单选题During the reign of Augustus, changes happened in Rome army, excluding ______.

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题______invasions established three major groups in England. Saxons, Angles and Jutes.

单选题The longest reign in British history was______.

单选题 {{B}}TEXT A{{/B}} An airliner travelling from London to New York may take from five to fifteen hours to cross the Atlantic, while a space capsule makes one complete circuit of the earth in about ninety minutes. The sequence of events is very similar in both types of flight: the vehicle must take off, climb to a suitable height, fly in the right direction at a relatively constant speed for an appropriate time, descend, and land at the destination. Yet although flights to New York are routine affairs which almost anyone may safely undertake, a flight into space is a hazardous adventure for which only a few selected men are at present considered suitable. The most obvious difference between an aircraft and a space vehicle is that of speed, but this alone cannot account for the greater stamina required of astronauts. The human body is unaffected by speed alone and we are normally quite unconscious of the earth's rotation on its axis, or of its rapid motion around the Sun. Of much greater importance is the rate at which the final speed is achieved, for the body is extremely sensitive to alterations of velocity, or accelerations, especially if they are sudden. An airliner can take a comparatively long time to reach its cruising speed of, say, 400mph, and its passengers will experience acceleration only to a mild degree. The space capsule, however, must be hurled through the atmosphere to reach its final speed of 18,000 mph as quickly as possible, and the acceleration applied by the launching rocket must be correspondingly high. The first problem of manned space flight, therefore, is to match the performance of the rocket to the body's tolerance for acceleration, and this naturally involves a study of the physiological effects of acceleration. Like all other accelerations, gravity acts upon objects to produce a force, and this force is experienced as weight, or as pressure. It is usual and convenient to regard the earth's gravity as a standard unit, referred to as lg, and also to use the expressions "force" and "acceleration" as interchangeable. Most of our knowledge of the physiological effects of acceleration has come from studies on human centrifuges, in which acceleration is produced by rotation instead of by changing speed. It has been found that human tolerance is greatly affected by the direction in which the force acts. When the acceleration is applied in line with the long axis of the body, the early symptoms are merely of difficulty in lifting the arms and legs, and of being thrust down into the seat. If the acceleration is raised to 3g or so, vision becomes slightly misty or veiled. As the stress is increased further, the field of view contracts from the edges, until at about 4.5g only a small patch of central vision remains. With yet higher accelerations, even this small area is lost, and this is the state well known to fighter pilots as "black-out". Finally, at about 5.5g to 6g consciousness is lost. The remedy follows logically: if tolerance depends upon the ability of the heart to push blood to the head, it should be possible to reduce the load by shortening the distance between heart and brain. Crouching, or bending the head forward, would be one solution, but an even more satisfactory result can be achieved by placing the body across the line of thrust. The effort needed to pump blood to the brain is then quite small, for the heavy fluid does not have to be lifted very far. In this position men have. withstood an acceleration of 17g for a period of three or four minutes without loss of consciousness. Gravity and acceleration become important once more during the re-entry of the space capsule through the earth's atmosphere. In this phase, all the speed acquired at the cost of so much fuel during the launch must be lost. Deceleration has exactly the same properties and physiological effects as acceleration, and the same precautions must be taken to avoid exceeding the limits of tolerance. This is why the American plan involves turning the whole capsule round shortly before re-entry, so that the man is again pressed back into his protective couch. The highest, and shortest, deceleration of the entire flight comes at the moment of impact with the land or water. Here the last remnants of the speed must be lost very suddenly, and forces of up to 30g can easily accompany descent to an unyielding surface. The duration of this final insult is so short, however, that its physiological effects are negligible. No doubt the astronaut would regard the jolt as a welcome indication of his return to a normal 1g environment.

单选题 Questions 7 and 8 are based on the following news item. At the end of the news item, you will be given JO seconds to answer each question. Now listen to the news.

单选题Traditionally, semantics includes the following studies EXCEPT______. A. argument structure B. thematic roles C. discourse analysis D. implicatures

单选题Which of the following writers does not belong to the lakers of the Romantic Period?

单选题 Questions 7 and 8 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer each of the two questions. Now listen to the news.

单选题Who was named the "Father of the American detective stories"?A. Nathaniel Hawthorne B. Herman MelvilleC. Edgar Allan Poe D. James Fenimore Cooper

单选题Which of the following is NOT mentioned explicitly or implicitly in the speech?

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题Questions 9 and 10 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions.

