单选题______ ,There was a revival in literacy.

单选题In the wake of September 11, the construction techniques of skyscrapers are innovated so as to make them

单选题We can learn from the beginning of the text that

单选题What' s the difference between old and new Boston Marathons?

单选题 Formal economic forecasting is usually based on a{{U}} (1) {{/U}}theory as to how the economy works. Some theories are complicated, and their application requires an elaborate{{U}} (2) {{/U}}of cause and effect. Others are relatively simple,{{U}} (3) {{/U}}most developments in the economy to one or two basic factors. Many economists, for example, believe that changes in the supply of money{{U}} (4) {{/U}}the rate of growth of general business activity. Others{{U}} (5) {{/U}}a central role to investment in new facilities-- housing, industrial plants, highways, and so forth. In the United States, where consumers{{U}} (6) {{/U}}such a large share of economic activity, some economy believe that consumer decisions to{{U}} (7) {{/U}}or save provide the principal{{U}} (8) {{/U}}to the future course of the entire economy. Obviously the theory that a forecaster applies is of{{U}} (9) {{/U}}importance to the forecasting process; it{{U}} (10) {{/U}}his line of investigation, the statistics he will regard as most important, and many of the techniques he will apply. Although economic theory may determine the general{{U}} (11) {{/U}}of a forecast, judgment also often plays an important role. A forecaster may decide that the circumstances of the moment are{{U}} (12) {{/U}}and that a forecast produced by the{{U}} (13) {{/U}}statistical methods should be modified to take account of special current circumstances. This is particularly necessary when some event outside the Usual run of economic activity has an a{{U}} (14) {{/U}}economic effect. For example, forecasts of 1987 economic activity in the United States were more accurate when the analyst correctly foresaw that the exchange value of the dollar would{{U}} (15) {{/U}}sharply during the year that consumer spending would slacken, and that{{U}} (16) {{/U}}rates would rise only moderately. None of these conclusions followed{{U}} (17) {{/U}}purely economic analysis; they all required judgment as to future decisions{{U}} (18) {{/U}}, an economist may decide to adjust an economic forecast that was made by traditional methods to take account of other unique{{U}} (19) {{/U}}; he may, for example, decide that consumers will{{U}} (20) {{/U}}their spending patterns because of special circumstances such as rising price of imports or fear of threatened shortages.

单选题At the start of the year, The Independent on Sunday argued that there were three overwhelming reasons why Iraq should not be invaded: there was no proof that Saddam posed an imminent threat; Iraq would be even more unstable as a result of its liberation; and a conflict would increase the threat posed by terrorists. What we did not know was that Tony Blair had received intelligence and advice that raised the very same points. Last week's report from the Intelligence and Security Committee included the revelation that some of the intelligence had warned that a war against Iraq risked an increased threat of terrorism. Why did Mr. Blair not make this evidence available to the public in the way that so much of the alarmist intelligence on Saddam's weapons was published? Why did he choose to ignore the intelligence and argue instead that the war was necessary, precisely because of the threat posed by international terrorism? There have been two parliamentary investigations into this war and the Hutton inquiry will reopen tomorrow. In their different ways they have been illuminating, but none of them has addressed the main issues relating to the war. The Foreign Affairs Committee had the scope to range widely, but chose to become entangled in the dispute between the Government and the BBC. The Intelligence Committee reached the conclusion that the Government's file on Saddam's weapons was not mixed up, but failed to explain why the intelligence was so hopelessly wrong. The Hutton inquiry is investigating the death of Dr. David Kelly, a personal tragedy of marginal relevance to the war against Iraq. Tony Blair has still to come under close examination about his conduct in the building-up to war. Instead, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is being fingered as if he were master-minding the war behind everyone's backs from the Ministry' of Defence. Mr. Hoon is not a minister who dares to think without consulting Downing Street first. At all times he would have been dancing to Downing Street's tunes, Mr. Blair would be wrong to assume that he can draw a line under all of this by making Mr.Hoon the fall-guy. It was Mr. Blair who decided to take Britain to war, and a Cabinet of largely skeptical ministers that backed him. It was Mr. Blair who told MPs that unless Saddam was removed, terrorists would pose a greater global threat--even though he had received intelligence that suggested a war would lead to an increase in terrorism. Parliament should be the forum in which the Prime Minister is called more fully to account, but lain Duncan Smith's support for the war has neutered an already inept opposition. In the absence of proper parliamentary scrutiny, it is left to newspapers like this one to keep asking the most important questions until the Prime Minister answers them.

