复合题Directions: Read the following passages and then answer the questions which follow each passage. Use only information from the passage you have just read and write your answer in I the corresponding space on your answer sheet.Rising global carbon dioxide levels tied to global warming may not be as crucial in determining the composition of plant communities as other, localized climate changes.“Nobody really knows what the increases in carbon dioxide are going to entail in terms of future changes in vegetation types, ” said Mark Brenner, a University of Florida assistant professor of paleolimnology, the study of ancient lakes. “It looks like climate changes in different areas may be more important than carbon dioxide, at least carbon dioxide by itself, ” he said.Brenner’ s research team based their conclusions on an analysis of sediment from two lake bottoms, one in northern Mexico and one in northern Guatemala. The researchers used new techniques that allowed them to analyze only the remains of land plants, specifically their leaf waxes. By measuring the composition of the leaf waxes, the researchers were able to distinguish two broad categories of plants living in these areas — so-called C3 and C4 plants, which have different photosynthetic processes. Many C4 plants are tropical grasses, while most tropical trees are C3 plants. The researchers analyzed sediments deposited over the last 27, 000 years, from the last ice age to the current geological period. Over this period, there was a worldwide, relatively uniform increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.Brenner said that if carbon dioxide played the major role in determining plant composition, one would assume that analysis of the sediments would reveal very similar changes in relative abundance of C3 and C4 plants in the two places over the study period. But, in fact, the researchers found that trends in the two types of plants were different at the two locations. The changes were related not with carbon dioxide levels, but with shifts in rainfall. “The result appears to be that climate factors, especially moisture availability, determine whether C4 or C3 plants dominate in an area, not carbon dioxide, ” Brenner said.Many scientists believe global warming will cause major variation in local climates worldwide, with some wet areas becoming dry and dry areas becoming wet. If that happens, it could have more impact on relative C3 versus C4 plant distribution than the rising carbon dioxide levels.

复合题Passage TwoHumans are more vulnerable than our closest relatives,chimpanzees, to age-related diseases because we liverelatively longer, suggests a study.It’ s amazing just how many medical myths there are tochoose from, but one part of the body seems to attractmore than its fair share, and that’ s the brain. One of myfavourite brain myths is the idea that we only use 10% ofit. It’ s an appealing idea because it suggests thepossibility that we could become so much more intelligent,successful or creative, if only you could harness thatwasted 90%. This might inspire us to try harder, butunfortunately that doesn’ t mean there’ s any truth in it.First of all, it’ s important to ask the question—10% ofwhat? If it is 10% of the regions of the brain to whichpeople are referring, this is the easiest idea to quash.Using a technique called functional magnetic resonanceimaging, neuroscientists can place a person inside ascanner and see which parts of the brain are activatedwhen they do or think about something. A simple actionlike clenching and unclenching your hand or saying a fewwords requires activity in far more than a tenth of thebrain. Even when you think you are doing nothing yourbrain is doing rather a lot—whether it’ s controllingfunctions like breathing and heart rate, or recalling theitems on your to-do list.But maybe the 10% refers to number of brain cells. Againthis doesn’ t work. When any nerve cells are going sparethey either degenerate and die off or they are colonisedby other areas nearby. We simply don’ t let our braincells hang around idly. They’ re too valuable for that. Infact our brains are a huge drain on our resources. Keepingbrain tissue alive consumes 20% of the oxygen we breathe,according to cognitive neuroscientist Sergio Della Sala.It is true that nature can sometimes involve some strangedesigns, but to evolve to have a brain ten times the sizewe needed would seem very odd, when its large dimensionsare so costly to our survival, leading on occasion toobstructed labour and the death of a mother duringchildbirth if no help is available.Yet many people do cling on to the idea that we only use10% of our brains. The idea is so prevalent that when theUniversity College London neuroscientist Sophie Scott wason a first aid course the tutor assured the class thathead injuries are not very serious because of the 10%“fact” . He was not only wrong about the 10%, but he wasalso wrong about the impact of brain damage. Even a smallinjury can have huge effects on a person’ s capabilities.The first aid tutor probably wasn’ t bargaining oninstructing a professor of neuroscience on the course, butScott put him right.So how can an idea with so little biological orphysiological basis have spread so widely? It is hard totrack down an original source. The American psychologistand philosopher