单选题Discoveries in science and technology are thought by "untaught minds" to come in blinding flashes or as the result of dramatic accidents. Sir Alexander Fleming did not, as legend would have it, look at the mold (霉) on a piece of cheese and get the idea for penicillin there and then. He experimented with antibacterial substances for nine years before he made his discovery. Inventions and innovations almost always come out of laborious trial and error. Innovation is like soccer; even the best players miss the goal and have their shots blocked much more frequently than they score. The point is that the players who score most are the ones who take most shots at the goal and so it goes with innovation in any field of activity. The prime difference between innovators and others is one of approach. Everybody gets ideas, but innovators work consciously on theirs, and they follow them through until they prove practicable or otherwise. What ordinary people see as fanciful abstractions, professional innovators see as solid possibilities. "Creative thinking may mean simply the realization that there's no particular virtue in doing things the way they have always been done, " wrote Rudolph Flesch, a language authority. This accounts for our reaction to seemingly simple innovations like plastic garbage bags and suitcases on wheels that make life more convenient. "How come nobody thought of that before?" The creative approach begins with the proposition that nothing is as it appears. Innovators will not accept that there is only one way to do anything. Faced with getting from A to B, the average person will automatically set out on the best-known and apparently simplest route. The innovator will search for alternative courses, which may prove easier in the long run and are bound to be more interesting and challenging even if they lead to dead ends. Highly creative individuals really do march to a different drummer.

单选题Proper arrangement of classroom space is important to encouraging interaction. Most of us have noticed how important physical setting is to efficiency and comfort when we work. Today"s corporations hire human engineering specialists and spend a great deal of time and money to make sure that the physical environments of buildings are fit to the activities of their inhabitants. Similarly, college classroom space should be designed to encourage the activity of critical thinking. We moved into the twenty-first century, but stepped into almost any college classroom and you would step back in time at least a hundred years. Desks were normally in straight rows, so students could clearly see the teacher but not all their classmates. The assumption behind such an arrangement is obvious: everything important comes from the teacher. With a little imagination and effort, unless desks are fixed to the floor, the teacher can correct this situation and create space that encourages interchanges among students. In small or standardsized classes, chairs, desks and tables can be arranged in different ways: circles, U-shapes, or semicircles. The primary goal should be for everyone to be able to see everyone else. Larger classes, particularly those held in lecture halls, unfortunately, allow much less flexibility. Arrangement of the classroom should also make it easy to divide students into small groups for discussion or problem-solving exercises. Small classes with moveable desks and tables present no problem. Even in large lecture halls, it is possible for students to turn around and form groups of four to six. Breaking a class into small groups provides more opportunities for students to interact with each other, think out hard, and see how other students" thinking processes operate—all these are the most important elements in developing new modes of critical thinking. In courses that regularly use a small group format, students might be asked to stay in the same small groups throughout the course. A colleague of mine allows students to move around during the first two weeks, until they find a group they are comfortable with. He then asks them to stay in the same seat, with the same group, from then on. This not only creates a comfortable setting for interaction but helps him learn students" names and faces.

单选题In the author's opinion, who is the most influential person in Great Britain?

单选题Why is it not handy to study film?

单选题How efficient is our system of criminal trial? Does it really do the basic job we ask of it — convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent? It is often said that the British trial system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do justice. The lawyers on each side are so engrossed in playing bard to win, Challenging each other and the judge on technical points, that the object of finding out the truth is almost forgotten. All the effort is concentrated on the big day, on the dramatic cross examination of the key Witnesses in front of the jury. Critics like to compare our "adversarial" system (resembling two adversaries engaged in a contest) with the continental "inquisitorial" system, under which the judge play a more important inquiring role. In early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were similar. At that time trial by "ordeal" — especially a religious event — was the main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this way eventually abandoned the two systems parted company. On the continent church-trained legal officials took over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and the jurymen who were illiterate and this meant that all the evidence had to be put to them orally. This historical accident dominates procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of mouth on the crucial day. On the other hand, in France for instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an investigating judge. This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much of its is just a public checking of the written records already gathered. The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock and barrel and enshrined it in their constitution. But, while the basic features of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way serious cases are handled. First, because the USA has virtually no contempt of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television, Americans lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and beliefs. In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled. Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain it is the solicitor who prepares the case, and the barrister who appears in court is not even allowed to meet witnesses beforehand. British barristers also alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. Being kept distant from the preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately. American lawyers, however, often know their cases better. Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries' mistakes and successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt piecemeal.

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题Question 11～13 are based on the following dialogue between two strangers who met at the bus stop. You now have 15 seconds to read Questions 11～13.

单选题In the last 30 years, science and technology have had a truly dramatic impact on sports. There are three major reasons for this. First, new artificial materials have appeared and been used in many sports—sometimes to revolutionary effect. Second, our design expertise has improved, partly through the development of computers and other technical tools. We know more and can plan and predict more accurately in many critical areas. The third reason why science and technology have had an increasing impact is that there is now the money and the motivation for them to do so. In a variety of ways, sport has become very big business, and in the matter of winning or losing, very large amounts of money may be at stake. Technology has influenced specific sports in many ways. Wherever a commercial mass market is involved, technical change may be promoted largely for the sake of change, to make this season"s product seem different from that of last season. An example of this trend is in the endless search for the perfect sports shoe. Anatomically precise support for the heel and ankle, air sacs for extra spring and comfort each year bring apparent new refinements. Even in retirement, basketball"s Michael Jordan remains one of sport"s biggest earners because of the deal he signed endorsing the Air Jordan shoe; and one of the richest sportspeople of all, though his winnings these days are minimal, is the veteran golfer Arnold Palmer, thanks to his endorsements of the latest in golf technology. More significant still in modern sports have been more general effects of technological advance. It has provided the means for timing athletes to thousandths of a second—and the means of replaying an event to check who won or to see if a break-rule occurred. It has put sport on television, so millions can watch without moving from their own homes. It has provided the means for testing for illegal drugs. It has also, for better or worse, given sportsmen and women a new attitude towards their own bodies—encouraged also by the high stakes, the sponsorship and the fevered media attention. Technology helps them plan the best diet and exercise regimes; it has created heart and lung monitors that measure stress and oxygen intake; and it allows athletes to keep a constant check on their own physical problems and progress. In terms of nutrition (fuel) and training (maintenance), the modern sportsperson is treated—and treats himself or herself—like a machine.

单选题 Questions 17--20 are based on the following passage. You now have 20 seconds to read Questions 17--20.