单选题{{B}}TEXT C{{/B}} Los Angeles cabinet-maker Edward Stewart may be a modern Dr. Frankenstein. In 1959, he claims, he restored a dead friend to life with a simple technique. He opened the dead man's chest, rubbed his heart with a "secret, life-giving’plant juice, then stimulated the heartbeat with 110 volts of electricity. The friend, says Stewart, has been living in Hawaii ever since. Stewart also claims his revivification technique works on the small animals he suffocates in jars in his garage. It takes three hours to revive a dead mouse, he reports, and five hours for a small dog. "Some-times, "he adds , "I buy those little chicken hearts in the super-market, and I make them beat again using my plant juice before I cook them for dinner." According to Stewart, he discovered the plant juice one day while cutting hedges around his former home in Hawaii. Juice from one of the plants splattered onto his wrist, he says, and he suddenly noticed the skin begin to twitch. Nonetheless, he adds, he can't reveal the name of the plant. "When the juice is zapped with electricity, "he says, "it gives off a deadly gas." To promote his idea, Stewart has spent the past decade sending his papers to the University of California, he Army, and a number of government agencies. One scientist who evaluated the concept was Lynn Eldridge, of the Jerry Lewis Neuromuscular Research Center, in Los Angeles. She says Stewart may not be joking. "The extracts from plant like belladonna are used to supply nutrients to human organs, which must be kept alive while traveling to a transplant. So Stewart might cut the heart out of a mouse and keep it alive with plant juice. But this effect is short-lived, and the organ must be placed into a healthy body or it dies. It's impossible to place a live organ in a dead body and expect it to revive every other organ in that body. I think Stewart has observed a basic scientific phenomenon, but his interpretation is crazy."

单选题Jan Hendrik Schon's success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only fuur years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers—one every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers—which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature—the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk—the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells—it is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely. Science is built on the honor system; the method of peer-review, in which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the field, is not meant to catch cheats. In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success. The questions raised anew by Hwang's fall are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers. Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters; cell biologists have Cell; neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care? Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the accolades of academics and satisfy the publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications. Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature, not just the public. Scientists tend to pay more attention to the Big Two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they're more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being oft-cited will increase a scientist's "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the Impact Factor as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they're considering supporting. Whether the clamor to appear in these journals has any bearing on their ability to catch fraud is another matter. The fact is that fraud is terrifically hard to spot. Consider the process Science used to evaluate Hwang's 2005 article. Science editors recognized the manuscript's import almost as soon as it arrived. As part of the standard procedure, they sent it to two members of its Board of Reviewing Editors, who recommended that it go out for peer review (about 30 percent of manuscripts pass this test). This recommendation was made not on the scientific validity of the paper, but on its "novelty, originality, and trendiness," says Denis Duboule, a geneticist at the University of Geneva and a member of Science's Board of Reviewing Editors, in the January 6 issue of Science. After this, Science sent the paper to three stem-cell experts, who had a week to look it over. Their comments were favorable. How were they to know that the data was fraudulent? "You look at the data and do not assume it's fraud," says one reviewer, anonymously, in Science. In the end, a big scandal now and then isn't likely to do much damage to the big scientific journals. What editors and scientists worry about more are the myriad smaller infractions that occur all the time, and which are almost impossible to detect. A Nature survey of scientists published last June found that one-third of all respondents had committed some forms of misconduct. These included falsifying research data and having "questionable relationships" with students and subjects—both charges leveled against Hwang. Nobody really knows if this kind of fraud is on the rise, but it is worrying. Science editors don't have any plans to change the basic editorial peer: review process as a result of the Hwang scandal. They do have plans to scrutinize photographs more closely in an effort to spot instances of fraud, but that policy change had already been decided when the scandal struck. And even if it had been in place, it would not have revealed that Hwang had misrepresented photographs from two stem cell colonies as coming from 11 colonies. With the financial and deadline pressures of the publishing industry, it's unlikely that the journals are going to take markedly stronger measures to vet manuscripts. Beyond replicating the experiments themselves, which would be impractical, it's difficult to see what they could do to make science beyond the honor system.

单选题WhatmighthappenintheaccidentonMonday?A.AnEgyptianwasprobablykilledbythewarningshots.B.Threeboatsallreceivedtwosetsofwarningshots.C.Allthesmallboatsstoppedimmediatelyatthewarning.D.NoonediedononeoftheEgyptiansmallboats.

单选题Questions 6 and 7 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer each of the two questions. Now listen to the news.