William James mentioned in The Energies ofMen in 1908 that we “are making use of only a small partof our possible mental and physical resources” . He wasoptimistic that people could achieve more, but he does notrefer to brain volume or quantity of cells, nor does hegive a specific percentage. The 10% figure is mentioned inthe preface to the 1936 edition of Dale Carnegie’ s best-selling book how to Win Friends and Influence People, andsometimes people say that Albert Einstein was the source.But Professor Della Sala has tried to find the quote, andeven those who work at the Albert Einstein archives canfind no record of it. So it seems this might be a mythtoo.There are two other phenomena that might account for themisunderstanding. Nine-tenths of the cells in the brainare so-called glial cells. These are the support cells,the white matter, which provide physical and nutritionalhelp for the other 10% of cells, the neurons, which makeup the grey matter than does the thinking. So perhapspeople heard that only 10% of the cells do the hard graftand assumed that we could harness the glial cells too. Butthese are different kind of cells entirely. There is noway that they could suddenly transform themselves intoneurons, giving us extra brain power.There is a very rare group of patients whose brain scansreveal something extraordinary, though. In 1980, a Britishpaediatrician called John Lorber mentioned in the journalScience that he had patients with hydrocephalus who hadhardly any brain tissue, yet could function. This doesn’ tof course show us that the rest of us could make extra useof our brains, just that these people have adapted toextraordinary circumstances.It is, of course, true that if we put our minds to it wecan learn new things, and there is increasing evidence inthe area of neuroplasticity showing that this changes ourbrains. But we are not tapping into a new area of thebrain. We create new connections between nerve cells orlose old connections that we no longer need.What I find most intriguing about this myth is howdisappointed people are when you tell them it’ s not true.Maybe it’ s the figure of 10% that is so appealing becauseit is so low that it offers massive potential forimprovement. We’ d all like to be better. And we can bebetter if we try. But, sadly, finding an unused portion ofour brains isn’ t the way it’ s going to happen.

复合题Directions: In this section, you are to read a passage with 15 blanks and fill in the blanks with words or phrases given. Choose one suitable word or phrase marked A, B, C and D for each blank.

复合题Passage 3Mrs. Moreen, however, continued to be convincing; sitting there with her fifty francs she talked andrepeated, as women repeat, and bored and irritated him, while he leaned against the wall with hishands in the pocket of his wrapper, drawing it together round his legs and looking over the head of hisvisitor at the grey negations of his window. She wound up with saying: “You see I bring you a definiteproposal.”“A definite proposal?”“To make our relations regular, as it were—to put them on a comfortable footing.”“I see—it’s a system,” said Pemberton. “A kind of blackmail.”Mrs. Moreen bounded up, which was what the young man wanted.“What do you mean by that?”“You practice on one’s fears—one’s fears about the child if one should go away.”“And pray, with whom should a child be but those whom he loves most?”“If you think that, why don’t you dismiss me?”“Do you pretend that he loves you more than he loves us” cried Mrs. Moreen.“I think he ought to. I make sacrifices for him. Though I’ve heard of those you make, I don’t see them.Mrs. Moreen stared a moment; then, with emotion, she grasped Pemberton’s hand. “Will you make it—the sacrifice?”Pemberton burst out laughing. “I’ll see—I’ll do what I can—I’ll stay a little longer. Your calculationis just—I do hate intensely to give him up; I’m fond of him and he interests me deeply, in spite of theinconvenience I suffer. You know my situation perfectly; I haven’t a penny in the world, and, occupiedas I am with Morgan, I’m unable to earn money.”Mrs. Moreen tapped her undressed arm with her folded banknote. “Can’t you write articles? Can’tyou translate as I do?”“I don’t know about translating; it’s wretchedly paid.”“I am glad to earn what I can,” said Mrs. Moreen virtuously, with her head held high.“You ought to tell me who you do it for.” Pemberton paused a moment, and she said nothing; so headded: “I’ve tried to turn off some sketches, but the magazines won’t have them—they’ve declinedwith thanks.”“You see then you’re not such a phoenix—to have such pretensions,” smiled his interlocutress.“I haven’t time to do things properly,” Pemberton went on. Then as it came over him that he wasalmost abjectly good-natured to give these explanations he added: “If I stay on longer it must be onone condition—that Morgan shall know distinctly on what footing I am.”Mrs. Moreen hesitated. “Surely you don’t want to show off to a child?”“To show you off, do you mean?”Again Mrs. Moreen hesitated, but this time it was to produce a still finer flower. “And you talk ofblackmail!”“You can easily prevent it,” said Pemberton.“And you talk of practicing on fears,” Mrs. Moreen continued.“Yes, there’s no doubt I’m a great scoundrel.”One can infer in lines 24-32(underlined sentences) that Mrs.Moreen feels _____.

