单选题 Advances in surveillance technology could seriously damage individual privacy unless drastic measures are taken to protect personal data, scientists have said. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, gave warning last year that Britain was "sleepwalking" into a surveillance society. Yesterday the country's leading engineers developed the theme, fleshing out a dystopian vision that not even George Orwell could have predicted. They said that travel passes, supermarket loyalty cards and mobile phones could be used to track individuals' every move. They also predicted that CCTV (close-circuit television) footage could become available for public consumption and that terrorists could hijack the biometric chips in passports and rig them up as a trigger for explosives. The report by the Royal Academy of Engineering, Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance—Challenges of Technological Change, argues that the scientists developing surveillance technology should also think about measures to protect privacy. "Just as security features have been incorporated into car design, privacy-protecting features should be incorporated into the design of products and services that rely on divulging personal information," the report says. "There is a choice between a Big Brother world where individual privacy is almost extinct and a world where the data are kept by individual organizations or services and kept secret and secure." The report says that shoppers should be allowed to buy goods and services without revealing their identities to the companies that provide them. It argues that travel and supermarket loyalty cards and mobile phones are mines of personal information that should be closely scrutinized to make sure that data is not abused. Professor Nigel Gilbert, chairman of the report group, said. "In most cases, supermarket loyalty cards will have your name on. Why? What is needed in a loyalty card is for the supermarket to know what has been bought so you can get your discounts." "Does it need to identify you? No, it just needs authentication that you've bought the goods. It is the same for Oyster cards on the Tube, some of which you have to register for. These are all apparently small things but people are being required to give away more identification information than is required." Ian Forbes, the report's coauthor, said that because footage from CCTV cameras could be digitized and potentially stored for ever, that necessitated greater scrutiny of the controlling networks. Britain has about five million CCTV cameras, one for every 12 people. The report says: "Give this potential, it cannot be guaranteed that surveillance images will remain private, or will not be altered, misused or manipulated." The report also gives warning that biometric passports and identity cards would give fresh opportunities to fraudsters and terrorists to read remotely the data chips that they contain. It says that it could be possible to rig a bomb to go off in the presence of a certain person or someone of a particular nationality. The report proposes that the Information Commissioner should be given extended powers, and that stiffer penalties, including prison sentences, should be introduced for those who misuse personal data. The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee is expected to announce an inquiry into the growing use of surveillance.

单选题It can be concluded that the tone of the passage is ______.

单选题 Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear several short talks and conversations. After each of these, you will hear a few questions. Listen carefully because you will hear the talk or conversation and questions ONLY ONCE. When you hear a question read the four answer choices and choose the best answer to that question. Then write the letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. Questions 11-14

单选题Eight thousand years ago, forests covered more than 23 million square miles, or about 40 percent of Earth"s land surface. Today, almost half of those forests have fallen to the ax, the chain saw, the matchstick, or the bulldozer. A map unveiled in March by the Washington-based World Resources Institute not only shows the locations of former forests, but also assesses the condition of today"s forests worldwide. Institute researchers developed the map with the help of the World Conservation Monitoring Center, the World Wildlife Fund, and 90 forest experts from a variety of universities, government organizations, and environmental groups. Only one-fifth of the remaining forests are still "frontier forests", defined as a relatively undisturbed natural forests large enough to support all of their native species. Frontier forests offer a number of benefits: They generate and maintain biodiversity, protect watersheds, prevent flooding and soil erosion, and stabilize climate. Many large areas that have traditionally been classified as forest land don"t qualify as "frontier" because of human influences such as fire suppression and a patchwork of logging. "There"s surprisingly little intact forest left," says research associate Dirk Bryant, the principal author of the report that accompanies the new map. In the report, Bryant, Daniel Nielsen, and Laura Tangley divide the world into four groups: 76 countries that have lost all of their frontier forest; 11 nations that are "on the edge"; 28 countries with "not much time"; and only eight—including Canada, Russia, and Brazil—that still have a "great opportunity" to keep most of their original forest. The United States is among the nations said to be mining out of time: In the lower 48 states, says Bryant, "only 1 percent of the forest that was once there as frontier forest qualifies today." Logging poses the biggest single threat to remaining frontier forests. "Our results suggest that 70 percent of frontier forests under threat are threatened by logging," says Bryant. The practice of cutting timber also creates roads that cause erosion and open the forest to hunting, mining, firewood gathering, and land clearing for farms. What can protect frontier forests? The researchers recommend combining preservation with sustainable land use practices such as tourism and selective timber extraction. It"s possible to restore frontiers," says Bryant, "but the cost and time required to do so would suggest that the smart approach is to husband the remaining frontier forest before it"s gone.