单选题Thenecessityfortalkingabout"regrets"canbesummarizedasthatregretsarevery______.A.annoyingforpeopleB.wonderfulforpeopleC.commontopeopleD.puzzlingtopeople

单选题 {{B}}TEXT A{{/B}} Critics and supporters of the United Nations have sometimes seen worlds apart. But since last year, almost all of them, whether multilateralist or unilateralist, American or European, have come to agree that the organization is in crisis. This week, a blue ribbon panel commissioned by the body's secretary-general, Kofi Annan, released its report on what to do about it. The U. N. 's sorry state became most obvious with the Iraq war. Those favoring the war were furious that after a decade of Security Council resolutions, including the last-chance Resolution 1441 threatening "serious consequences" if Iraq did not prove its disarmament, the U. N. could not agree to act. Anti-war types were just as frustrated that the world body failed to stop the war. But Iraq was not the U. N.'s only problem. It has done little to stop humanitarian disasters, such as the ongoing horror in Sudan. And it has done nothing to stop Iran's and North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Recognizing the danger of irrelevance, Mr. Annan last year told a 16-member panel, composed mainly of former government ministers and heads of government, to suggest changes. These fall broadly into two categories: the institutional and the cultural. The former has got most of the headlines -- particularly a call for changing the structure of the Security Council. But changes in the U. N. 's working practices are crucial too. Everyone agrees that the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic: of its 15 seats, five are occupied by permanent, veto-wielding members (America, Russia, China, Britain and France) and ten go to countries that rotate every two years and have no veto. But that the council's composition is a throwback to the world order immediately after the Second World War has been agreed on for decades, without any success in changing it. Japan and Germany, the secondand thirdbiggest contributors to the U.N. budget, believe they are entitled to permanent seats. So does India, the world's second-most- populous country, and Brazil, Latin America's biggest. Unlike in previous efforts, these four have finally banded together to press their case. And they are joined in spirit by the Africans, who want two seats for their continent. But each aspirant has opponents. Italy opposes a permanent seat for Germany, which would make Italy the only biggish European power. It instead proposes a single seat for the European Union, a non- starter since this would require Britain and France to give up theirs, and regional institutions cannot be U.N. members under the current U.N. Charter. Spanish-speaking Mexico and Argentina do not think Portuguese-speaking Brazil should represent Latin America, and Pakistan strongly opposes its rival India's bid. As for potential African seats, Egypt claims one as the representative of the Muslim and Arab world. That would leave Nigeria, the continent's most populous country, and South Africa, which is richer and a more stable democracy, fighting for the other. The panel has proposed two alternatives. The first would give six countries ( none is named but probably Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and two African countries) permanent seats without a veto, and create three extra non-permanent seats, bringing the total number of council members to 24. The second, which would expand the council by the same number of seats, creates a new middle tier of members who would serve for four years and could be immediately re-elected, above the current lower tier of two-year members, who cannot be re-elected. The rivals to the would-be permanent members favor this option. While Security Council reform may be the most visible of the proposals, the panel has also shared its views on the guidelines on when members may use force legally, tinder the U. N. Charter, they can do so in two circumstances only: Article 51 allows force in a clear case of self-defense, and Chapter Ⅶ permits its use when the Security Council agrees. While the panelists have not proposed major changes to these two parts of the Charter, they have offered refinements. Though the Charter was written to govern war between countries, the panel argues that even without revision, Chapter Ⅶ lets the Security Council authorize force for more controversial, modem reasons like fighting terrorists and intervention in states committing humanitarian horrors. It even considers "preventive" wars against serious but non-imminent threats potentially justifiable. But the panel also says any decision to use force must pass five tests: the threat must be grave; the primary purpose must be to avert the threat; force must be a last resort; means must be proportional; and there must be a reasonable chance that force will succeed without calamitous consequences. All common-sense stuff, but the panel proposes making these tests explicit (if subjective and unofficial), thus raising the quality of debate about any decision to go to war. On top of this, the report urges the U.N. to make better use of its assets in the fight against terrorism. One of the obstacles to an effective counter-terrorism strategy has been U.N. members' inability to agree on a definition of terrorism. The panel tries to help by defining it as "any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants"; Arab countries may continue to press for exemptions in the case of "foreign occupation". The report also deals with what it sees as a possible "cascade of nuclear proliferation" in the near future. It recommends creating more incentives for countries to stop enriching uranium.

单选题Belgian universities do NOT offer courses on