复合题In the following article, some paragraphs have beenremoved. For questions 16-20, choose the most suitableparagraphs from the list A~F to fit into each of thenumbered gaps. There is ONE paragraph which does not fitin any of the gaps. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.Grow-ups, as any child will tell you, are monstroushypocrites, especially when it comes to television. It isto take their minds off their own telly-addiction thatadults are so keen to hear and talk about the latestreport on the effects of programs on children. Surely allthat nonsense they watch must be desensitizing them,making them vicious, shallow, acquisitive, lessresponsible and generally sloppy about life and death. Butno, not a scrap of convincing evidence from thesociologists and experts in the psyches of children.For many years now parents, teachers and newspaper editorshave been disappointed by the various studies, andsociologists are beginning to fail into disrepute forfailing to come attuned to the desired results. The latestreport, “Popular TV and Schoolchildren” , perhaps moreattuned to the authoritarian times in which we live,assumes greater moral leadership and hands out laurels andwooden spoons to TV shows and asserts, as educatorsshould, the importance of having values.The kids, on the other hand, will not be switching offKenny Everett now they have been told how sexist andtrivial he is. (As if they didn’ t know! ) Nor, I suspect,will they have become more sexist and trivial themselvesfrom watching him.The nation has lived with the box for more than 30 yearsnow and has passed from total infatuation—revivedtemporarily by the advent of color—to the present casualobsession which is not unlike that of the well-adjustedalcoholic. And now the important and pleasant truth isbreaking, to the horror of program makers and theirdetractors alike, that television really does not affectmuch at all.This is tough on those diligent professionals who produceexcellent work; but since—as everyone agrees—awfulprograms far outnumber the good, it is a relief to knowthe former cannot do much harm. Television cannot evenmake impressionable children less pleasant.And if TV imparts little bad, there is no reason to thinkit does much good either. It has failed spectacularly tomake our children more callous and violent, and it hasfailed by way of “Jackanory” or “Blue Peter” to forgea young nation of origami adepts, or dog handlers orbuilders of lawn mower out of coat hangers and wire corks.Television turns out to be no great transformer of mindsor society. We are not, en masse(全体地) , as it was oncepredicted we would be, fantastically well-informed aboutother culture or about the origins of life on earth.People do not remember much from television documentarybeyond how good it was. Only those who know somethingabout the subject in the first place retain theinformation.Documentariesare not what most people want to watch anyway. Television is at its most popular when it celebrates its own present. Its ideal subjects are those that need not be remembered and can be instantly replaced,where what matters most is happening now and what is going to happen next. Sport, news, panel games, cop shows, long- running soap opera, situation comedies—these occupy us only for as long as they are on.However good is or bad it is, a night’ s viewing is wonderfully forgettable. It’ s a little sleep, it’ s entertainment; our morals and for that matter, our brutality, remain intact. The box is further neutralized by the sheer quantity people watch. The more of it you see, the less any single bit of it matter. Of course, some programs are infinitely better than other. There are gifted people working in television. But seen from a remoter perspective—say , four hours a night viewing for three months—the quality of individual programs means as much as the quality of each car in the rush-hour traffic. For the heavy viewer, TV has only two meaningful states— on and off. What are the kids doing? Watching TV. No need to talk what, the answer is sufficient. Soon, I’ ll go up there and turn it off. Like a light bulb it will go out and the children will do something else.It appears the nation’ s children spend more time in frontof their TVs than in the classroom. Their heads are fullof TV—but that’ s all, just TV. The Kojak violence theywitness is TV violence, sufficient to itself. It dose notbrutalize them to the point where they cannot grieve theloss of a pet, or be shocked at some minor playgroundviolence. Children, like everyone else, know thedifference between TV and life. TV knows its place. Itimparts nothing but itself; it has its own rules, its ownlanguage, its own priorities.It is because this little glowing, chattering screenbarely resembles life at all that it remains so usefullyineffectual. To stare a brick wall would waste time.Whatever the TV/video industry might now say, televisionwill never have the impact on civilization that theinvention of the written word has had. The book—hislittle hinged thing—is cheap, portable, virtuallyunbreakable, endlessly reusable, has instant replayfacilities and in slow motion if you want it, needs nopower lines, batteries or aerials, work in panes and traintunnels, can be stored indefinitely without muchdeterioration.What did parents and teachers think of the effects of programs on children? Is there any profound evidence?

