单选题According to the text, which of the following statements is not true?

单选题{{B}}Text 1{{/B}} "I love Microsoft and Microsoft did not lose me," protested Robert Scoble, a little too loudly, on his blog last week, in a bid to end feverish speculation in the blogosphere about why, exactly, he had decided to leave Microsoft. The software giant's "technical evangelist", Mr. Scoble has become the best-known example of a corporate blogger. On his blog, called Scobleizer, which he started in 2000, he writes about Microsoft's products, and has sometimes criticised them fiercely—thereby both establishing his credibility and, by its willingness to tolerate him, helping to humanise his employer. As blogging's influence has grown, so bas Mr. Scoble's—both inside and outside Microsoft. Last year, after he blogged against Microsoft's decision to abandon support for a law prohibiting discrimination against gays, the company's managers backed down. He helped write a book, Naked Conversations: How Blogs Are Changing the Way Businesses Talk With Customers, published in January, that has become essential reading for any boss trying to define a new-media strategy for his business. So why leave? Mr. Scoble has denied several of the theories circulating in the blogosphere, including that he had become fed up with having his expenses challenged or with sharing an office; that Microsoft challenged his views too often; that he had become, frustrated; and that the firm had not tried hard enough to keep him. Still, his friend Dave Winer, another blogger, described Microsoft as a "stifling organisation" before observing that "when he finally decided to leave, it's as if a huge weight came off him, and all of a sudden, the old Scoble is back." He views Mr. Scoble's departure as evidence that Microsoft has been unable to move with the times: "I'm glad to see my old friend didn't go down with the ship." Another blogger says that his departure shows the "end of honest blogging." The real reason may be less sinister—though troubling for the growing number of employers encouraging their employees to biog. Blogging allows staff to build a personal brand separate from that of their firm; if they are good at it, and build up a readership, that brand may be more valuable to them elsewhere. Mr. Scoble is off to join PodTech. net, a rising star in video podcasting, which is now far more fashionable than blogging and potentially far more lucrative. It seems that Mr. Scoble is most impressed by Rocketboom, one of whose founders, Amanda Congdon, is said to be drawing 300000 viewers a day to her videoblog, and is about to start charging advertisers $85000 a week—almost as much, Mr. Scoble is reported as saying, "as I made in an entire year working at Microsoft."

单选题The phrase "sour the pleasures of society" ( Par

单选题The reason for the government's expansion program working not so well is______

单选题Bowman' s experiment reveals that when it comes to politics, attractiveness ______.

单选题{{B}}Part A{{/B}}Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. {{B}}Text 1{{/B}} When is an endangered species not an endangered species? When it lives in the sea, apparently. Despite continuing carnage in the ocean, marine creatures were refused any protection at the United Nations conference on trade in wildlife that ended yesterday in Doha, Qatar. Tigers, rhinos and elephants are all better protected after the meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites). But hammerhead sharks, bluefin tuna and other marine species should be quaking in their skins. For when it comes to fish, the world has decided that scientific evidence of imminent demise is not reason enough to defend them against overexploitation. The conflict between trade and conservation is nothing new, but it is pretty well established that if you let trade in wildlife run rampant (蔓延的), soon there will be nothing left to sell. That is why the UN set up Cites in the first place. So why did fish get such a raw deal? Is it that we care less about life that is so very different from us? Do the emotionless eyes of fish leave our hearts cold? Is it an extension of the convenient myth that fish feel no pain? The truth is far more shocking. All fingers of blame point directly at Japan. The high value of bluefin tuna--a single specimen can reach $112 000--led it to orchestrate a full-scale campaign against proposals to ban trade in the species. Diplomatic missions were sent to developing nations to bully them into agreeing with Japan's conviction that fish cannot be endangered. That way of thinking is grounded in ignorance. The oceans long seemed infinite in their capacity to produce such riches, and any sign that this was not so was hidden by our inability to peer into the depths. Science has now stripped back the veil and revealed the extent of the depletion. It is this science that Japan and its allies have chosen to not to see. Unfortunately for life in the sea, Japan's campaign made waves far beyond the bluefin. Sharks are in dire trouble thanks to some people's appetite for using their fins in soup. About 73 million sharks are killed each year as a result, and sharks don't reproduce fast. But far from favoring a ban, nations voted against even the most basic monitoring of the trade. Red and pink corals have now all but vanished from the Mediterranean and are being stripped from the Pacific, but proposals to control that trade were also swept away. Fish don't recognise borders and boundaries. Yet one nation, Japan, by its cynical use of political power is robbing the world of a shared resource.

