I decided to （ ） between Ralph and his brother, who were arguing endlessly.
A.interfere B.intervene C.interrupt D.interact
有疑问？点此联系我们
收藏该题
查看答案
I decided to （ ） between Ralph and his brother, who were arguing endlessly.
There have been five extinction waves in the planet’s history — including the Permian extinction 250 million years ago, （1） an estimated 70% of all land animals and 96% of all marine creatures vanished. The sample polling of animal populations so far suggests that we may have entered （2） will be the planet’s sixth great extinction wave.Forests razed can grow back, polluted air and water can be cleaned — but （3） is forever. And we’re not talking about losing just a few species. In fact, conservationists quietly （4） that we’ve entered an age of triage （冶疗类选法），when we might have to decide which species can truly be（5） . The worst-case scenarios of habitat （6） and climate change — and that’s the pathway we seem to be （7） — show the planet losing hundreds of thousands to millions of species, （8） of which we haven’t even discovered yet.So（9） you care, about tigers and elephants, rhinos and orangutans, then you should be scared. But （10） shouldn’t leave us paralyzed. In hot spots like Madagascar and Brazil, conservationists are working with locals on the ground,（11） that the protection of endangered species is tied to the welfare of the people who live closest to them. A strategy known as avoided deforestation goes （12） , encouraging environmental protection （13） putting a price on the carbon locked in rain forests and allowing countries to trade credits in an international market, （14） that the carbon stays in the forest and is not cut or burned. It’s （15） that any of this will stop the sixth extinction wave, let alone preserve the biodiversity we still enjoy, but we have no choice but to try.
I’m far from certain that this group is going to be able to （ ）what is necessary to gain complete control.
Even if she is responsible for the mistake, she is not likely to（ ）it.
The multibillion-dollar international pharmaceutical industry has been accused of manipulating the results of drug trials for financial gain and withholding information that could expose patients to possible harm.The stranglehold the industry has on research is causing increasing alarm in medical circles as evidence emerges of biased results, under-reporting and selective publication driven by a market worth more than 10 billion pounds in Britain alone.The industry has sponsored the trials of new drugs which have held out great promise for patients with cancer, heart disease, mental health problems and other illnesses.But the tests on the same drugs in independent trials paid for by non-profit organizations — governments, medical institutions or charities — have yielded very different results.The drugs for abnormal heart rhythm introduced in the late 1970s were killing more Americans every year by 1990 than the Vietnam War.Yet early evidence suggesting the drugs were lethal, which might have saved thousands of lives, went unpublished.Expensive cancer drugs introduced in the past 10 years and claiming to offer major benefits have increasingly been questioned.Evidence published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that 38 per cent of independent studies of the drugs reached unfavorable conclusions about them, compared with 5 per cent of the studies paid for by the pharmaceutical industry.In the latest case, the researchers commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to develop guidelines for the prescribing of anti-depressant drugs to children say they were refused access to the unpublished trials of the drugs held by the pharmaceutical companies.Published evidence suggested that the anti-depressant drugs were safe and effective for children.But when they obtained the unpublished evidence by contacting individual researchers who had worked on the trials and other sources, a different picture emerged — one of an increase in suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide. Only one of the drugs, Prozac, emerged as safe.Anti-depressant drugs, though not recommended for children, were widely prescribed in Britain until last year, when the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issued a warning to doctors, prohibiting their use.This followed the safety concerns raised by campaigners and taken up in two BBC TV Panorama broadcasts which brought the biggest response in the program’s history. Writing in the Lancet medical magazine, the researchers say: “On the basis of published evidence alone, we could have considered at least tentatively recommending use of these drugs for children and young people with depression. ’’1.The international pharmaceutical industry has been criticized for（ ） .2.The phrase “independent trials”(in Paragraph 4) in this context means “conducting the trials without （ ） .3.What was true about the drugs for abnormal heart rhythm?4.According to the passage, the unfavorable conclusions about drugs were kept a secret from（ ） .5.The information unpublished about the anti-depressant drugs showed that（ ）.6.It can be inferred that, 2 years ago, to the doctors prescribing anti-depressant drugs, the published evidence about the drugs would seem to be very （ ） .
Joe puts too much（ ）on pills from the drugstore and does not listen to his doctor.
