单选题 Questions9-12 are based on the passage you have just heard.

单选题 The Health Benefits of Drinking Water —Is Bottled Drinking Water Healthier Than Filtered Tap Water? A. Water is a key ingredient in a healthy diet and lifestyle. There are many health benefits of drinking water. It helps flush impurities and toxins out of our systems. It aids in the delivery of oxygen and nutrients. In fact, nearly every system in our bodies relies on water for proper functioning. But what will happen if the water you drink is unhealthy? B. In past decades, concerns about tap water and its impact on overall health led some people to turn to bottled drinking water instead. However, in those days, there were few choices of bottled waters. You could pay to have a company deliver large bulky plastic bottles of water for the water cooler. Or you could purchase gallon jugs of distilled or 'drinking water' at the grocery store. C. In recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of different bottled waters available, with big distributors such as Coke and Pepsi jumping on the bandwagon. But are bottled drinking waters like Coke's Dasani brand, Pepsi's Aquafina, or Wal-Mart's store brand really any healthier than your tap water? Or would you be better off with a drinking water filtration system? D. As we have learned more about the water we drink, the technology behind drinking water filters and purification systems has improved dramatically. There are filters to remove impurities, chemicals, heavy metals, bacteria and most every contaminant you can think of. With the fight size and filter combination for your specific home, your water can be exceptionally pure and healthy. Cost Comparison E. Drinking water filtration systems have also become more affordable and easy to use. Although the initial cost of a whole house system usually amounts to several hundred dollars, that cost is often less than $100 each year if spread out over the life of the system. There may be additional expenses to replace carbon filters, membranes in reverse osmosis drinking water filtration system, or lamps in an ultraviolet light water treatment device. These expenses can add another $100 or so to the annual costs of operating drinking water filters and purification systems. F. While some people may hesitate to spend so much each year for clean, safe drinking water, they are probably paying more for bottled drinking water. Calculations show that at a price of $1 to $4 per gallon, bottled or delivered water costs an average of $400 each year, especially if you purchase individual bottles. And that doesn't take into consideration the gas needed to drive to the store or the environmental impact of all the empty plastic bottles. Health Aspects G. Many people who choose bottled drinking water understand that it is more expensive, but they are still willing to pay the extra money because bottled water is thought to be safer and healthier than filtered drinking water. After all, bottled water is often marketed as 'natural spring water' or 'pure glacier water.' H. In reality, few bottled waters come from natural springs, and most of them use municipal tap water. The companies are able to get away with this false marketing because the regulations and standards for bottle drinking water are less stringent than those for residential drinking sources. I. The quality of bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while drinking water systems are typically regulated by State regulations or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This doesn't mean that the FDA isn't doing their job. It's just that the rules for bottled water only require it to be as good as tap water, not better. J. In addition, the FDA regulations only apply to bottled drinking water that is transported across state lines. If a company sells their bottled drinking water in the same state where it was bottled, the federal regulations don't apply. The result is that many bottled waters are not any healthier than filtered water, and in fact some are less pure. K. This was demonstrated in a study which was conducted in 1999 by the Natural Resources Defense Council. They tested over 100 brands of bottled drinking water and found that about one third of the waters contained contamination in the form of chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic. The study also found that up to forty percent of bottled drinking waters come from a city water system. How to Tell if Your Water Is Healthy L. So how do you tell if the water you are drinking is healthy? With tap water, it is relatively easy. If you water comes from a municipal source, the suppliers are required by law to provide annual water quality reports. If you have a well, you can have an authorized lab test your water. It may cost $100 or more, but it's a small price to pay for peace of mind. Or you can purchase a kit and test it yourself, but naturally the results may not be as conclusive or reliable as those produced by authorized labs. M. When it comes to bottled drinking water, it can be more difficult to know what you are getting. Start by checking the label or the bottle cap. Some may tell you that the water comes from a municipal source or 'community water system', which means tap water. N. If the label doesn't give any information, you can call the bottler and ask. But don't be surprised if you get the run around and are transferred to several different departments. Some states have a bottled water program that tracks bottled drinking water and can tell you the origin of the source water as well as other information. O. Safe and healthy drinking water has become big business. Thousands of companies are vying for your hard earned cash, and some are not always honest about what their products offer. The initial investment for a home drinking water filtration system can seem expensive at first, but over time, it is usually less expensive than bottled drinking water. And with a water filter, you at least know where the water you drink came from and how it was treated. P. Before going out and spending your hard earned money for bottled drinking water that may, be no better than your own tap water, it is obviously a good idea to do some research. You are likely to decide that a drinking water filtration system and/or purifier is the healthier choice and provides the best value as well.