复合题A simple idea underpins science: “trust, but verify” . Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better. But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science and of humanity.Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis. A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. In 2000-2010 roughly 80, 000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.Even when flawed research does not put people’ s lives at risks—and much of it is too far from the market to do so —it squanders money and the efforts of some of the world’ s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.One reason is the competitiveness of science. In the 1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the Second World War, it was still a rarefied pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to “publish or perish” has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut- throat. Full professors in America earned on average $135, 000 in 2012—more than judges did. Every year six freshly minted PhDs vie for every academic post. Nowadays verification does little to advance a researcher’ s career. And without verification, dubious findings live on to mislead.Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry- picking of results. In order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high rejection rates: in excess of 90% of submitted manuscripts. The most striking findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page. Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results “based on a gut feeling” . And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, the odds shorten that at least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a freak of the statistical noise.Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. “Negative results” now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists.The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.All this makes a shaky foundation for an enterprise dedicated to discovering the truth about the world. What might be done to shore it up? One priority should be for all disciplines to follow the example of those that have done most to tighten standards. Ideally, research protocols should be registered in advance and monitored in virtual notebooks. This would curb the temptation to fiddle with the experiment’ s design midstream so as to make the results look more substantial than they are. Where possible, trial data also should be open for other researchers to inspect and test.The most enlightened journals are already becoming less averse to humdrum papers. Some government funding agencies, including America’ s National Institutes of Health, which dish out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication. And growing numbers of scientists, especially young ones, understand statistics. But these trends need to go much further. Journals should allocate space for “uninteresting” work, and grant-givers should set aside money to pay for it. Peer review should be tightened—or perhaps dispensed with altogether, in favor of post- publication evaluation in the form of appended comments. Lastly, policymakers should ensure that institutions using public money also respect the rules.Science still commands enormous—if sometimes bemused— respect. But its privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work. The false trails laid down by shoddy research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding.

