单选题

Text 4

For about three centuries we have been doing science, trying science out, using science for the construction of what we call modern civilization. Every indispensable item of contemporary technology, from canal locks to dial telephone-to penicillin, was pieced together to form 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 settle back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go no 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 revolutions, summoning urgent crowds into the streets any day 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 principal 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, and some undergo revised versions of legislative intent as if they were acts of Congress.
Just thirty year 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 of 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 The writer's main purpose of writing the passage is to say that science has______.

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】主旨大意题。解主旨题需要把握文章的脉络。该文中第一段论述了过去三百年来科学已取得的成就，第二段说的是有人对科学研究持否定态度。第三段和第四段通过举例说明人们对科学研究所取得的成果不断更新认识，这说明人类对科学的认识才刚刚开始，因此，[C]“刚刚起步”符合题意。而[A]“极大地改善了人类的生活”，[B]“取得了巨大深入的进步”和[D]“对人类的贡献过小”，均与题意不符。

单选题 Which of the following can't be inferred from the text?

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】推理判断题。从第二段可以推断出[A]“三百年来，人们一直对科学持否定态度”；第一段倒数第二句，即“三百年似乎足够用来检测、评估科学研究”，原文该句中使用了seem一词，最后一句又用“There is an argument.”作补充暗示其实这三百年用来检测评估科学研究并不够，因此[C]项正确；从第一段前两句列举了不少科学成就，因此可推出[D]“过去三百年来的科学实验使许多有价值的东西得以产生”。只有[B]项“因为现代文明依赖科学，所以人类全都支持科学的进步”无法从原文各段落推出，因此为正确答案。

单选题 The principal discovery in this century shows man has______.

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】推理判断题。原文第三段中谈到本世纪科学研究的发现时，第一句作者评论它们“只是人类对自然粗浅的了解”。随后作者以牛顿力学举例：以前我们认为绝对正确的发现，比如牛顿力学，现在却留给我们更多的谜团，使我们陷入更深的疑惑，每隔几年，一些物理学法则不是被修订，便是被淘汰。因此，[D]“放弃某些人类一度接受的理论”与原文意思相符，为正确答案。而[A]“丢失很多科学发现”，[B]“推翻牛顿定律”和[C]“解决了一系列巨大的疑团”均与原文意思不符。

单选题 Now scientists have found in the past few years______.

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】推理判断题。各选项中均出现了DNA，可推测应从原文第四段寻找答案。该段最后一句“但在过去几年中人们发现DNA非常复杂，其间充满奇怪的部分，其功能超出人们现有认识的想象力”中有答案，前提是我们首先要搞清楚句中的“it”的指代对象，通过上下文可知it指DNA，所以，[D]“人类对于DNA还有许多东西有待了解”为正确答案。而[A]“人类对DNA一无所知”，[B]“没有必要把DNA暴露于公众”和[C]“DNA内的微小细胞是小小的机器”均与原文不符。

单选题 The writer's attitude towards science is______.

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】观点态度题。该题要从对全文整体的理解中寻找答案。文中虽然提到一些人对科学研究持否定态度，但其前提是站在三百年的角度来评判，毕竟这个时间用来考验科学研究还不够可靠；虽然一些我们以前认为绝对正确的理论现在使我们陷入疑惑彷徨，虽然一些理论被修订或被摒弃，但这正说明我们逐渐朝科学纵深处发展。人们在科学漫漫长路的探索永无止境，作者正是在最后一段提出这种观点，同时也是对科学研究工作的激励。因此，[B]“赞成的，肯定的”为正确答案；而[A]“遗憾的”、[C]“中立的”和[D]“批评的”均不符原文。