It is a startling claim， but one that Congresswoman Deborah Pryce uses to good effects： the equivalent of two classrooms full of children are diagnosed with cancer every day. Mrs. Pryce lost her own 9-year-old daughter to cancer in 1999. Pediatric cancer remains a little-understood issue in America， where the health-care debate is consumed with the ills， pills and medical bills of the elderly.

Cancer kills more children than any other disease in MERICA. 1) although there have been tremendous gains in cancer survival rates in recent decades， the proportion of children and teens diagnosed with different forms of the disease increased by almost a third between 1975 and 2001.

2) Grisly though these statistics are， they are still tiny when set beside the number of adult lives lost to breast cancer (41，000 each year) and lung cancer (164，000)。 Adbocates foor more money for child cancer prefer to look at life-years lost， the average age for cancer diagnosis in a young child is six， while the average adult is diagnosed in their late 60s. Robert Arceci， a pediatric cancer export at Johns Hopkins， points out that in terms of total life-years saved， the benefit from curing pediatric cancer victims is roughly the same as curing adults with breast cancer.

There is an obvious element of special pleading in such calculations， all the same， breast cancer has attracted a flurry of publicity， private fund-raising and money from government. Childhood cancer has received less attention and cash. Pediatric cancer， a term which covers people up to 20 years old， receives one-twentieth of the federal research money doled out by the National Cancer Institute. Funding， moan pediatric researchers， has not kept pace with rising costs in the field， and NCI money for collaborative research will actually be cut by 3% this year.

There is no national pediatric cancer registry that would let researchers track child and teenage patients through their lives as they can do in the case of adult suffers， a pilot childhood-cancer registry is in the works. Groups like Mr. Reaman‘s now get cash directly from Congress， but it is plainly a problem most politicians don’t know much about.

The biggest problem could lie with 15-19-year-olds. Those diagnosed with cancer have not seen the same improvement in their chances as younger children and older adults have done. There are some physiology explanations for this： teenagers who have passed adolescence are more vulnerable to different sorts of cancer， but Arehie Bleyer， a pediatric oncologist at the M.D Anderson Cancer Centre in Texas， has produced some data implying that lack of health insurance plays a role. Older teenagers and young adults are less likely to be covered and checked regularly. (445 words)

1. The author cites the examples of Mrs. Pryce to show that

[A] child cancer is no longer a rare case.

[B ] nowadays Americans care little about child cancer.

[C] the current health-care debate is rather time-consuming.

[D] school kids are more likely to be diagnoses with cancer.

2. According to Robert Arceci， child cancer research is also worth funding because

[A] the statistics of child cancer is rather scary.

[B] a saved child may enjoy a longer life span.

[C] adults with caner do not deserve that much funding.

[D] funding on child cancer is economical and effective.

3. Those 15-19-year-olds diagnosed with cancer

[A] were born with defects in immune systems.

[B] are more likely to recover from a cancer.

[C] can not get enough medical care.

[D]suffer a lot during adolescence.

4. The author writes this text to

[A] inspire greater concern for the well being of children.

[B] warn people of the harms caused by cancer.

[C] interpret the possible cause of child cancer.

[D] change the public‘s indifference to kids with cancer.

5. The author‘s attitude towards the current state of childhood cancer may be

[A] concerned

[B] desperate

[C] carefree

[D] indignant

词汇注释

pediatric 小儿的，儿科的

grisly 令人恐怖的

a flurry of 大量的

dole out 发放

registry 官方记录

oncologist 肿瘤学家

　　难句讲解

1. Although there have been tremendous gains in cancer survival rates in recent decades， the proportion of children and teens diagnosed with different forms of the disease increased by almost a third between 1975 and 2001.

[简析] 本句主干是“the propotion … increased …”。引导的是让步状语从句;diagnosed with … 短语修饰children and teens.

2. Grisly though these statistics are， they are still tiny when set beside the number of adult lives lost to breast cancer (41，000 each year) and lung cancer (164，000)。

[简析] 本句主干是“they are still tiny …”。Grisly though …是倒装句式;they指的是these statistics;when 引导的是一个省略条件状语从句，省略了主语，其中的lost to…短语修饰lives.

3. There is no national pediatric cancer registry that would let researchers track child and teenage patients through their lives as they can do in the case of adult suffers.

[简析] 本句主干是“There is no national pediatric cancer registry …”。That 引导的定语从句修饰cancer registry;their指的是child and teenage patients;as 引导的是定语从句，修饰前面的句子，其中的they 指的是researchers.

