单选题The human nervous system differs from that of animals in that

单选题What is the main topic of the article?

单选题{{B}}Text 4{{/B}} The World Health Organization says as many as 10 million persons worldwide may have the virus(病毒)that causes AIDS. Experts believe about 350 thousand persons have the disease. And one million more may get it in the next five years. In the United States, about 50000 persons have died with AIDS. The country's top medical official says more than 90 percent of all Americans who had the AIDS virus five years ago are dead. There is no cure for AIDS and no vaccine (疫苗) medicine to prevent it. However, researchers know much more about AIDS than they did just a few years ago. We now know that AIDS is caused by a virus. The virus invades healthy cells including white blood cells that are part of our defense system against disease. It takes control of the healthy cell's genetic(遗传的)material and forces the cell to make a copy of the virus. The cell then dies. And the viral particles move on to invade and kill more healthy cells. The AIDS virus is carried in a person's body fluids. The virus can be passed sexually or by sharing instruments used to take intravenous (静脉内的) drugs. It also can be passed in blood products or from a pregnant woman with AIDS to her developing baby. Many stories about the spread of AIDS are false. You cannot get AIDS by working or attending school with someone who has the disease. You cannot get it by touching, drinking glasses or other objects used by such persons. Experts say no one has gotten AIDS by living with, caring for or touching an AIDS patient. There are several warning signs of an AIDS infection. They include always feeling tired, unexplained weight loss and uncontrolled expulsion of body wastes(大小便失禁). Other warnings are the appearance of white areas on the mouth, dark red areas of skin that do not disappear and a higher than normal body temperature.

单选题Which of the following is TRUE according to par

单选题The author holds that the man's explanation was______

单选题You go looking for a book to buy as a present for a child, and you will be spoiled for choice, even in a year such as this, when there is no new Harry Potter by Ms. J. K. Rowling. And her wizard is not alone: the past decade has been a productive one for good children's books, which has set off an enormous number of films and in turn led to increased sales of classics such as The Lord of the Rings and so forth. Yet despite the abundance in excellent books, reading is increasingly unpopular among children in Britain. According to the National Foundation for Educational Research, in 1997, 23% said they didn't like reading at all. In 2003, 35% did. And around 6% of children leave primary school each year unable to read properly. Maybe the declining popularity of reading is the fault of the increasing availability of computer games. Maybe the books boom has affected only the top of the educational pile. Either way, Gordon Brown, the chancellor, plans to change things for the bottom of the class. In his pre-budget report, he announced the national implementation of Reading Recovery, a scheme to help the children who are struggling most. Reading Recovery is aimed at six-year-olds, who receive four months of individual daily half-hour sessions with a specially trained teacher. An evaluation published earlier this year reported that children on the scheme made 20 months' progress in just one year, whereas similarly weak readers who received no special help made just five months, progress, and so ended the year even further below the level expected for their age. At more than ￡2, 000 per pupil, Reading Recovery is not cheap. But it may be a sound investment. The KPMG Foundation, a charity that has been paying for Reading Recovery in some schools, reckons that each child who leaves primary school unable to read will go on to cost the taxpayer at least ￡50, 000 in specialist teaching in secondary schools, dealing with truancy, paying benefits to adults who are more likely to be sick and jobless, and the consequences of increased crime. International research tends to find that by the time British children leave primary school they are reading well by international standards, but read less often for fun than that elsewhere. The inspectors said that when they asked why it is good to be able to read, children were more likely to say that it would help them to do well in tests or get a good job than that reading was enjoyable. This matters not only because children who are keen on reading can look forward to lifelong pleasure, but because loving books is an excellent predictor of future educational success. According to the OECD, being a regular and enthusiastic reader is more of an advantage than having well-educated parents in good jobs.