复合题Itisoftenclaimedthatnuclearenergyissomethingwecannotdowithout.Weliveinaconsumersocietywherethereisanenormousdemandforcommercialproductsofallkinds.Moreover,anincreaseinindustrialproductionisconsideredtobeonesolutiontotheproblemofmassunemployment.Suchanincreasepresumesanabundantandcheapenergysupply.Manypeoplebelievethatnuclearenergyprovidesaninexhaustibleandeconomicalsourceofpowerandchatitisthereforeessentialforanindustriallydevelopingsociety.Thereareanumberofotheradvantagesintheuseofnuclearenergy.Firstly,nuclearpower,exceptforaccidents,isclean.Afurtheradvantageisthatanuclearpowerstationcanberunandmaintainedbyrelativelyfewtechnicalandadministrativestaff.Thenuclearreactorrepresentsanenormousstepinourscientificevolutionand,whatevertheanti-nucleargroupsays,itiswrongtoexpectareturntomoreprimitivesourcesoffuel.However,opponentsofnuclearenergypointoutthatnuclearpowerstationsbringadirectthreatnotonlytotheenvironmentbutalsotocivilliberties.Furthermore,itisquestionablewhetherultimatelynuclearpowerisacheapsourceofenergy.Therehave,forexample,beenverycostlyaccidentsinAmerica,inBritainand,ofcourse,inRussia.Thepossibilityofincreasesinthecostofuraniuminadditiontothecostofgreatersafetyprovisionscouldpricenuclearpoweroutofthemarket.Inthelongrun,environmentalistsargue,nuclearenergywastesvaluableresourcesanddisturbstheecologytoanextentwhichcouldbringaboutthedestructionofthehumanrace.Thus,ifwewishtosurvive,wecannotaffordnuclearenergy.Inspiteofthecaseagainstnuclearenergyoutlinedabove,nuclearenergyprogramsareexpanding.Suchanexpansionassumesacontinualgrowthinindustrialproductionandconsumerdemands.However,itisdoubtfulwhetherthisgrowthwillorcancontinuehavingweigheduptheargumentsonbothsides,itseemstherearegoodeconomicandecologicalreasonsforsourcesofenergyotherthannuclearpower.

复合题It’ s an exciting notion that one’ s very self could be broadened by the mastery of two or more languages. In obvious ways (exposure to new friends, literature and so forth) the self-reality is broadened. Yet it is different to claim—as many people do—to have a different personality when using a different language. A former colleague, for example, reported being ruder in Hebrew than in English. So what is going on here?Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist who died in 1941, held that each language encodes a worldview that significantly influences its speakers. Often called “Whorfinanism” , this idea has its skeptics. But there are still good reasons to believe language shapes thought.This influence is not necessarily linked to the vocabulary or grammar of a second language. Significantly, most people are not symmetrically bilingual. Many have learned one language at home from parents, and another later in life, usually at school. So bilinguals usually have different strengths and weaknesses in their different languages—and they are not always best in their first language. For example, when tested in a foreign language, people are less likely to fall into a cognitive trap (answering a test question with an obvious-seeming but wrong answer) than when tested in their native language. In part this is because working in a second language slows down the thinking. No wonder people feel different when speaking them. And no wonder they feel looser, more spontaneous, perhaps more assertive or funnier or blunter, in the language they were reared in from childhood.What of “crib” bilinguals, raised in two languages? Even they do not usually have perfectly symmetrical competence in their two languages. But even for a speaker whose two languages are very nearly the same in ability, there is another big reason that person will feel different in the two languages. This is because there is an important distinction between bilingualism and biculturalism.Many bilinguals are not bicultural. But some are. And of those bicultural bilinguals, we should be little surprised that they feel different in their two languages. Experiments in psychology have shown the power of “priming” —small unnoticed factors that can affect behavior in big ways. Asking people to tell a happy story, for example, will put them in a better mood. The choice between two languages is a huge prime. Speaking Spanish rather than English, for a bilingual and bicultural Puerto Rican in New York, might conjure feelings of family and home. Switching to English might prime the same person to think of school and work.So there are two very good reasons that make people feel different speaking their different languages. We are still left with a third kind of argument, though.People seem to enjoy telling tales about their languages’ inherent properties, and how they influence their speakers. A group of French intellectual worthies once proposed, rather self-flatteringly, that French be the sole legal language of the EU, because of its supposedly unmatchable rigor and precision. Some Germans believe that frequently putting the verb at the end of a sentence makes the language especially logical. We also see some unsurprising overlap with national stereotypes and self- stereotypes: French, rigorous; German, logical; English, playful. Of course.In this case, Ms Chalaris, a scholar, at least proposed a specific and plausible line of causation from grammar to personality: in Greek, the verb comes first, and it carries a lot of information, hence easy interrupting. The problem is that many unrelated languages all around the world put the verb at the beginning of sentences. Many languages all around the world are heavily inflected, encoding lots of information in verbs. It would be a striking finding if all of these unrelated languages had speakers more likely to interrupt each other. Welsh, for example, is also both verb-first and about as heavily inflected as Greek, but the Welsh are not known as pushy conversationalists.Neo-Whorfians continue to offer evidence and analysis that aims to prove that different languages push speakers to think differently. One such effort is forthcoming: “The Bilingual Mind” to be published in April. Meanwhile John McWhorter takes the opposite stance in “The Language Hoax” , forthcoming in February. But strong Whorfian arguments do not need to be valid for people to feel differently in their different languages.

