WHAT do you do when everyone hates you? That is the problem faced by America’s pharmaceutical industry. Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms (see chart). Last week, at a conference organised by The Economist in Philadelphia, the drug industry was offered some advice from an unlikely source: a tobacco firm. Steven Parrish of Altria, the conglomerate that includes Philip Morris, gave his perspective on how an industry can improve its tarnished public image.

Comparing the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem absurd, or even offensive. "Their products kill people. Our products save people’s lives," says Alan Holmer, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry association. Yet the drug giants currently face an unprecedented onslaught of class-action lawsuits and public scrutiny; industry bosses are being grilled by lawmakers asking who knew what and when. It is all reminiscent of what happened to the tobacco industry in 1994.

Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics. Rather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about. (Philip Morris now acknowledges, for example, that cigarettes are addictive and deadly, and is trying to develop less harmful products.) Not everyone is open to persuasion, so focus on those who are, he said. But changing opinions takes time and demands deeds as well as words: "This is not about spin, this is about change."

The pharmaceutical industry is pursuing a range of initiatives to mollify its critics, Mr Holmer noted in his own speech. But Mr Parrish suggested that speaking with one voice through a trade association might be counter-productive, since it can give the impression that the industry is a monolithic cartel. And too much advertising, he said, can actually antagonise people further.

The audience was generally receptive, claims Mr Parrish. This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics. At a conference at the University of Michigan last year, he offered America’s State Department advice on improving America’s image in the Middle East. So does his prescription work? There has been a positive shift in attitudes towards tobacco firms, if only a small one. But at least, for once, a tobacco firm is peddling a cure, rather than a disease.

1.Why is America’s pharmaceutical industry so unpopular?

A. Because it, like tobacco and oil firms, does harm to people’s health and environment.

B. Because it fails to cure disease and make people live longer.

C. Because the prices of its products are too high and its profit margin is too wide.

D. Because it exploits its employees.

2.Alan Holmer is quoted to illustrate that __________.

A. the comparison between tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem ridiculous, or even insulting

B. the pharmaceutical industries agree that they are similar to tobacco industry

C. tobacco products do more harm to people than pharmaceutical products

D. pharmaceutical industries are currently facing lots of problems

3.According to the text, Mr. Parrish gives the following suggestions to drug firms except______.

A. To acknowledge the problems and try to do something to improve their images.

B. Not to react to the public in one voice through the drug association.

C. Not to care about the past.

D. To try to spend time and energy to persuade the majority of the audience who are open to persuasion.

4.The word “mollify” (Line 1, Paragraph 4) might mean?

A. placate.

B. enrage.

C. fight.

D. relieve.

5.What does the author imply by saying “This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics.”?

A. Mr. Parrish has offered his advice to other on dealing with tough critics for several times.

B. Mr. Parrish has dealt successfully with other critics himself.

C. Mr. Parrish has given sound advice to drug firms.

D. Mr. Parrish has been of help to others on critical moments.

1.答案是C，属推理判断题。第一段第2—4行“Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity, soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms (see chart).”一句中的“soaring health-care costs and bumper profits”是正确回答该问题的关键。“Soaring” 表示“飞涨的”。“bumper” 表示通常表示“丰盛的，丰收的”例如，“a bumper crop”表示“大丰收”；但该词在本句中与“profits”连用，表示“丰厚的利润”。

2.答案是A，属推理判断题。该题的关键在于正确判断出第二段第一句是概括句，而紧随其

后的引言是细节句。细节句是为说明概括句服务的。由此可以看出引言是用来说明“Comparing the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries might seem absurd, or even offensive.”。

3.答案是D，属推理判断题。本题的关键在于正确理解第三、第四段中帕尔什提出的几条建

议。根据关键词：advice及其同义词和句型suggest，better to, so do sth.等，我们可以从第三段和第四段中挑出以下句子，如果能正确理解这些句子，就能顺利完成该题。第三段第一句话：“Mr Parrish advised drug firms to abandon their bunker mentality and engage with their critics.” “帕里什先生建议制药商摈弃他们的掩蔽心理，正面回应批评。”“Rather than arguing about the past, he said, it is better to move on, and give people something new to think about.” “他建议说，不要对过去纠缠不清，而是要继续发展，这样才能让民众淡忘过去的一切，看到进步。” “Not everyone is open to persuasion, so focus on those who are, he said.”“帕里什还指出，并不是人人都能被说服的。因此集中精力说服那些听的进取的人。”But Mr Parrish suggested that speaking with one voice through a trade association might be counter-productive, “但帕里什先生说，通过行业协会发布一致看法有可能适得其反”。

4.答案是A，属猜词题。根据上文提到的对制药业的批评，可以判断“The pharmaceutical

industry is pursuing a range of initiatives to mollify its critics ”中的“mollify its critics”表示“平息批评”。

5.答案是C，属推理判断题。 从本句“This is not the first time he has offered his thoughts on dealing with implacable critics.”，以及下面举出的例子：他为美国国务院提建议。结合在一起可以看出作者隐含的意思是：他认为帕里什先生为制药业提的建议有道理，会奏效。