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} If you smoke, you'd better hurry. From July 1st pubs all over England will, by law, be no-smoking areas. So will restaurants, offices and even company cars, if more than one per-son uses them. England's smokers are following a well-trodden path. The other three bits of the United Kingdom have already banned smoking in almost all enclosed public spaces, and there are anti-smoking laws of varying strictness over most of Western Europe. The smoker' s journey from glamour through toleration to suspicion is finally reaching its end in pariah status. But behind this public-health success story lies a darker tale. Poorer people are much more likely to smoke than richer ones—a change from the 1950s, when professionals and la-borers were equally keen. Today only 15% of men in the highest professional classes smoke, but 42% of unskilled workers do. Despite punitive taxation—20 cigarettes cost around ￡ 5.00 ($10.00), three-quarters of which is tax—55% of single mothers on benefits smoke. The figure for homeless men is even higher; for hard-drug users it is practically 100% . The message that smoking kills has been heard, it seems, but not by all. Having defeated the big killers of the past—want, exposure, poor sanitation—governments all over the developed world are turning their attention to diseases that stem mostly from how individuals choose to live their lives. But the same deafness afflicts the same people when they are strongly encouraged to give up other sorts of unhealthy behavior. The lower down they are on practically any pecking order—job prestige, income, education, background-the more likely people are to be fat and unfit, and to drink too much. That tempts governments to shout ever louder in an attempt to get the public to listen and nowhere do they do so more aggressively than in Britain. One reason is that pecking orders matter more than in most other rich countries: income distribution is very unequal and the unemployed, disaffected, ill-educated rump is comparatively large. Another reason is the frustration of a government addicted to targets, which often aim not only to improve some-thing but to lessen inequality in the process. A third is that the National Health Service is free to patients, and paying for those who have arguably brought their ill-health on themselves grows alarmingly costly. Britain' s aggressiveness, however, may be pointless, even counter-productive. There is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting. It irritates the majority who are already behaving responsibly, and it may also undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that they have an ultra-cautious margin of error built in. Such hectoring may also be missing the root cause of the problem. According to Mr. Marmot, who cites research on groups as diverse as baboons in captivity, British civil servants and Oscar nominees, the higher rates of ill health among those in more modest walks of life can be attributed to what he calls the "status syndrome". People in privileged positions think they are worth the effort of behaving healthily, and find the will-power to do so. The implication is that it is easier to improve a person's health by weakening the connection between social position and health than by targeting behavior directly. Some public-health experts speak of social cohesion, support for families and better education for all. These are bigger undertakings than a bossy campaign; but more effective, and quieter.

单选题The word "assumption" probably means ______.

单选题What do we learn from the first paragraph?______

单选题{{B}}Text 3{{/B}} The Inland Revenue on Thursday accused the British film industry of abusing government aid, with every production of recent years deliberately over-claiming tax relief. Revenue officials called in about 20 members of the film industry and warned them of severe consequences if the "exploitation" of tax-relief schemes did not immediately stop. The move, which affects the including low to high-budget film-makers and financiers, is the latest in a series of attempts by the Revenue to clamp down on tax loopholes in an attempt to raise more money for the Exchequer, But the film industry responded on Thursday night, saying the Revenue could drive productions overseas and would confuse investors. A series of tax relief schemes, introduced in 1997, enables those involved in the financing of qualifying British-made films to claim the costs of production against future income. The schemes have Become popular with investors seeking a tax shelter, with an estimated ￡400m invested in the schemes in 1997 rising to about ￡2bn last year. But the Revenue said the industry was exploiting rules on tax relief by "double dipping", that is, by claiming relief more than once against a single piece of expenditure. While not illegal, the Revenue said, the industry was "not playing fair". It said double-dipping was "against the spirit" of legislation designed to encourage investment in the British film industry. The Revenue said the practice of double dipping was "virtually universal", with "every qualifying film it had seen financed on the basis of double dipping". It warned it would "take all steps to counter such abuse including, where necessary, advising ministers on introducing legislation to put matters beyond doubt". "Both the Revenue and the government are becoming increasingly exasperated at the extent to which some parts of the industry are exploiting the film reliefs," the Revenue said. "The government remains committed to encouraging film production in the UK through use of the reliefs in the way in which the legislation allows--but this does not extend to deliberate exploitation of those reliefs." Large film financiers said on Thursday night that the Revenue's action could undermine growth prospects for the British film industry. Peter James, managing director of Movision Entertainment, which has produced 16 British-made films in recent years, including the soon-to-be released "Merchant of Venice", said while the effect of the Revenue's clamp down would not Be "devastating", it could drive many independent film-makers overseas. Industry observers said on Thursday the Revenue's move was likely to confuse investors, who have been accustomed to the benefits of double-dipping.

单选题The description of Mr. Kozeny's case shows