For about three centuries we have been doing science, trying science out, using science for the construction of what we call modern civilization. Every dispensable item of contemporary technology, from canal locks to dial telephones to penicillin, was pieced together from the analysis of data provided by one or another series of scientific experiments. Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human inter-living, long enough to set back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go on with it or not. There is an argument. Voices have been raised in protest since the beginning, rising in pitch and violence in the nineteenth century during the early stages of the industrial revolution, summoning urgent crowds into the streets on the issue of nuclear energy. "Give it back," say some of the voices. "It doesn't really work, we've tried it and it doesn't work. Go back three hundred years and start again on something else less chancy for the race of man. " The principle discoveries in this century, taking all in all, are the glimpses of the depth of our ignorance of nature. Things that used to seem clear and rational, and matters of absolute certainty—Newtonian mechanics, for example—have slipped through our fingers; and we are left with a new set of gigantic puzzles, cosmic uncertainties, and ambiguities. Some of the laws of physics are amended every few years; some are canceled outright; some undergo revised versions of legislative intent as if they were acts of Congress. Just thirty years ago we call it a biological revolution when the fantastic geometry of the DNA molecule was exposed to public view and the linear language of genetics was decoded. For a while, things seemed simple and clear: the cell was a neat little machine, a mechanical device ready for taking to pieces and reassembling, like a tiny watch. But just in the last few years it has become almost unbelievably complex, filled with strange parts whose functions are beyond today's imagining. It is not just that there is more to do, there is everything to do. What lies ahead, or what can lie ahead if the efforts in basic research are continued, is much more than the conquest of human disease or the improvement of agricultural technology or the cultivation of nutrients in the sea. As we learn more about fundamental processes of living things in general we will learn more about ourselves.
单选题 What cannot be inferred from the first paragraph?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:根据题干中的关键词inferred,first paragraph将本题定位于第1段。从该段最后一句There is an argument可知,人们对科学的看法是有争议的,并且下文就不同的观点进行了详细的阐述。选项C意思与其相反,故答案为C(现代文明依赖于科学,所以人类一致支持科学进步)。
单选题 What does the principle discovery show in this century?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:根据题干中的关键词principle discovery,this century将本题定位于第3段。该段最后一句讲道,有些物理定律每隔几年就被修订一次,有些被完全取消了。由此可知,人类对已有理论所采取的做法是修正或摈弃。故答案为D(人类已经摒弃了一些曾经被接受的理论)。
单选题 Now scientists have found in the past few years ______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:根据题干中的关键词scientists,found,the past few years将本题定位于第4段。该段讲道,30年前人们将DNA的发现称为生物革命,刚开始时,人们认为DNA细胞很简单,但随着时间的推移,人们发现它其实极为复杂。由此推断,人们还需要进一步研究DNA。故答案为D(关于DNA,人们还有许多要了解)。
单选题 The writer's main purpose in writing the passage is to say that ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:根据题干中的关键词purpose,this passage将本题定位于最后一段。该段第1句讲道,需要做的不止是一些,而是什么都要做。由此可见,作者认为关于科学还有很多方面有待于进一步研究和探索,即科学仍处于起步阶段,前面的路还很长很长。故答案为A(科学只是刚刚起步)。
单选题 What's the author's attitude towards science?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:根据题干中的关键词author’s attitude将本题定位于全文。通读全文可知,作者以客观的态度说明了科学的发展状况,介绍了对待科学的不同观点,总体来讲,作者对科学的态度是中立的。故答案为C(中立的)。