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 interaction, 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 on the issue of nuclear energy. The principal discoveries in this century, 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 CANNOT be inferred from the first paragraph?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】根据文章第一段第一句话“using science for the construction of what we call modern civilization. ” 说明A选项是正确的， 根据第三四句话“Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human interaction, 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. ” 说明人们对于300年是否能够检验一项科学手段， 以及是否要继续科学研究仍有争议， 而且有人持反对意见， 说明B， D都是正确的， 故答案为C。
单选题 The principle discovery in this century shows _____.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】根据第二段最后一句话“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. ” 说明人们抛弃了一些以前广为接受的理论。
单选题 Now- scientists have found in the past few- years _____.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】根据第三段最后一句话“But just in the last few years it has become almost unbelievably complex, filled with strange parts whose functions are beyond today’ s imagining. ” 人们刚开始研究DNA时， 觉得它很简单， 但是后来发现它越来越复杂， 说明人类还有许多东西需要探索。
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】根据最后一段第一句话“It is not just that there is more to do; there is everything to do. ” 说明一切才刚刚开始， 所有都要学习 。
单选题 The writer’ s attitude towards science is _____.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】根据全文， 作者首先说明过去几百年科学的发展为人类带来了许多福利， 但是人类仍有许多需要学习 ， 而且探索的越多， 我们对自己的认识也越清晰， 所以作者对科学持支持态度。