单选题 Trust Me, I'm a Robot [A] With robots now emerging from their industrial cages and moving into homes and workplaces, roboticists are concerned about the safety implications beyond the factory floor. To address these concerns, leading robot experts have come together to try to find ways to prevent robots from harming people. Inspired by the Pugwash Conferences—an international group of scientists, academics and activists founded in 1957 to campaign for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons—the new group of roboethicists met earlier this year in Genoa, Italy, and announced their initial findings in March at the European Robotics Symposium in Palermo, Sicily. [B] 'Security and safety are the big concerns,' says Henrik Christensen, chairman of the European Robotics Network at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Should robots that are strong enough or heavy enough to crush people be allowed into homes? Is 'system malfunction' a justifiable defence for a robotic fighter plane that contravenes (违反) the Geneva Convention and mistakenly fires on innocent civilians? [C] 'These questions may seem hard to understand but in the next few years they will become increasingly relevant,' says Dr. Christensen. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's World Robotics Survey, in 2002 the number of domestic and service robots more than tripled, nearly surpassing their industrial counterparts. By the end of 2003 there were more than 600000 robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers—a figure predicted to rise to more than 4m by the end of next year. Japanese industrial firms are racing to build humanoid robots to act as domestic helpers for the elderly, and South Korea has set a goal that 100% of households should have domestic robots by 2020. In light of all this, it is crucial that we start to think about safety guidelines now, says Dr. Christensen. Stop right there [D] So what exactly is being done to protect us from these mechanical menaces? 'Not enough,' says Blay Whitby. This is hardly surprising given that the field of 'safety-critical computing' is barely a decade old, he says. But things are changing, and researchers are increasingly taking an interest in trying to make robots safer. One approach, which sounds simple enough, is try to program them to avoid contact with people altogether. But this is much harder than it sounds. Getting a robot to navigate across a cluttered room is difficult enough without having to take into account what its various limbs or appendages might bump into along the way. [E] 'Regulating the behaviour of robots is going to become more difficult in the future, since they will increasingly have self-learning mechanisms built into them,' says Gianmarco Veruggio. 'As a result, their behaviour will become impossible to predict fully,' he says, 'since they will not be behaving in predefined ways but will learn new behaviour as they go.' [F] Then there is the question of unpredictable failures. What happens if a robot's motors stop working, or it suffers a system failure just as it is performing heart surgery or handing you a cup of hot coffee? You can, of course, build in redundancy by adding backup systems, says Hirochika Inoue. But this guarantees nothing, he says. 'One hundred per cent safety is impossible through technology,' says Dr. Inoue. This is because ultimately no matter how thorough you are, you cannot anticipate the unpredictable nature of human behaviour, he says. Or to put it another way, no matter how sophisticated your robot is at avoiding people, people might not always manage to avoid it, and could end up tripping over it and falling down the stairs. Legal problems [G] In any case, says Dr. Inoue, the laws really just summarize commonsense principles that are already applied to the design of most modern appliances, both domestic and industrial. Every toaster, lawn mower and mobile phone is designed to minimize the risk of causing injury—yet people still manage to electrocute (电死) themselves, lose fingers or fall out of windows in an effort to get a better signal. At the very least, robots must meet the rigorous safety standards that cover existing products. The question is whether new, robot-specific rules are needed—and, if so, what they should say. [H] 'Making sure robots are safe will be critical,' says Colin Angle of iRobot, which has sold over 2m 'Roomba' household-vacuuming robots. But he argues that his firm's robots are, in fact, much safer than some popular toys. 'A radio-controlled car controlled by a six-year old is far more dangerous than a Roomba,' he says. If you tread on a Roomba, it will not cause you to slip over; instead, a rubber pad on its base grips the floor and prevents it from moving. 'Existing regulations will address much of the challenge,' says Mr. Angle. 'I'm not yet convinced that robots are sufficiently different that they deserve special treatment.' [I] Robot safety is likely to surface in the civil coups as a matter of product liability. 'When the first robot carpet-sweeper sucks up a baby, who will be to blame?' asks John Hallam, a professor at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense. If a robot is autonomous and capable of learning, can its designer be held responsible for all its actions? Today the answer to these questions is generally 'yes'. But as robots grow in complexity it will become a lot less clear cut, he says. [J] 'Right now, no insurance company is prepared to insure robots,' says Dr. Inoue. But that will have to change, he says. Last month, Japan's Ministry of Trade and Industry announced a set of safety guidelines for home and office robots. They will be required to have sensors to help them avoid collisions with humans; to be made from soft and light materials to minimize harm if a collision does occur; and to have an emergency shut-off button. This was largely prompted by a big robot exhibition held last summer, which made the authorities realize that there are safety implications when thousands of people are not just looking at robots, but mingling with them, says Dr. Inoue. [K] However, the idea that general-purpose robots, capable of learning, will become widespread is wrong, suggests Mr. Angle. It is more likely, he believes, that robots will be relatively dumb machines designed for particular tasks. Rather than a humanoid robot maid, 'it's going to be a heterogeneous (不同种类的) swarm of robots that will take care of the house,' he says.

