[交流] 每周一听——那些年我们一起练过的听力（第155期）已有19人参与

每周一听——那些年我们一起练过的听力（第155期）

如果对本活动有兴趣就收听我吧！！！

    注意：参与活动的虫子请把自己的答案以站内信形式发送给我，并在活动帖里占位回复，方便评分，下周六下期活动发布之前有效哦。还有其他不懂之处，请在此帖里面直接留言回复，我们将尽快回答。
    PS：站内信的发送方式为：点击我的用户名（杜小丫个人主页 https://muchong.com/bbs/space.php?uid=1917265 ），将答案输入对话框点击发送即可。别忘记回帖占座喔！
奖项——听写后正确填空者可得BB奖励
评分规则：
每篇设空十处，每答对一空奖励一个BB，全对的虫子可得15个BB奖励。有好的建议大家可以跟帖留言，加油哦~~~~~~

    “Clinically Proven.” “   (1)    Technology.” “Ten Years of Genetic Research.” These are    (2)    you might expect to find in the pages of Scientific American. But these descriptions also show up in commercials and print ads for cosmetics.
    Now a study finds that some—well, make that a lot—of those science-sounding claims are simply not true.
    Researchers looked at nearly 300 ads in    (3)    such as Vogue. They analyzed claims in the ads and ranked them on a    (4)    ranging from acceptable to outright lie. And they found that just 18 percent of the boasts that the researchers looked at were true. 23 percent were outright lies. And 42 percent were too    (5)    to even classify. The study is in the Journal of Global Fashion Marketing. The   (6)    regulates what goes into your cosmetics and what goes on the label. If a claim is blatantly untrue, the FDA can take action. Vague language on labels may be a way to keep the FDA at bay.
       (7)    , ads are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Just last year they charged L’Oreal for deceptive advertising of its Génifique products, which the company said were “clinically proven” to    (8)    genes’ activity that would lead to the production of    (9)    causing “visibly younger skin in just seven days.” A settlement agreement forced L’Oreal to back off on the claims.  
    So take those cosmetic ads with a grain of that salt scrub—after all, if scientists had really come up with a product that reversed your    (10)    or grew your eyelashes, it would sell itself.

上期答案
1.raised concerns
2.complying
3.compulsory
4.quota
5.capable
6.hosts
7.condemned
8.persecuted
9.criticized
10.operatives