单选题Questions 11～15 In Barcelona the Catalonians call them Castells , but these aren"t stereotypical castles in Spain. These castles are made up of human beings, not stone. The people who perform this agile feat of acrobatics are called castellers, and to see their towers take shape is to observe a marvel of human cooperation. First the castellers form what looks like a gigantic rugby scrummage. They are the foundation blocks of the castle. Behind them, other people press together, forming outward-radiating ramparts of inward-pushing muscle, flying buttresses for the castle. Then sturdy but lighter castellers scramble over the backs of those at the bottom and stand, barefoot, on their shoulders—then still others, each time adding a higher "story". These human towers can rise higher than small apartment buildings, nine "stories", 35 feet into the air. Then, just when it seems this tower of humanity can"t defy gravity any longer, a little kid emerges from the crowd and climbs straight up to the top. Arms extended, the child grins while waving to the cheering crowd far below. Dressed in their traditional costumes, the castellers seem to epitomize an easier time, before Barcelona became a world metropolis and the Mediterranean"s most dynamic city. But when you observe them up close, in their street clothes, at practice, you see there"s nothing easy about what the castellers do—and that they are not merely reenacting an ancient ritual. None of the castellers can give a logical answer as to why they love doing this. But Victor Luna, 16, touches me on the shoulder and says in English: "We do it because it"s beautiful. We do it because we are Catalan. " Barcelona"s mother tongue is Catalan, and to understand Barcelona, you must understand two words of Catalan: seny and rauxa. Seny pretty much translates as common sense, or the ability to make money, arrange things, and get things done. Rauxa is reminiscent of our words "raucous" and "ruckus". What makes the castellers" revealing of the city is that they embody rauxa and seny. The idea of a human castle is rauxa—it defies common sense—but to watch one going up is to see seny in action. Success is based on everyone working together to achieve a shared goal. The success of Carlos Tusquets" bank, Fibanc, shows seny at work in everyday life. The bank started as a family concern and now employs hundreds. Tusquets said it exemplifies how the economy in Barcelona is different. Entrepreneurial seny demonstrates why Barcelona and Catalonia—the ancient region of which Barcelona is the capital—are distinct from the rest of Spain yet essential to Spain"s emergence, after centuries of repression, as a prosperous, democratic European country. Catalonia, with Barcelona as its dynamo, has turned into an economic powerhouse. Making up 6 percent of Spain"s territory, with a sixth of its people, it accounts for nearly a quarter of Spain"s production—everything from textiles to computers—even though the rest of Spain has been enjoying its own economic miracle. Hand in hand with seny goes rauxa, and there"s no better place to see rauxa in action than on the Ramblas, the venerable, tree-shaded boulevard that, in gentle stages, leads you from the centre of Barcelona down to the port. There are two narrow lanes each way for cars and motorbikes, but it"s the wide centre walkway that makes the Ramblas a front-row seat for Barcelona"s longest running theatrical event. Plastic armchairs are set out on the sidewalk. Sit in one of them, and an attendant will come and charge you a small fee. Performance artists throng the Ramblas—stilt walkers, witches caked in charcoal dust, Elvis impersonators. But the real stars are the old women and happily playing children, millionaires on motorbikes, and pimps and women who, upon closer inspection, prove not to be. Aficionados (Fans) of Barcelona love to compare notes: "Last night there was a man standing on the balcony of his hotel room," Mariana Bertagnolli, an Italian photographer, told me. "The balcony was on the second floor. He was naked, and he was talking into a ceil phone. " There you have it, Barcelona"s essence. The man is naked (rauxa), but he is talking into a cell phone (seny).

单选题Questions 11-14

单选题

单选题

单选题

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题

单选题Questions 16-20 Can electricity cause cancer? In a society that literally runs on electric power, the very idea seems preposterous. But for more than a decade, a growing band of scientists and journalists has pointed to studies that seem to link exposure to electromagnetic fields with increased risk of leukemia and other malignancies. The implications are unsettling, to say the least, since everyone comes into contact with such fields, which are generated by everything electrical, from power lines and antennas to personal computers and micro-wave ovens. Because evidence on the subject is inconclusive and often contradictory, it has been hard to decide whether concern about the health effects of electricity is legitimate or the worst kind of paranoia. Now the alarmists have gained some qualified support from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. In the executive summary of a new scientific review, released in draft form late last week, the EPA has put forward what amounts to the most serious government warning to date. The agency tentatively concludes that scientific evidence "suggests a causal link" between extremely low- frequency electromagnetic fields those having very longwave-lengths--and leukemia, lymphoma and brain cancer. While the report falls short of classifying ELF fields as probable carcinogens, it does identify the common 60-hertz magnetic field as "a possible, but not proven, cause of cancer in humans. " The report is no reason to panic--or even to lose sleep. If there is a cancer risk, it is a small one. The evidence is still so controversial that the draft stirred a great deal of debate within the Bush Administration, and the EPA released it over strong objections from the Pentagon and the White House. But now no one can deny that the issue must be taken seriously and that much more research is needed. At the heart of the debate is a simple and well-understood physical phenomenon: When an electric current passes through a wire, it generates an electromagnetic field that exerts forces on surrounding objects. For many years, scientists dismissed any suggestion that such forces might be harmful, primarily because they are so extraordinarily weak. The ELF magnetic field generated by a video terminal measures only a few milligauss, or about one-hundredth the strength of the earth"s own magnetic field. The electric fields surrounding a power line can be as high as 10 kilovolts per meter, but the corresponding field induced in human cells will be only about 1 millivolt per meter. This is far less than the electric fields that the cells themselves generate. How could such minuscule forces pose a health danger? The consensus used to be that they could not, and for decades scientists concentrated on more powerful kinds of radiation, like X-rays, that pack sufficient wallop to knock electrons out of the molecules that make up the human body. Such "ionizing" radiations have been clearly linked to increased cancer risks and there are regulations to control emissions. But epidemiological studies, which find statistical associations between sets of data, do not prove cause and effect. Though there is a body of laboratory work showing that exposure to ELF fields can have biological effects on animal tissues, a mechanism by which those effects could lead to cancerous growths has never been found. The Pentagon is far from persuaded. In a blistering 33-page critique of the EPA report, Air Force scientists charge its authors with having "biased the entire document" toward proving a link. "Our reviewers are convinced that there is no suggestion that (electromagnetic fields) present in the environment induce or promote cancer," the Air Force concludes. "It is astonishing that the EPA would lend its imprimatur on this report. " Then Pentagon"s concern is understandable. There is hardly a unit of the modern military that does not depend on the heavy use of some kind of electronic equipment, from huge ground-based radar towers to the defense systems built into every warship and plane.