单选题The conception of poverty and what to (1) about it have changed over the decades. Under Social Darwinism the lazy and the (2) were supposed to be at the bottom of the economic ladder as (3) of the "law of survival of the fittest". Society was (4) as a network of self-sufficient families which provided for their own. (5) persons outside a household (orphans, the (6) elderly, and the crippled ) were provided outdoor relief grudgingly and as a temporary expedient (权宜之计). Although it was (7) that "the poor will always be with us", the individual was expected to improve himself (8) acts of his own will. Charity was thought to be the (9) of idleness. By keeping wages low, laborers would be (10) to work harder. At about the turn of the century, the beginning of concern about natural (11) brought uneasiness about the possible spread of beggary. There was a potentially dangerous class in (12) of disease and disorder. The "poor" were (13) as different from "paupers" Paupers were individuals well (14) to being on the low end of the socioeconomic (15) Without shame or bitterness, they would not seek independence and a " (16) " life. For the mountaineers, the subsistence dwellers, and some slum dwellers, the lack of wealth, (17) has been argued, reflects a preference not to pay the psychological costs of the struggle for fiches or of adopting the middle class work ethic of striving. In (18) , the worthy poor struggled to (19) their lot against circumstances beyond their control: low wages, sickness, industrial (20) , widowhood (孀居) and so on.

单选题{{B}}Text 4{{/B}} Mark Twain once observed that giving up smoking is easy. He knew, because he' d done it hundreds of times himself. Giving up for ever is a trifle more difficult, apparently, and it is well known that it is much more difficult for some people than for others. Why is this so? Few doctors believe any longer that it is simply a question of will power. And for those people that continue to view addicts as merely "weak", recent genetic research may force a rethink. A study conducted by Jacqueline Vink, of the Free University of Amsterdam, used a database called the Netherlands Twin Register to analyze the smoking habits of twins. Her results, published in the Pharmacogenomics Journal, suggest that an individual' s degree of nicotine dependence, and even the number of cigarettes he smokes per day, are strongly genetically influenced. The Netherlands Twin Register is a voluntary database that contains details of some 7,000 pairs of adult twins (aged between 15 and 70) and 28,000 pairs of childhood twins. Such databases are prized by geneticists because they allow the comparison of identical twins (who share all their genes) with fraternal twins (who share half). In this case, however, Dr. Vink did not make use of that fact. For her, the database was merely a convenient repository of information. Instead of comparing identical and fraternal twins, she concentrated on the adult fraternal twins, most of whom had completed questionnaires about their habits, including smoking, and 536 of whom had given DNA samples to the register. The human genome is huge. It consists of billions of DNA "letters", some of which can be strung together to make sense ( the genes) but many of which have either no function, or an unknown function, To follow what is going on, geneticists rely on markers they have identified within the genome. These are places where the genetic letters may vary between individuals. If a particular variant is routinely associated with a particular physical feature or a behavior pattern, it suggests that a particular version of a nearby gene is influencing that feature or behavior. Dr. Vink found four markers which seemed to be associated with smoking. They were on chromosomes 3, 6, 10 and 14, suggesting that at least four genes are involved. Dr. Vink hopes that finding genes responsible for nicotine dependence will make it possible to identify the causes of such dependence. That will help to classify smokers better (some are social smokers while others are physically addicted) and thus enable "quitting" programs to be customized. Results such as Dr. Vink' s must be interpreted with care. Association studies, as such projects are known, have a disturbing habit of disappearing, as it were, in a puff of smoke when someone tries to replicate them. But if Dr. Vink really has exposed a genetic link with addiction, then Mark Twain' s problem may eventually become a thing of the past. Mark Twain once observed that giving up smoking is easy. He knew, because he' d done it hundreds of times himself. Giving up for ever is a trifle more difficult, apparently, and it is well known that it is much more difficult for some people than for others. Why is this so? Few doctors believe any longer that it is simply a question of will power. And for those people that continue to view addicts as merely "weak", recent genetic research may force a rethink. A study conducted by Jacqueline Vink, of the Free University of Amsterdam, used a database called the Netherlands Twin Register to analyze the smoking habits of twins. Her results, published in the Pharmacogenomics Journal, suggest that an individual' s degree of nicotine dependence, and even the number of cigarettes he smokes per day, are strongly genetically influenced. The Netherlands Twin Register is a voluntary database that contains details of some 7,000 pairs of adult twins (aged between 15 and 70) and 28,000 pairs of childhood twins. Such databases are prized by geneticists because they allow the comparison of identical twins (who share all their genes) with fraternal twins (who share half). In this case, however, Dr. Vink did not make use of that fact. For her, the database was merely a convenient repository of information. Instead of comparing identical and fraternal twins, she concentrated on the adult fraternal twins, most of whom had completed questionnaires about their habits, including smoking, and 536 of whom had given DNA samples to the register. The human genome is huge. It consists of billions of DNA "letters", some of which can be strung together to make sense ( the genes) but many of which have either no function, or an unknown function, To follow what is going on, geneticists rely on markers they have identified within the genome. These are places where the genetic letters may vary between individuals. If a particular variant is routinely associated with a particular physical feature or a behavior pattern, it suggests that a particular version of a nearby gene is influencing that feature or behavior. Dr. Vink found four markers which seemed to be associated with smoking. They were on chromosomes 3, 6, 10 and 14, suggesting that at least four genes are involved. Dr. Vink hopes that finding genes responsible for nicotine dependence will make it possible to identify the causes of such dependence. That will help to classify smokers better (some are social smokers while others are physically addicted) and thus enable "quitting" programs to be customized. Results such as Dr. Vink' s must be interpreted with care. Association studies, as such projects are known, have a disturbing habit of disappearing, as it were, in a puff of smoke when someone tries to replicate them. But if Dr. Vink really has exposed a genetic link with addiction, then Mark Twain' s problem may eventually become a thing of the past. Mark Twain once observed that giving up smoking is easy. He knew, because he' d done it hundreds of times himself. Giving up for ever is a trifle more difficult, apparently, and it is well known that it is much more difficult for some people than for others. Why is this so? Few doctors believe any longer that it is simply a question of will power. And for those people that continue to view addicts as merely "weak", recent genetic research may force a rethink. A study conducted by Jacqueline Vink, of the Free University of Amsterdam, used a database called the Netherlands Twin Register to analyze the smoking habits of twins. Her results, published in the Pharmacogenomics Journal, suggest that an individual' s degree of nicotine dependence, and even the number of cigarettes he smokes per day, are strongly genetically influenced. The Netherlands Twin Register is a voluntary database that contains details of some 7,000 pairs of adult twins (aged between 15 and 70) and 28,000 pairs of childhood twins. Such databases are prized by geneticists because they allow the comparison of identical twins (who share all their genes) with fraternal twins (who share half). In this case, however, Dr. Vink did not make use of that fact. For her, the database was merely a convenient repository of information. Instead of comparing identical and fraternal twins, she concentrated on the adult fraternal twins, most of whom had completed questionnaires about their habits, including smoking, and 536 of whom had given DNA samples to the register. The human genome is huge. It consists of billions of DNA "letters", some of which can be strung together to make sense ( the genes) but many of which have either no function, or an unknown function, To follow what is going on, geneticists rely on markers they have identified within the genome. These are places where the genetic letters may vary between individuals. If a particular variant is routinely associated with a particular physical feature or a behavior pattern, it suggests that a particular version of a nearby gene is influencing that feature or behavior. Dr. Vink found four markers which seemed to be associated with smoking. They were on chromosomes 3, 6, 10 and 14, suggesting that at least four genes are involved. Dr. Vink hopes that finding genes responsible for nicotine dependence will make it possible to identify the causes of such dependence. That will help to classify smokers better (some are social smokers while others are physically addicted) and thus enable "quitting" programs to be customized. Results such as Dr. Vink' s must be interpreted with care. Association studies, as such projects are known, have a disturbing habit of disappearing, as it were, in a puff of smoke when someone tries to replicate them. But if Dr. Vink really has exposed a genetic link with addiction, then Mark Twain' s problem may eventually become a thing of the past.