复合题In this section there are four passages followed by 20 questions or unfinished statements, each with four suggested answers marked A. B, C and D. Choose the one that you think is the correct answer

复合题Periodically in history, there come periods of greattransition in which work changes its meaning. There was atime, perhaps 10, 000 years ago, when human beings stoppedfeeding themselves by hunting game and gathering plants,and increasingly turned to agriculture. In a way, thatrepresented the invention of “work” .Then, in the later decades of 18th century, as theIndustrial Revolution began in Great Britain, there wasanother transition. In which the symbols of work were nolonger the hoe and the plow; they replaced by the mill andthe assembly line.And now we stand at the brink of a change that will be thegreatest of all, for work in its old sense will disappearaltogether. To most people, work has always been aneffortful exercising of mind or body—compelled by thebitter necessary of earning the necessities of life—plusan occasional period of leisure in which to rest or havefun.With the Industrial Revolution, machinery—powered firstby steam, then by electricity and internal combustionengines—took over the hard physical tasks and relievedthe strain on human and animal muscles.There remained, however, the “easier” labor—the laborthat required the human eyes, ears, judgment and mind butno sweating. It nevertheless had its miseries, for ittended to be dull,repetitions, and boring. And there isalways the sour sense of endlessly doing somethingunpleasant under compulsion.And yet, such jobs have been characteristic of the humancondition in the first three quarters of the 20th century.They made too little demand on the human mind and spiritto keep them freshand alive, made too much demand for anymachine to serve the purpose—until now.The electronic computer, invented in the 1940’ s andimprove at the breakneck speed, was a machine that , forthe first time, seemed compact enough, versatile enoughand (most important of all) cheap enough to serve as thebrains of affordable machines that their place on theassembly line and in the office.This means that the dull, the boring, the repetitious, themind-stultifying work will begin to disappear from the jobmarket—is already beginning to disappear. This, ofcourse, will introduce two vital sets of problem—isalready introducing them.First, what will happened to the human beings who havebeing working at these disappearing jobs?Second, what will happen to the human beings that will dothe news that will appear—jobs are demanding, interestingand mind-exercising, but that require a high-tech level ofthought and education?Clearly there will be a painful period of transition, onethat is starting already, and one that will be in fullswing as the 21st century begins.The first problem, that of technological unemployment,will be temporary, for it will arise out of the fact thatthere is now a generation of the employees who have notbeen educated to fit the computer age. However, (inadvantage nations, at least) they will be the lastgeneration to be so lacking, so that with them thisproblem will disappear or, at least, diminish to the pointof noncrisis proportions.The second problem, that of developing a large enoughnumber of high-tech minds to run a high-tech world—willbe no problem at all, once we adjust our thinking.In the first place, the computer age will introduce atotal revolution in our notions of educations, and isbeginning to do so now. The coming of the computer willmark learning fun, and a successfully stimulated mind willlearn quickly. It will undoubtedly turn out that the“average” child is much intelligent and creative than wegenerally suppose. There was a time, after all. When theability to read and write was confined to a very smallgroup of “scholars” and almost all of them would havescouted the notion that just about anyone could learn theintricacies of literacy. Yet with mass education generalliteracy came to be a fact.Right now, creativity seems to be confined to a very few,and it’ s easy to suppose that that is the way it must be.However, with the proper availability of computerizededucation, humanity will surprise the elite few onceagain.What does the author mean by “work in its old sense will disappear altogether” with the Industrial Revolution?

