阅读理解 Although it is mankind's inevitable fate to continually progress on the path of technology, there will always be the obstacle of resistance to overcome. Be it in the form of a protester who deplores implementation of the latest gadget or a dissenting scientist who disagrees with his colleagues' methods of research, it is an unavoidable fact that every step toward the future must be a hard-fought one. The latest battleground is one that has to do with the essence of nature itself: the bioengineering of certain plant species for human consumption.
By learning about, isolating and finally manipulating the individual genes and strings of DNA that compose a plant species, geneticists are able to create new breeds of plants in the laboratory. These plants are able to live longer in harsher environments, provide better nutrition, and sustain themselves with a minimum of human care. By changing the composition of the plants at a cellular level and chemically combining elements of different plants that don't normally cross-pollinate in nature, science is ushering in a wave of new food items that earth has never seen before. Many argue that they are achieving the best of both worlds, the best that each individual species has to offer, conveniently contained within one product. Some scientists even go so far as to argue that these foods are better for humans than anything nature itself has ever created.
The opposition has its own theories, however. Due to the relatively new nature of these experiments, it is questionable whether these items are truly safe for human consumption, despite government approval. Taking a broader view, they contend that by combining species that normally do not go together, we may be achieving the WORST of both worlds, meaning that diseases that are normally contained within one species will combine as well. Thus, they may be made stronger by mutation, possibly endangering earth's agricultural food supply if unleashed upon helpless natural species that have never had to deal with such enemies before.
The possibilities that come with such a warning are frightening. A bio-engineered disease could wreak havoc on the delicate balance created by nature, possibly decimating the plant population of earth and depriving mankind of its food source. Clearly, the words of those opposed to progress must be considered on this issue, for the stakes are simply too high to be taken without an extreme degree of caution.
单选题 21.The word "cross-pollinate"(line 5, para. 2)in the context probably means "______".
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】属词义推断题。cross-pollinate是个复合词,前者意为“交叉”,后者意为“授花粉”,结合其所在的上下文(第二段第三句):通过改变植物在细胞这一层次上的构成以及利用化学手段将通常在自然界中不cross-pollinate的不同植物的成分糅合在一起,科学研究正将一系列从未与世人谋面的全新的食物品种带入人们的生活中。由此可推知,cross-pollinate的意思是异花传粉,即选项C正确。
单选题 22.Paragraphs 2 and 3 are written to______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】属主旨思想题。文章第一段指出:人类向未来迈出的每一步都是以付出艰辛的努力为代价的,目前对一些植物物种进行的生物工程研究也是如此。接着第二、三段对其进行了详细介绍,并提出了正反两种观点。因此,选项D正确。写这两段的目的不是一起用来把目前的形势分析清楚(选项A),也不是用来影响读者接受其中一方(选项B),更不是通过互相反驳来相互补充(选项C)。
单选题 23.Which of the following is definitely true according to the text?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】属事实细节题。由第二段第一至三句可知“科学家们能够完成生物基因食品研制工作”,下面的句子及第三段介绍了两种相反的观点。由此可知,这种产品的结果如何还没有定论。因此,选项D与此相符。选项A与第三段第二句不符(……鉴于这些研究实验刚刚起步,尚不完善,那么人类食用这些植物是否完全安全就是一个问题);选项B表达不够准确,与第二段第三句内容不符,原文是说利用化学手段将不同种类的植物结合起来,而不是通过基因手段;选项C是第三段中反对者的观点(见第三、四句),与第二段最后两句内容不符,所以不能肯定地下结论。
单选题 24.The author's attitude toward the issue of genetically engineering foods is______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】属态度推断题。作者在文章第二、三段中列举了对发展生物工程研究所持的两种相反态度,在文章最后一句明确表达了自己的态度:必须考虑反对派的意见,一定要谨慎从事。由此可知,作者的态度是偏向反对派的,即选项C正确。其他选项A(公平的)、选项B(主观的)、选项D(使迷惑的)都不能从文中推出。
单选题 25.The last paragraph of the text is mainly utilized to______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】属主旨思想题。由上题的分析可知,作者在列举了两种不同观点之后,在最后一段表明了自己的态度。因此,选项A正确。其他选项都与本段内容不符。