单选题17. --Can you lend me a pen? --Sorry, ______. [A] I haven't [B] I haven't got one [C] I haven't got it [D] I haven't got that

单选题The example of the assistant professor of zoology serves primarily to indicate the ______.

单选题

单选题Why did the author mention the example of Kodak?

单选题

单选题 Right now, Prince Charles is probably wishing he had hit the slopes after all. Britain's Prince of Wales decided last year to begin reducing his carbon footprint—the amount of carbon dioxide created by his activities—by cutting down on his flights abroad, including an annual skiing vacation in Switzerland. Though we should all be in the position to make such sacrifices, Charles didn't win plaudits for his holiday martyrdom. Instead British green groups, seconded by Environment Secretary David Miliband, spanked the Prince for deciding to fly to the U.S. on Jan. 27 to pick up a prestigious environmental award, arguing that the carbon emissions created by his travel canceled out his green cred. It's too easy to mock His Royal Highness; in England it's practically the national sport. But his critics may be onto something. Jets are uniquely polluting, and the carbon they emit at high altitudes appears to have a greater warming effect than the same amount of carbon released on the ground by cars or factories. On an individual level, a single long-haul flight can emit more carbon per passenger than months of SUV driving. Though air travel is responsible for only 1.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions, in many countries it's the fastest-growing single source—and with annual airline passengers worldwide predicted to double to 9 billion by 2025, that growth is unlikely to abate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put it bluntly last year: "The growth in aviation and the need to address climate change cannot be reconciled." One of the biggest problems, as the IPCC points out, is that the carbon emitted by air travel currently has "no technofix". As messy a source of pollution as electricity generation and ground transportation are, technologies do exist that could drastically cut carbon from power plants and cars. Not so for planes: the same aircraft models will almost certainly be flying on the same kerosene fuel for decades. Admittedly, the airline industry has improved efficiency over the past 40 years, with technological upgrades more than doubling efficiency. There are tweaks in aircraft operations that could nip carbon emissions even further. Virgin Atlantic airlines tycoon Richard Branson, who pledged $ 3 billion in the fight against climate change, advocates having planes towed on the ground rather than taxiing, which he has said could cut a yet unspecified portion of fuel on long flights. Emissions trading for the air industry could help as well, with airlines given carbon caps and then being required to purchase credits from other industries if they exceed their limits. But there's nothing on the horizon for aircraft with the carbon-cutting potential of hydrogen engines or solar energy. "It's not like having leaky home windows you can fix with double glazing," says Leo Murray, a spokesman for the green group Plane Stupid, which led the criticism of Prince Charles. Nor is there any replacement for long-haul air travel itself. I can take a train from Boston to Washington, but until we can figure out how to travel via fireplace, Harry Potter-style, the only way I'm getting from Tokyo to New York City is in aircraft that may emit more than 5,200 lbs. (about 2,400 kg) of carbon per passenger, round-trip, according to one estimate. On an individual level, you can try to make your flight carbon neutral by donating to, say, a forestry project that will soak up the greenhouse gases you have created. An increasing number of airlines and travel agents do offer such options. The London-based CarbonNeutral Company reports that requests for carbon offsetting from individual travelers have jumped over the past six months. But the still tiny number of neutralized flights can hardly compensate for the rapid increases in global air travel. So is grounding ourselves the only answer? That seems to be the conclusion of environmentalists in Britain, who also went after Prime Minister Tony Blair for a recent holiday trip to Miami. Though Blair belatedly promised to begin offsetting his leisure travel, he insisted that telling people to fly less was simply impractical—and he's probably right. Some environmentalists suggest that we could learn to live more locally, but good luck keeping them in Brighton after they've seen Beijing—and vice versa. Our best bet for now may be to limit any business and leisure flights that we can and offset the rest. So when you're pondering that luxury Swiss vacation, ask yourself: What would Prince Charles do?

单选题 {{B}}Questions 1 to 5 are based on the following conversation.{{/B}}