阅读理解
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 interliving, long enough to settle 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 any day these days 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 about nature. Things that used to seem clear and rational, 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, 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 can''t be inferred from the 1st paragraph?
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】细节辨析题 通过理解原文即可推理得知答案。文章第一段提到：……maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go on with it or not．There is an argument．也就是说，对于将科学继续进行下去，人们观点不一。并且下文就不同的观点进行了详细的阐述，因此答案C)是正确的。与之相比较，其他三个选项均是错误的。
单选题
The principle discovery in this century shows _________.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】细节辨析题 通过理解原文即可推理得知答案。见文章第三段，尤其是最后几句话…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．得知人类对理论所采取的做法是修正，摈弃，甚至采取立法手段等，因此正确答案是D)。
单选题
Now scientists have found in the past few years _________.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】细节辨析题 通过理解原文即可推理得知答案。承接第四段末尾人们对DNA的再认识(But just in the last few years it has become almost unbelievably complex，filled with strange parts whose functions are beyond today''s imagining.)，作者在第五段指出了对DNA研究的态度：继续深入地开展下去。由此确定答案为D)。
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】总结归纳题 通过理解全文归纳出答案。文章的最后一段明确指出，It is not just that there is more to do，there is everything to do．从而清楚地将作者的观点公之于众，那就是说，科学刚刚起步，面前的路还很长很长。因此答案应是A)。虽然科学取得了很大进展(C)，大大改善了人们的生活(B)，但这都不是本文的写作目的。
单选题
The writer''s attitude towards science is _________.