单选题According to a paper to be published in Psychological Science this has an interesting psychological effect. A group of researchers, led by Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago, found that people judge the distance of events 24 , depending on whether they are in the past or future. The paper calls this the 'Temporal Doppler Effect'. In physics, the Doppler effect describes the way that waves change frequency depending on whether their 25 is traveling towards or away from you. Mr. Caruso argues that something similar happens with people's perception of time. Because future events are associated with diminishing distance, while those in the past are thought of as 26 , something happening in one month feels psychologically 27 than something that happened a month ago. This idea was tested in a series of experiments. In one, researchers asked 323 28 and divided them into two groups. A week before Valentine's day, members of the first were asked how they planned to celebrate it. A week after February 14th the second group reported how they had celebrated it. Both groups also had to describe how near the day felt on a 29 of one to seven. Those describing forthcoming plans were more likely to report it as feeling 'a short time from now', while those who had already 30 it tended to cluster at the 'a long time from now' end of the scale. To account for the risk that recalling actual events requires different cognitive functions than imagining ones that have not yet happened, they also asked participants to 31 the distance of hypothetical events a month in the past or future. The asymmetry (不对称) remained. Mr. Caruso speculates that his research has 32 for psychological well-being. He suspects that people who do not show this bias—those who feel the past as being closer—might be more 33 to rumination (沉思) or depression, because they are more likely to dwell on past events. A. advancing B. apparently C. available D. closer E. differently F. evaluate G. experienced H. implications I. prospect J. rate K. receding L. scale M. source N. subject O. volunteers

单选题 Questions23-25 are based on the recording you have just heard.

单选题Directions:Forthispart,youareallowed30minutestowriteashortessay.Youshouldstartyouressaywithabriefdescriptionofthepictureandthenexpressyourviewsontheimportanceofupdatingourskills.Youshouldwriteatleast150wordsbutnomorethan200words.