复合题Ofallthemusicalrichesthatexistinourlives,theorchestraaffordsusthemostvariedsourceofgenuinelisteningpleasure.Countlesscommunitieslookupontheirlocalorchestras,whethersmallorlarge,astheirmosttreasuredculturalpossessions.Manyofthelargerorchestralensemblesmaintainfairlyextensivetravelschedulesthatbringthemtotownsandcitieswithoutaregularorchestraoftheirown.Inaddition,thegreatorchestrasoftheworldcannowreacheventhemostremoteareasduetoaprofusionofrecordedperformances,aswellasthroughradioandtelevisionbroadcasts.Anenormousrepertoireisavailableforanyonewhocarestolisten.Worksinthisrepertoirerangefromearlyorchestralliteratureforsmallerorchestrastograndcreationswrittenforthefullorchestrabymajorcomposers,fromthegiantorchestralmasterpiecestotheavant-gardecomplexitiesofmoderntimes.Withoutadoubt,theorchestrahasbecomethemostimportantvehicleforthetransmissionofmusicalthought.Themusicianswithintheorchestra’sranksenrichtheircommunityimmeasurablybyensuringthatnewgenerationsofmusicians,orsimplymusiclovers,aregiventhekindofsuperiorinstructionthatonlyanactivelyengaged,practicingmusiciancanimpart.InEurope,orchestrasusuallyenjoyeitherdirectorindirectgovernmentsupport.IntheUnitedStates—wheretherearetodayclosetoonethousandorchestrasofallsizesandofvaryingimportance—itismoreamatterofcivicconsciousnessandprideforthepeopleoflocalcommunitiestotakeontheresponsibilityofsupportingtheirorchestras,therebygettingpersonallyinvolvedinindividualaswellasgroupeffortsinbehalfofmusic.However,theseprivatecontributionsrarelykeepanorchestraoutofdebt,andsomepublicfundsareusedintheUnitedStatestosupportorchestras.Forexample,theNationalEndowmentfortheArts,anindependentfederalagency,distributesaportionofitsfundstoorchestrasocieties.Bothinamusicalandsociologicalsense,theorchestratodayoccupiesacentralpositioninourculturallife.Alookattheevolutionoftheorchestranotonlyprovidesuswithinvaluableinsightintothedevelopmentofmusicbutalsoaffordsusacapsulehistoryofthepatronageofthearts.

复合题Passage 1My suicide attempt when I was a senior in high school must have puzzled those around me. From the outside, it seemed that I had a lot going for me. I lived in a comfortable middle class home with swimming pool. I was active in sports, a member of the National Honor Society, an editor of the school newspaper. But I was also miserable.I was convinced that no one understood me, especially my parents. I didn’t see much of my father, who was busy with his work. My mother had died when I was very young, and my stepmother and I didn’t get along. Our personalities clashed, and I felt she didn’t like me. I remember her once telling me, “I didn’t have to take you, you know.”Socially awkward, I tried to make amends through sports. I remember eagerly waiting for my father to come home from work so I could tell him that I had made the field-hockey team. He just said, “I bet everybody made it.” I interpreted his remark as another message that I was worthless.When I was 15, my parents began to talk about divorce, and I was sure I was the cause. I knew that my father felt caught between my mother and me. He’d yell at me to “shape up,” then I’d hear him in the next room, asking Mother, “Can’t you give the kid a break?” though I thought of running away from home, I was stopped by the horror stories I’d heard of runaway girls, falling prey to drugs and prostitution. But I did wonder if the world would be better off without me.Communication had always been a problem at home. And I was afraid to open up to friends. I felt that if people knew my problems and fears, they’d think less of me. So I nursed my hurts and anxieties into a towering self-hatred.In my junior year, I wrote a paper on Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar, an autobiographical novel about despair, which foreshadowed the author’s eventual suicide. Suddenly, suicide seemed a realistic option. My English teacher commented on my report: “You really understand that book!” I thought, you bet I do! I became a closet expert on suicide, looking into serious literature on the topic. Although I wasn’t a drinker and never used drugs, I concluded that a mixture of alcohol and tranquilizers, both available at home, would be my ticket out.Once the school social worker asked me to list all my good qualities, and I came up with only two: blue eyes and good grades. I felt there wasn’t anything good about me.By my senior year I was convinced that I was an outcast, unlovable. Thoughts of suicide were ever-present. Though I had done very well on my