　　答案与解析

1. A 结构题。本题的问题是“作者引用普瑞斯夫人的例子，是为了说明 ”。题干中的“Pryce，出自文章第一段第一句话中，表明本题与第一段有关。第一段首先指出，这是一个令人吃惊的说法，随后提到了普瑞斯夫人的话——每天都有相当于两个教室的孩子被诊断患有癌症，接着提到了她女儿死于癌症的事情，随后的段落介绍了癌症导致的儿童死亡人数增加的问题。这说明，作者提到普瑞斯夫人的例子，是为了说明，儿童患癌征的现象已经不再罕见。[A]”小儿癌症不再是一种罕见的疾病“是对作者意图的恰当概括，为正确答案。[B]”如今的美国人很少关心小儿癌症“是针对该段第三句话设置的干扰项，是作者提出问题的原因，不是目的;[C]”目前有关医疗保健的讨论相当费时“是针对该段第三句话设置的干扰项，是曲解了is consumed with (关注……)这个短语在本文的意思，与文意不符;[D]”在校的孩子更可能被诊断患有癌症“是针对该段第一句话设置的干扰项，这是举的例子，不是作者的目的。

2. B 细节题。本题的问题是“根据罗伯特。阿赛西的观点，小儿癌症研究也值得投资，因为 ”。题干中的“Robert Arceci”出自文章第三段最后一句话中，表明本题与第三段有关。第三段提到，主张为儿童癌症患者投入更多资金的人们更注重失去的寿命，随后提到了罗伯特。阿赛西的观点——从被挽救的总体寿命来看，治愈儿童癌症患者带来的价值几乎与治愈成年乳腺癌患者的价值一样。这说明，原因是可以延长儿重的生命。[B]“被挽救的孩子可能享有更长的寿命”是对其观点的改写，为正确答案。[A]“有关小儿癌症的统计数据非常令人惊恐”是事实，并不是罗伯特。阿赛西的观点;[C]“患癌症的成年人不值得那么多的资助”是针对该段最后一句话设置的干扰项，文中并没有说罗伯特。阿赛西反对资助成年癌症患者，所以C与文意不符;[D]“对小儿癌症的投资既经济又有效”属于无中生有。

3.C 细节题。本题的问题是“那些15岁至19岁的被诊断患有癌症的青少年 ”。题干中的“15—19 year-olds”出自文章最后一段第一句话中，表明本题与最后一段有关。最后一段首先提到了15岁到19岁的青少年的问题，接着分析指出，一些数据显示，缺少医疗保险是一个原因，医疗保险不大可能覆盖更多的青少年和年轻的成年人，这些人也不大可能进行定期体检。这说明，这些青少年没有得到医疗方面的关注。[C]“没能得到足够的医疗护理”是对文中相关信息的概括，为正确答案。[A]“生来就有免疫系统的缺陷”和[D]“在青春期受了很多苦”属于无中生有;[B]“更可能从癌症中恢复”与文意相反。

4. D 主旨题。本题的问题是“作者写本文是为了 ”。作者首先指出，小儿癌症仍然是一个鲜为人知的问题，接着利用数据说明，癌症导致的儿童死亡人数比其他疾病多，随后指出，儿童癌症没有引起足够的关注，没有得到足够的资金，并分析了原因。这说明，作者写本文是为了提请人们关注儿童癌症问题。[D]“改变公众对儿童癌症患者的冷漠态度”是对作者目的的恰当概括，可以表达作者的主要目的，为正确答案。[A]“鼓励人们更关注儿童的幸福”不准确，没有提到儿童的癌症问题;本文主要讨论的是儿童癌症问题，所以[B]“警告人们癌症造成的危害”太广泛，不能表达作者的主要目的;[C]“解释小儿癌症可能的原因”只是文中部分段落的内容，不能表达作者的主要目的。

5. A 态度题。本题的问题是“作者对于小儿癌症现状的态度可能是 ”。作者在文中指出，小儿癌症在美国仍然是一个鲜为人知的问题，儿童癌症没有引起足够的关注，没有得到足够的资金，并引用专家的观点指出，应该多投资儿童癌症问题的研究。这说明，作者关注小儿癌症问题。[A]“关心的”是对作者态度的恰当概括，为正确答案。第五段提到，登记儿童癌症患者人数的试点工作正在计划之中，并且像瑞曼先生这样的研究小组直接从国会获得资金，这说明[B]“绝望的”与作者的态度不符;[C]“不负责任的”是美国人的态度，不是作者的态度;作者并没有指责谁，所以[D]“愤慨的”与作者的态度不符。