阅读理解
Does a bill that does nothing actually do something? This is not a Zen koan, but a legislative one, being tested this month in Tennessee. The bill in question required the state's education system to encourage students to "explore scientific questions" and "respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects" . It also protected teachers against punishment for "helping students understand, analyse, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories." It passed with big majorities in both chambers, and became law on April 10th.
At issue is whether this innocuous-sounding measure is actually a back door that would allow teachers to introduce creationism and intelligent design into science classrooms. Many are sure it is. The measure drew opposition from scientists and teachers both nationally and in Tennessee. Several scientists worry that the bill would weaken science education in the state.
Supporters of the measure, such as state Senator Bo Watson, a co-sponsor, say this is alarmist nonsense. Evolution is part of Tennessee's science curriculum, which the bill does not change. Many state and federal court cases have not only prohibited the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in public-school classrooms, but have also restrained teachers from introducing arguments against evolution in contravention of a school district's curriculum. Mr Watson insists the bill is simply meant to ensure that pupils learn "critical thinking" in science classrooms.
Tennessee's bill is not unusual: since 2004 similar measures have been offered in no fewer than 13 state legislatures. Only in one other state has one become law. Many such bills, including Tennessee's, share a common parent: a "Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution" written and posted by a conservative think-tank that has long advocated intelligent design. This measure protects teachers' and students' rights to present and hear "the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution," but it does little in practice. It changes no curriculum and does not expressly lobby for creationism or intelligent design. Louisiana's measure, which has been law for nearly four years, seems to have had no evident effects. Instead, these bills seem a particularly successful bit of signalling. They let evolution sceptics express themselves in the right place: within the law and outside the classroom.
At issue is whether this innocuous-sounding measure is actually a back door that would allow teachers to introduce creationism and intelligent design into science classrooms. Many are sure it is. The measure drew opposition from scientists and teachers both nationally and in Tennessee. Several scientists worry that the bill would weaken science education in the state.
Supporters of the measure, such as state Senator Bo Watson, a co-sponsor, say this is alarmist nonsense. Evolution is part of Tennessee's science curriculum, which the bill does not change. Many state and federal court cases have not only prohibited the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in public-school classrooms, but have also restrained teachers from introducing arguments against evolution in contravention of a school district's curriculum. Mr Watson insists the bill is simply meant to ensure that pupils learn "critical thinking" in science classrooms.
Tennessee's bill is not unusual: since 2004 similar measures have been offered in no fewer than 13 state legislatures. Only in one other state has one become law. Many such bills, including Tennessee's, share a common parent: a "Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution" written and posted by a conservative think-tank that has long advocated intelligent design. This measure protects teachers' and students' rights to present and hear "the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution," but it does little in practice. It changes no curriculum and does not expressly lobby for creationism or intelligent design. Louisiana's measure, which has been law for nearly four years, seems to have had no evident effects. Instead, these bills seem a particularly successful bit of signalling. They let evolution sceptics express themselves in the right place: within the law and outside the classroom.
单选题
16.According to Paragraph 1, which of the following statements about Tennessee's bill is NOT true?
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】细节题。根据题干定位到第一段。原文提到It also protected teachers against punishment for“helping students understand，analyse，critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories．”(教师还能“帮助学生以客观的方式理解、分析、评论及考察现存科学理论中的优缺点”而不受处罚)，C项漏掉了in an objective manller这一重要前提，因此错误。故选C项。
单选题
17.Tennessee's bill is at issue because it may______.
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】细节题。根据关键词at issue定位到第二段第一句At issue is whether this innocuous-sounding measure is actually a back door that would allow teachers to introduce creationism and intelligent design into science classrooms(目前有争议的是，这份听似无伤大雅的法案是否真的为教师在科学课堂上向学生介绍创世说和智慧设计论开了后门)，因此A项“允许在科学课堂上介绍创世说”正确。
单选题
18.It cannot be inferred from the text that in American public schools______.
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】推断题。此题适用于排除法。根据关键词public schools定位到第三段。C项“进化论是可以教授的唯一合法的科学理论”在文中推断不出来，找不到依据。故正确答案为C项。
单选题
19.It can be inferred from the text that Tennessee's bill______.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】推断题。本题需要结合全文做出推断。文末提到这些法规实际上让进化论怀疑者在恰当场所表达了自己的意见，因此D项“实际上对进化论怀疑者有利”为正确答案。
单选题
20.The author's attitude towards Tennessee's bill is probably______.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】态度题。此题考查作者的态度，需结合全文推断，尤其要注意每段的第一句、最后一句。第一段以Does a bill that does nothing actually do something?引出要介绍的Tennessee’s bill的主要内容。第二段开头At issue is whether this innocuous-sounding measure is actually a back door that…以下讲述该法案引起的争议。第三段Supporters…say this is alarmist nonsense介绍了法案支持者的观点。第四段最后提到They let evolution sceptics express themselves in the right place：within the law and outside the classroom(它们让进化论怀疑者在恰当的场所表达了自己的意见。所谓恰当，即法律之内，课堂之外)。这都是客观的表述，并没有掺杂作者个人的观点。所以作者的态度是objective(客观的)，B项正确。