单选题 On the high-speed train from Avignon (阿维尼翁) to Paris, my husband and I landed in the only remaining seats on the train, in the middle of a car, directly opposite a Frenchwoman of middle years. It was an extremely uncomfortable arrangement to be looking straight into the eyes of a stranger. My husband and I pulled out books. The woman produced a large makeup case and proceeded to freshen up. Except for a lunch break, she continued this activity for the entire three-hour trip. Every once in a while she surveyed the car with a bright-eyed glance, but never once did she catch my (admittedly fascinated) eye. My husband and I could have been a blank wall. I was amused, but some people would have felt insulted, even repulsed (厌恶的). There is something about primping in public that calls up strong emotional reactions. Partly it’s a question of hygiene. (Nearly everyone agrees that nail-paling and hair-combing are socially considered unwise to do.) And it’s a matter of degree. Grooming—a private act—has a way of negating the presence of others. I was once seated at a party with a model-actress who immediately waved a silly brush and began dusting her face at the table, demonstrating that while she was next to me, she was not with me. In fact, I am generally inhibited from this maneuver in public, except when I am in the company of cosmetics executives (when it’s considered unpleasant not to do it) or my female friends when it’s a fun just-us-girls moment. In a gathering more professional than social, I would refrain. Kathy Peiss, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and an authority on American beauty rituals, says that nose-powdering in the office was an occasion for outrage in 1920’s and 30's. Deploring the practice as a waste of company time, trade journals advised managers to discourage it among clerical workers. But how much time could it take? Certainly the concern was out of proportion with the number of minutes lost. Peiss theorizes that it was the blatant assertion of a female practice in what had been an all-male province that disturbed critics. Peiss tells me that after the 30’s, pulling out a compact was no longer an issue. It became an accepted practice. I ask if she feels free to apply lipstick at a professional lunch herself. Sounding mildly shocked, she says she would save that for the privacy of her car afterward. Why? Because it would be 'a gesture of inappropriate femininity. 'One guess is that most professional women feel this way. There is evidence of the popularity of the new lipsticks that remain in place all day without retouching. It’s amazing to think that in our talk-show society, where every sexual practice is openly discussed, a simple sex-specific gesture could still have the power to disturb. The move belongs in the female arsenal and, like weapons, must be used with caution.

单选题 Production of the Ambassador, the first car to be made in India, has been halted because of falling demand. Modelled on the Morris Oxford, the car's design has changed little since it first went into production in 1957. But motoring journalist Hormazd Sorabjee is not too upset to see it go. Generations grew up with this car. It was a taxi for many and a family car for the rich. It transported prime ministers, MPs and bureaucrats. It was truly India's national car, dominating the roads for decades. When India's economy was liberalised in the early 1990s, global car-makers and their latest models were allowed into the country for the first time. But the Ambassador continued to have a loyal, although fast-shrinking, fan following. Modern cars in their quest for sleeker styling and better dynamics come with lower rooflines. They can never match the Ambassador's high seating position and generous headroom. This made getting in and out easy, while the car's low front bench gave rear passengers a wonderful, uninterrupted view of the road ahead. Today's cars with their big bucket seats, thick pillars (structural uprights that support a car's roof) and high window lines just don't have the same sense of airiness. There can be no doubt, the Ambassador's departure marks the end of an era. However, for me, it's an era best forgotten. The Ambassador was a symbol of all that was wrong with India's controlled economy and its stifling regulations. Car makers could not increase prices or make more cars without the government's approval. They couldn't import technology or components and had to make do with locally developed bits and pieces that were carelessly produced. Buyers were saddled with cars of very bad quality, which constantly broke down and yet the waiting list to buy one could stretch up to eight years! And there were Ambassador jokes aplenty, my favourite one being: 'The only thing that doesn't make a sound in an Ambassador is the horn!' For the best part of 30 years, the Ambassador got only minimal cosmetic upgrades. The first big change, possibly prompted by emission regulations, was an all-new engine. When I tested the Ambassador for an automobile magazine in the mid-1990s, it was the fastest-accelerating car in India, outpacing the more modern Fiats and Maruti-Suzukis of that age. That it needed the length of an airport runway to stop it was another matter. The maker had barely upgraded the brakes. Modern cars have taken away every last reason left to buy an Ambassador except one: to have a slice of automotive history sitting in your garage.

