocaine. Drug dealers are interested in selling whatever is easiest to smuggle and whatever produces the highest profit. The profit motive also leads dealers to change all drugs by adding other ingredients – often harmful - in order to stretch the amount they can sell. Therefore, users have no assurance of what they get when they buy drugs on the pporters of legalization believe that if drugs were legal and controlled by the government, they would be less dangerous. | to smuggle – заниматься контрабандой to stretch – увеличить |
There are other reasons for legalization. Most important, the money spent on law enforcement reduces the amount that could be spent on anti-drug education and treatment. Legalization would permit the entire drug-war budget, plus the money from government taxes on these drugs, to be used for powerful anti-drug education and treatment programs. This would deter drug use more effectively than prohibition. | to permit – разрешать to deter – удерживать от.. |
Finally, supporters of legalization say that the ineffectual enforcement of drug laws encourages disrespect for the law. Thus, it also decreases the effectiveness of anti-drug education. The supporters of legalization compare the use of drugs to the use of alcohol and tobacco. They claim that alcohol and tobacco are legal but kill more people than illegal drugs do. However, because these substances are legal and controllable, they do not lead to the violence and crime that illegal drugs do, and their use is declining. | to encourage – поощрять violence – насилие to decline – уменьшать(ся) |
The Argument Against Legalization While it is true that drug prohibition has not yet ended the drug problem, opponents of legalization note that prohibition works to some extent. Studies by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found that drug use has declined in recent years. Thus, say opponents of legalization, this is precisely not the time to surrender to legalization. The fact that the drug problem still exists means that prohibition strategies must be strengthened, not eliminated. Prohibition of drugs will work if given a chance. | to surrender – сдаваться на милость победителя |
Surveys indicate that the greatest deterrents to drug use are fear of getting caught, fear of punishment, and fear of harm. Opponents of legalization argue that decriminalizing drugs would decrease this fear by sending the message that drug use has the approval of society and of the government. Therefore, it would decrease the effectiveness of any educational efforts. Accordingly, the number of drug users - and addicts - would increase. Opponents of legalization maintain that the increased drug use that would come with legalization would increase crime, not decrease it. Furthermore, opponents insist that the legalization would not eliminate the crime associated with underworld drug dealers. Opponents of legalization claim that besides the increase in crime, the death and illness caused by drug abuse would also increase. Opponents claim that the higher rate of destruction caused by alcohol and tobacco, when compared to illegal drugs, clearly demonstrates that dangerous substances are abused more if they are legal. The debate over legalization is likely to continue for some time. It is important, therefore, that you become familiar with the arguments for and against legalization. | survey – исследование, отчёт deterrent – средство устрашения to approve – одобрять drug abuse – злоупотребление наркотиками |
Упражнения
I
1. Прочитайте название текста и выскажите своё мнение о предполагаемом содержании текста.
2. Просмотрите текст, сопоставьте его тематическую сетку с заголовком. Выделите главные ключевые слова и словосочетания.
3. В тексте отметьте абзацы, которые соответствуют логико-тематическому членению мысли, т. е. начинают новую тему.
4. Какое предложение 1 абзаца даёт ответ на вопрос: What other two names are used in the article for the term legalization of drugs?
5. Найдите во 2 абзаце слово или словосочетание, которые дополняют смысл следующего: According to the supporters of legalization, drug-used should be treated as a ________ problem and not as _______ problem.
6. Найдите в 3, 4 абзацах ответ на вопрос: What are the results of the high price of drugs?
7. Используя перефразирование, дополните информацией из 5 абзаца следующее предложение: Supporters of legalization claim that instead of spending money on _______ , governments should spend money on _________ and ________ .
8. В 6 абзаце найдите ответ на вопросы:
a) Why has the effectiveness of anti-drug education decreased?
b) According to the supporters of legalization, what is the result of the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal?
9. В 7 абзаце найдите ответ на вопрос: According to the opponents, why shouldn’t drugs be legal?
10. Используя информацию 8 абзаца дополните следующее предложение: If drugs are made legal then people will not _______ because they will think that _______ , so the use of drugs will increase.
11. В 9 абзаце найдите ответ на вопрос: According to the opponents, if drugs are made legal, then drug-related crimes will increase rather than decrease. Why?
12. В 10 абзаце найдите предложения, в которых говорится о: Other results of legalization would be
a. ________
b. _______
13. Какая функция would в предложениях каждого абзацах.
14. What is the author’s opinion on legalization of drugs?
a) He is against legalization
b) He is for legalization
c) He doesn’t express his opinion.
15. What is your opinion on the subject presented in the article? Did the article change your opinion or strengthen it?
II
1. Прочитайте текст ещё раз.
2. Сократите до минимума каждый абзац.
3. Прочитайте полученный реферат.
4. Дайте описательную аннотацию:
– вводная часть
– название текста
– выходные данные
– описательная часть
5. Что вы узнали нового из этой статьи?
Text 6
organ transplants
When Christian Bernard, a South African doctor, performed the first human heart transplant in 1967, the result was a worldwide moral debate on the ethics of transplanting organs. Hearts were not the first human organs to be transplanted but, in this case, if a donor gave his or her heart, he or she would obviously and necessarily die (or be dead). Kidney transplants, which were already quite common in 1967, often involved the transfer of a single kidney from a close living relative. The chances of survival of the donor were somewhat diminished because he now had only one kidney and if that kidney were affected by disease, he would not have a healthy kidney in reserve. Nevertheless, the donor would certainly not necessarily die. | to involve – включать в себя, затрагивать to survive – выживать to diminish – снижать |
Undoubtedly, another reason why the first heart transplant was so controversial was the fact that we associate so many personality traits with the heart. Questions were asked of the type: 'If a person had a different heart, would he still be the same person?, or ' If doctors needed a dying person's heart, would they tend to declare him dead prematurely?', and so on. | traits – черты характера |
Since that time, surgical techniques and techniques to help prevent the patients' immunological systems from rejecting new organs have developed very quickly. Today, not only hearts and kidneys, but also such extremely delicate organs as lungs and livers, are transplanted. These developments have led to a far higher proportion of successful operations and this, in turn, has led to greater demand for transplants. At the same time, many of the original moral questions surrounding heart transplants have been almost forgotten. | in turn – в свою очередь demand for – потребность в |
However, as a result of the heavy demand for organs, a new moral dilemma has emerged. For example, in the United States there are many people who would survive if lungs were available for transplanting. In fact, about 80% of them die before a suitable donor is found. In these circumstances who would decide if a donor were found whose lungs were equally suitable for two potential recipients? | to emerge – появляться circumstances – условия |
This problem is made worse by the fact that many patients, or their families, become desperate to find a donor. Some succeed in publicizing their situation in newspapers, to politicians or on television. Sometimes, as a result, suitable donors are found. But what would happen if another patient needed the organ more than the one who got the publicity? Who would decide if the other patient should get the organ? Would it be the doctors? Or the donor? Or the family who got the publicity? If such a dilemma developed, it would be very difficult to resolve - and it would be a matter of life or death to the patients involved. | desperate – доведенный до отчаяния |
Упражнения
|
Из за большого объема этот материал размещен на нескольких страницах:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
