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.

　　答案：C A C A C

　　篇章剖析

　　本篇文章介绍了烟草商帕里什就制药商受民众指责问题，提出的若干建议。第一段作者介绍了制药业面临的危机，并引出来自烟草公司的建议。第二段介绍了制药业对这一建议来源的反应以及制药业面临的困境。 第三段介绍了帕里什给出的第一条建议：不要回避批评，而是要正面回应批评。第四段针对制药也采取的一致口径，帕里甚至出这种做法容易引起人们的反感。第五段作者评价了帕里什的建议。

　　词汇注释

　　pharmaceutical: [7fB:mE5sju:tikEl] adj. 制药的

　　longevity: [lCn5dVeviti] n. 长寿，寿命

　　soaring: [5sC:riN] adj. 飞涨的

　　bumper: [5bQmpE] adj. 丰厚的

　　exploitative: [iks5plCitEtiv] adj. 剥削的

　　conglomerate: [kCn5^lCmErit] n. 集团企业

　　tarnished: [5tB:niFd] adj. 受到玷污的，

　　unprecedented: [Qn5presidEntid] adj. 空前的

　　onslaught: [5RnslC:t] n. 冲击

　　class-action n. 共同起诉

　　lawsuit: [5lC:su:t] n. 诉讼

　　scrutiny: [5skru:tini] n. 详细审查

　　grill: [^ril] v. 严加盘问

　　reminiscent: [remI5nIs(E)nt] adj. 回忆往事的

　　bunker: [5bQNkE] n. 掩蔽，掩体

　　mentality: [men5tAliti] n. 心理，思想情况

　　addictive: [E5diktiv] adj. 上瘾的

　　initiative: [i5niFiEtiv] n. 主动

　　monolithic: [7mCnE5liWik] adj. 巨大的

　　cartel: [kB:5tel] n. 企业联合

　　antagonize: [An5tA^EnaIz] v. 是反抗，使敌对

　　receptive: [ri5septiv] adj. 善于接受的

　　implacable: [im5plAkEbl] adj. 不缓和的

　　peddle: [5pedl] v. 叫卖，散播

　　难句突破

　　1． 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).

　　主体句式：soaring health-care costs and bumper profits mean that…

　　结构分析：该句的难点是结构复杂。句子开头部分的介词短语“Despite its successes in treating disease and extending longevity,”用作让步状语；“soaring health-care costs and bumper profits”为本句的并列主语；“that big drug firms are widely viewed as exploitative, and regarded almost as unfavourably as tobacco and oil firms (see chart).”该部分是“mean”的宾语从句。但其中有并列谓语：“viewed as...” 和“regarded as…