单选题Dr Thrun strongly hold that the autonomous vehicles

单选题You may spend too much time in a bookshop because

单选题According to paragraph 4,

单选题According to the passage, which of the foilowing best describes normal Indian families? ______

单选题By "outraged rhetoric" (Paragraph 3), the author is talking about

单选题Lonely people, it seems, are at greater risk than the gregarious of developing illnesses associated with chronic inflammation, such as heart disease and certain cancers. A paper published last year in the Public Library of Science, Medicine , shows the effect on mortality of loneliness is comparable with that of smoking and drinking after examining the results of 148 previous studies and controlled for factors such as age and pre-existing illness. Steven Cole of the University of California, Los Angeles, thinks he may know why this is so. He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Washington, D.C., about his work studying the expression of genes in lonely people. Dr. Cole harvested samples of white blood cells from both lonely and gregarious people. He then analysed the activity of their genes, as measured by the production of a substance called messenger RNA. This molecule carries instructions from the genes telling a cell which proteins to make. The level of messenger RNA from most genes was the same in both types of people. There were several dozen genes, however, that were less active in the lonely, and several dozen others that were more active. Moreover, both the less active and the more active gene types came from a small number of functional groups. Broadly speaking, the genes less active in the lonely were those involved in staving off viral infections. Those that were more active were involved in protecting against bacteria. Dr. Cole suspects this could help explain not only why the lonely are iller, but how, in evolutionary terms, this odd state of affairs has come about. The crucial bit of the puzzle is that viruses have to be caught from another infected individual and they are usually species-specific. Bacteria, in contrast, often just lurk in the environment, and may thrive on many hosts. The gregarious are therefore at greater risk than the lonely of catching viruses, and Dr. Cole thus suggests that past evolution has created a mechanism which causes white cells to respond appropriately. Conversely, the lonely are better off ramping up their protection against bacterial infection, which is a bigger relative risk to them. What Dr. Cole seems to have revealed, then, is a mechanism by which social environment reaches inside a person"s body and tweaks its genome so that it responds appropriately. It is not that the lonely and the gregarious are genetically different from each other. Rather, their genes are regulated differently, according to how sociable an individual is. Dr. Cole thinks this regulation is part of a wider mechanism that tunes individuals to the circumstances they find themselves in.