单选题 A recurring criticism of the UK's university sector is its perceived weakness in translating new knowledge into new products and services. Recently, the UK National Stem Cell Network warned the UK could lose its place among the world leaders in stem cell research unless adequate funding and legislation could be assured. We should take this concern seriously as universities are key in the national innovation system. However, we do have to challenge the unthinking complaint that the sector does not do enough in taking ideas to market. The most recent comparative data on the performance of universities and research institutions in Australia, Canada, USA and UK shows that, from a relatively weak starting position, the UK now leads on many indicators of commercialisation activity. When viewed at the national level, the policy interventions of the past decade have helped transform the performance of UK universities. Evidence suggests the UK's position is much stronger than in the recent past and is still showing improvement. But national data masks the very large variation in the performance of individual universities. The evidence shows that a large number of universities have fallen off the back of the pack, a few perform strongly and the rest chase the leaders. This type of uneven distribution is not peculiar to the UK and is mirrored across other economies. In the UK, research is concentrated: less than 25% of universities receive 75% of the research funding. These same universities are also the institutions producing the greatest share of PhD graduates, science citations, patents and licence income. The effect of policies generating long-term resource concentration has also created a distinctive set of universities which are research-led and commercially active. It seems clear that the concentration of research and commercialisation work creates differences between universities. The core objective for universities which are research-led must be to maximise the impact of their research efforts. These universities should be generating the widest range of social, economic and environmental benefits. In return for the scale of investment, they should share their expertise in order to build greater confidence in the sector. Part of the economic recovery of the UK will be driven by the next generation of research commercialisation spilling out of our universities. There are three dozen universities in the UK which are actively engaged in advanced research training and commercialisation work. If there was a greater coordination of technology transfer offices within regions and a simultaneous investment in the scale and functions of our graduate schools, universities could, and should, play a key role in positioning the UK for the next growth cycle.

单选题 I've always been an optimist and I suppose that is rooted in my belief that the power of creativity and intelligence can make the world a better place. For as long as I can remember, I've loved learning new things and solving problems. So when I sat down at a computer for the first time in seventh grade, I was hooked. It was an old teletype machine and it could barely do anything compared to the computers we have today. But it changed my life. Computers have transformed how we learn, giving kids everywhere a window into all of the world's knowledge. They're helping us build communities around the things we care about and to stay close to the people who are important to us, no matter where they are. Like my friend Warren Buffett, I feel particularly lucky to do something every day that I love to do. He calls it 'tap-dancing to work.' My job at Microsoft is as challenging as ever, but what makes me 'tap-dance to work' is when we show people something new, like a computer that can recognize your hand-writing or your speech, or one that can store a lifetime's worth of photos, and they say, 'I didn't know you could do that with a PC!' But for all the cool things that a person can do with a PC, there are lots of other ways we can put our creativity and intelligence to work to improve our world. There are still far too many people in the world whose most basic needs go unmet. Every year, for example, millions of people die from diseases that are easy to prevent or treat in the developed world. I believe that my own good fortune brings with it a responsibility to give back to the world. As a father, I believe that the death of a child in Africa is no less poignant or tragic than the death of a child anywhere else. And that it doesn't take much to make an immense difference in these children's lives. I'm still very much an optimist, and I believe that progress on even the world's toughest problems is possible—and it's happening every day. We're seeing new drugs for deadly diseases, new diagnostic tools, and new attention paid to the health problems in the developing world. I'm excited by the possibilities I see for medicine, for education and, of course, for technology. And I believe that through our natural inventiveness, creativity and willingness to solve tough problems, we're going to make some amazing achievements in all these areas in my lifetime.

单选题 东方明珠广播电视塔 东方明珠广播电视塔(the Oriental Pearl Radio TV Tower)，坐落在上海浦东新区，是上海的地标。塔高468米，是目前世界第六高塔、亚洲第四高塔。东方明珠塔的主要特色是11个大小不一的球体。整个建筑物的支撑完全靠三根深入地下的巨大立柱。这一设计带有浓烈的东方文化特色，又体现出现代科学技术的进步。东方明珠塔集观光、餐饮(catering)、购物、娱乐、会议、会展、广播电视信号发射等服务功能于一体，如今成为上海的旅游热点之一。

单选题 Now listen to the following recording and answer questions21-23.

单选题 Questions10-12 are based on the passage you have just heard.