单选题According to the fourth paragraph, the author seems to think that

单选题Five and a half years into his presidency, George Bush finally vetoed a bill this week. Oddly enough, it was one that most Americans support: it would have expanded foderal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. The House and Senate had both passed the bill by wide, but not veto-proof margins, so Mr. Bush's word is final, at least until after the mid-term elections in November. Stem cells are cells that have not yet decided what they want to be when they grow up. That is, they can become blood cells, brain cells, or pretty much any other type of cell. Their versatility makes them extremely useful for medical research. The ethical snag is that the best stem cells are harvested from human embryos, killing them. For the most ardent pro-lifers, including Mr. Bush and many of his core supporters, that is murder. Proponents of embryonic stem-cell research point out that hordes of embryos are created during fertility treatment, and the vast majority of these are either frozen indefinitely or destroyed. Is it really wrong to use them for potentially life-saving research? Yes, said Mr. Bush on July 19th, flanked by some families who had "adopted" other people's frozen embryos and used them to have children of their own. Mr. Bush's veto does not kill stem-cell research. Scientists who spurn federal cash may do as they please. The government still pays for research on stem cells taken from adults, a process that does not kill the donor. And a decision by Mr. Bush in 2001 allows federally-funded scientists to experiment on the few dozen embryonic stem-cell "lines" that already existed then, which can be propagated in a laboratory. Nonetheless, scientists are furious with Mr. Bush. Federal funding would surely push them faster towards those elusive cures. Research based on adult stem cells may be promising, but not nearly as promising as that based on embryonic ones. There are worries that those few dozen embryonic stem-cell lines represent too narrow a gene pool, and that they cannot be endlessly extended without damaging them. Other countries, such as Britain and China, are enthusiastically experimenting on embryonic stem cells. But the world's most innovative nation is hanging back.

单选题{{B}}Text 4{{/B}} Euthanasia is clearly a deliberate and intentional aspect of a killing. Taking a human life, even with subtle rites and consent of the party involved is barbaric. No one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well, no matter what the motive for doing so may be. Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral. They oppose killing patients in any circumstances whatever. However, they think it is all right, in some special circumstances, to allow patients to die by withholding treatment. The American Medical Association's policy statement on mercy killing supports this traditional view. In my paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia" I argue, against the traditional view, that there is in fact no normal difference between killing and letting die--if one is permissible, then so is the other. Professor Sullivan does not dispute my argument; instead he dismisses it as irrelevant. The traditional doctrine, he says, does not appeal to or depend on the distinction between killing and letting die. Therefore, arguments against that distinction "leave the traditional position untouched." Is my argument really irrelevant? I don't see how it can be. As Sullivan himself points out, nearly everyone holds that it is sometimes meaningless to prolong the process of dying and that in those cases it is morally permissible to let a patient die even though a few more hours or days could be saved by procedures that would also increase the agonies of the dying. But if it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible. But traditionalists like professor Sullivan hold that active euthanasia--the direct killing of patients--is not morally permissible; so, if my argument is sound, their view must be mistaken. I can not agree, then, that my argument "leave the traditional position untouched." However, I shall not press this point. Instead I shall present some further arguments against the traditional position, concentrating on those elements of the position which professor Sullivan himself thinks most important. According to him, what is important is, first, that we should never intentionally terminate the life of a patient, either by action or {{U}}omission{{/U}}, and second, that we may cease or omit treatment of a patient, knowing that this will result in death, only if the means of treatment involved are extraordinary.

单选题It is not just Indian software and " business-process outsourcing" firms that are benefiting from the rise of the internet. Indian modern art is also on an upward spiral, driven by the aspirations of newly rich Indians, especially those living abroad, who use the internet to spot paintings and track prices at hundreds of gallery and auction websites. Prices have risen around 20-fold since 2000, particularly for prized names such as Tyeb Mehta and F. N. Souza. There would have been "no chance" of that happening so fast without the internet, says Arun Vadehra, who runs a gallery in Delhi and is an adviser to Christie's, an international auction house. He expects worldwide sales of Indian art, worth $ 200 million last year, to double in 2006. It is still a tiny fraction of the $ 30 billion global art market, but is sizeable for an emerging market. For newly rich--often very rich--non-resident Indians, expensive art is a badge of success in a foreign land. "Who you are, and what you have, are on your wails," says Lavesh Jagasia, an art dealer in Mumbai. Indian art may also beat other forms of investment. A painting by Mr. Mehta that fetched $ 1.58 million last September would have gone for little more than $100,000 just four years ago. And a $ 22 million art-investment fund launched in July by Osian's, a big Indian auction house, has grown by4.1% in its first two months. Scant attention was paid to modern Indian art until the end of the 1990s. Then wealthy Indians, particularly those living abroad, began to take an interest. Dinesh Vazirani, who runs Saffronart, a leading Indian auction site, says 60% of his sales go to buyers overseas. The focus now is on six auctions this month. Two took place in India last week; work by younger artists such as Surendran Nair and Shibu Natesan beat estimates by more than 70%. Sotheby's and Christie's have auctions in New York next week, each with a Tyeb Mehta that is expected to fetch more than $1 million. The real question is the fate of other works, including some by Mr. Souza with estimates of up to $ 600,000. If they do well, it will demonstrate that there is strong demand and will pull up prices across the board. This looks like a market with a long way to run.

单选题The word "accepted" in the last sentence of the first paragraph roughly means ______.

单选题The main difference between the modem superfarm and diversified farms is______

单选题The purpose of the author in writing this article is to show how to

单选题The word "draconian" (Line 1, Paragraph 4) may probably mean

单选题It can be inferred that the statements in the last paragraph are most probably