单选题Agriculture must, therefore, ______ workers and savings to the new industrialized, urbanized sectors if a modern economy is to be achieved. A. yield B. succumb C. subject D. resort

单选题Which of the following sums up the main idea of this passage?

单选题Unfortunately, the woman's hat ______ my view of the stage. A. blocked up B. obstructed C. prevented D. interfered

单选题______ scientists have observed increased pollution in the water supply. A. Late B. Later C. Latter D. Lately

单选题If I had a car of my own, I______it to your sister yesterday.(2014年厦门大学考博试题)

单选题He had a quarrel with his wife and just ______ her.

单选题When I was still an architecture student, a teacher told me, "We learn more from buildings that fall down than from buildings that stand up." What he meant was that construction is as much the result of experience as of theory. Although structural design follows established formulas, the actual performance of a building is complicated by the passage of time, the behavior of users, the natural elements--and unnatural events. All are difficult to simulate. Buildings, unlike cars, can't be crash-tested. The first important lesson of the World Trade Center collapse is that tall buildings can withstand the impact of a large jetliner. The twin towers were supported by 59 perimeter columns on each side. Although about 30 of these columns, extending from four to six floors, were destroyed in each building by the impact, initially both towers remained standing. Even so, the death toll (代价) was about-2 245 people lost their lives. I was once asked, how tall buildings should be designed given what we'd learned from the World Trade Center collapse. My answer was, "Lower." The question of when a tall building becomes unsafe is easy to answer. Common aerial fire-fighting ladders in use today are 100 feet high and can reach to about the 10th floor; So fires in buildings up to 10 stories high can be fought from the exterior (外部). Fighting fires and evacuating occupants above that height depend on fire stairs. The taller the building, the longer it will take for firefighters to climb to the scene of the fire. So the simple answer to the safety question is "Lower than 10 stories." Then why don't cities impose lower height limits? A 60-story office building does not have six times as much rentable space as a 10-story building. However, all things being equal, such a building will produce four times more revenue and four times more in property taxes. So cutting building heights would mean cutting city budgets. The most important lesson of the World Trade Center collapse is not that we should stop building tall buildings but that we have misjudged their cost. We did the same thing when we underestimated the cost of hurtling along a highway in a steel box at 70 miles per hour. It took many years before seat belts, air hags, radial tires, and antilock brakes became commonplace. At first, cars simply were too slow to warrant concern. Later, manufacturers resisted these expensive devices, arguing that consumers would not pay for safety. Now we do-- willingly.

单选题The page of a newspaper is divided into______.

单选题The gloves were really too small, and it was only by ______ them that I can get them on.

单选题The local authorities realized the need to make______ for elderly people in their housing programs.(2008年北京大学考博试题)

单选题Coach Green allowed John to join the basketball team although, ______, he was not tall enough. A. economically B. technically C. methodically D. intellectually

单选题It was ______ for him to wear a T-shirt at the reception.

单选题______ this coming Thursdag. it will be too late to enroll for the course.

单选题In the development of a government agency, ______ .

单选题If you come to Tokyo, I can put you ______ in an apartment near my company. A. across B. down C. out D. up

单选题According to BBC boxing reporter Mike Costello, just as there is worldwide ______ with boxing, so there is worldwide opposition.

单选题The most important advances made by man come from ______.

单选题The fire caused great losses, but the factory tried to ______ the consequences by saying that the damage was not as serious as reported.

单选题Cloning shakes us all to our very souls. For humans to consider the cloning of one another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make them all human. The cloning of any species, whether they be human or non-human, is wrong. Scientists and ethicists alike have debated the implications of human or non-human cloning extensively since 1997 when .scientists at Roslin Institute in Scotland produced Dolly. No direct conclusions have been drawn, but compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and psychological effects on both groups. The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of severe abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive. Even Lan Wilmut, one of the scientists accredited with the cloning phenomenon at the Roslin Institute agrees, "the more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong." The psychological effects of cloning are less obvious, but nonetheless, very plausible. In addition to physical harms, there are worries about the psychological harms to cloned human children. One of those harms is that cloning creates serious issues of identity and individuality. Human cloning is obviously damaging to both the family and the cloned child. It is harder to convince that non-human cloning is wrong and unethical, but it is just the same. Western culture and tradition has long held the belief that the treatment of animals should be guided by different ethical standards than the treatment of humans. Animals have been seen as non-feeling and savage beasts since time began. Humans in general have no problem with seeing animals as objects to be used whenever it becomes necessary. But what would happen if humans started to use animals as body for growing human organs? What if we were to learn how to clone functioning brains and have them grow inside of chimps? Would non-human primates, such as a chimpanzee, who carried one or more human genes via transgenic technology, be defined as still a chimp, a human, a subhuman, or something else? If defined as human, would we have to give it rights of citizenship? And if humans were to carry non-human transgenic genes, would that alter our definitions and treatment of them? Also, if the technology were to be so that scientists could transfer human genes into animals and vice versa, it could create a worldwide catastrophe that no one would be able to stop.