47. What does Marion Nestle say about present-day nutrition studies?
- A. They took her a full year to track and analyze.
- B. Most of them are based on systematic reviews.
- C. They depend on funding from the food industries.
- D. Nearly all of them serve the purpose of the funders.
答案：D
答案句：Nutrition scholar Marion Nestle of New York University spent a year informally tracking industry-funded studies on food. “Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies favored the sponsor's interest,”Nestle tells us. Other systematic reviews support her conclusions.
参考译文：纽约大学的营养学者Marion Nestle花了一年时间非正式追踪食品行业资助的研究。“近170项研究中约90%偏向赞助商的利益，”Nestle告诉我们。其他系统性综述支持她的结论。
定位线索：题干“Marion Nestle say about present-day nutrition studies”→答案句取自第2段“Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies favored the sponsor's interest”；文中“favored the sponsor's interest”对应选项D“serve the purpose of the funders”；文中“Roughly 90%”对应选项D“Nearly all”。
解析：题干问Marion Nestle对当今营养研究的看法，答案句直接引用她的话“Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies favored the sponsor's interest”，即约90%的研究偏向赞助商利益，与选项D“Nearly all of them serve the purpose of the funders”同义转述。选项A“花了一年时间追踪分析”是事实但非她“说”的内容，答非所问；选项B“大多数基于系统性综述”偷换概念，原文说“Other systematic reviews support her conclusions”而非研究本身基于综述；选项C“依赖食品行业资助”是客观事实，但Nestle强调的是研究结果偏向资助方，而非资助本身。
49. What does Liebman say about industry-funded research?
- A. It simply focuses on nutrition and health.
- B. It causes confusion among consumers.
- C. It rarely results in objective findings.
- D. It runs counter to the public interest.
答案：C
答案句：“It's certainly a problem that so much research in nutrition and health is funded by industry,”says Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “When the food industry pays for research, it often gets what it pays for.”And what it pays for is often a pro-industry finding.
参考译文：“营养和健康领域如此多的研究由行业资助，这确实是个问题，”公共利益科学中心营养主任Bonnie Liebman说。“当食品行业为研究付费时，它通常能得到它所付费的东西。”而它所付费的往往是支持行业的研究结果。
定位线索：题干“Liebman say about industry-funded research”→答案句取自第5段“When the food industry pays for research, it often gets what it pays for”和“what it pays for is often a pro-industry finding”；文中“often gets what it pays for”和“pro-industry finding”对应选项C“rarely results in objective findings”。
解析：题干问Liebman对行业资助研究的看法，答案句指出“it often gets what it pays for”且“what it pays for is often a pro-industry finding”，即研究结果往往偏向行业利益而非客观，与选项C“很少产生客观结果”对应。选项A“只关注营养和健康”范围缩小，原文说“so much research in nutrition and health”而非“only”；选项B“在消费者中造成困惑”无中生有，Liebman未提及消费者困惑；选项D“违背公共利益”程度过重，原文说“pro-industry finding”但未说“run counter to public interest”。
50. What is the author's advice to consumers?
- A. Follow their intuition in deciding what to eat.
- B. Be doubtful of diet experts' recommendations.
- C. Ignore irrelevant information on their news feed.
- D. Think twice about new nutrition research findings.
答案：D
答案句：Given this environment, consumers should be skeptical (怀疑的) when reading the latest finding in nutrition science and ignore the latest study that pops up on your news feed. “Rely on health experts who've reviewed all the evidence,” Liebman says, pointing to the official government Dietary Guidelines, which are based on reviews of hundreds of studies.
参考译文：鉴于这种环境，消费者在阅读营养科学的最新发现时应该持怀疑态度，并忽略新闻推送中突然出现的最新研究。“依赖那些审阅了所有证据的健康专家，”Liebman说，并指出官方的政府膳食指南，该指南基于对数百项研究的综述。
定位线索：题干“author's advice to consumers”→答案句取自第6段“consumers should be skeptical when reading the latest finding in nutrition science”；文中“should be skeptical”对应选项D“Think twice”；文中“the latest finding in nutrition science”对应选项D“new nutrition research findings”。
解析：题干问作者给消费者的建议，答案句明确说“consumers should be skeptical when reading the latest finding in nutrition science”，即对最新营养研究持怀疑态度，与选项D“Think twice about new nutrition research findings”同义转述。选项A“凭直觉决定吃什么”无中生有，原文建议依赖专家而非直觉；选项B“怀疑饮食专家的建议”与原文相反，原文说“Rely on health experts”；选项C“忽略新闻推送中的无关信息”偷换概念，原文说“ignore the latest study that pops up on your news feed”，但强调的是忽略最新研究而非“无关信息”，且“ignore”只是部分建议，核心是“skeptical”。