college-board exams, I saw no reason to go on tocollege. Sooner or later, I was going to kill myself, so why bother? I applied to college “just in case,”though the idea of going terrified me. I was sure college would be worse than high school. But Icouldn’t take the constant fighting at home. I didn’t see any way out.In February 1981, I chose my date with death. Once I’d picked the time, I felt relieved. I’m sure Iseemed more cheerful to those around me as I began to plan. At about 2 a.m., on my “death date,” Isneaked out of the house and wandered back streets, downing my tranquilizers and rum. I had troubleswallowing all the pills—a handful at a time, then a swig of rum. The last thing I recall is heading forthe reservoir, where I knew wouldn’t be found for a while. I didn’t make it. I passed out on thesidewalk. A man walking his dog found me and called an ambulance.I woke up in the intensive-care unit with tubes up my nose and needles in my arms. I was sent homewith orders to visit a psychologist twice a week. But I resisted her attempts to help me. I was angry Iwas alive.I hoped that my parents would want to discuss the suicide attempt, and finally one night at dinner thesubject came up. “Why did you do such a stupid thing?” my mother asked. My father replied quickly,“I’m sure she had her reasons.” End of discussion. Except for the ever-patient psychologist and socialworker, even in school the subject was not mentioned. I think that upset me as much as failing with thesuicide did. It seemed as if nobody had enough interest in me to want to know why I’d done it.Suicide was still on my mind when I attended an orientation session at a prestigious college where Ihad been accepted. That weekend gave me a glimmer of hope. People there seemed to like me.College could be a chance for a fresh start.In college I began to make some friends, and decided to hand in “a little longer.” I also began to appreciate how my high-school social worker had reached me in ways I hadn’t realized at the time.In class, I opened up a little more and my confidence improved. I moved into a gift clubhouse. Peopleactually wanted me in their group. By my junior year, I was a field-hockey star.At the club I made friends with a girl I’ll call Beth. We shared a dark secret, for she, too, had attempted suicide. Now and then we’d discuss suicide—always in objective, intellectual terms. Then,one winter night in my senior year, a club sister burst into my room, crying: “Beth’s not breathing!”Beth had asked her to call an ambulance, then collapsed on the floor.Rage swept over me, I saw what her death put her friends through. There was a grief and guilt as weasked ourselves how we could have prevented her suicide.I slowly began to realize that taking my own life was no longer an option. I could see what a total waste suicide was. Beth would have made a solid contribution to society.I decided to do something positive with my life. I graduated in 1985. In March 1986 I answered an adasking volunteers for The Samaritans suicide-prevention hot lines, hoping I could prevent others frommaking the desperate decision I’d made.I can understand how I got to the state I was in that night several years ago. I just wish I’d known thenthat it didn’t—and it doesn’t—have to be that way. That’s what I try to tell them when the hot linerings.Why did the author apply to college?

复合题ThesettlementoftheUnitedStateshasoccupiedtraditionalhistorianssince1893whenFrederickJacksonTurnerdevelopedhisFrontierThesis,athesisthatexplainedAmericandevelopmentintermsofwestwardexpansion.Fromtheperspectiveofwomenshistory,Turnersexclusivelymasculineassumptionsconstituteamajordrawback:hisdefendersandcriticsalikehavereconstructedmens,notwomens,livesonthefrontier.However,preciselybecauseofthismasculineorientation,revisingtheFrontierThesisbyfocusingonwomensexperienceintroducesnewthemesintowomenshistory—womanaslawmakerandentrepreneur—and,consequently,newinterpretationsofwomensrelationshiptocapital,labor,andstatute.TurnerclaimedthatthefrontierproducedtheindividualismthatisthehallmarkofAmericanculture,andthatthisindividualisminturnpromoteddemocraticinstitutionsandeconomicequality.Hearguedforthefrontierasanagentofsocialchange.MostnovelistsandhistorianswritingintheearlytomidtwentiethcenturywhoconsideredwomenintheWest,whentheyconsideredwomenatall,fellunderTurnersspell.Intheirworkstheseauthorstendedtoglorifywomenscontributionstofrontierlife.Westernwomen,inTumeriantradition,wereafiercelyindependent,capable,anddurablelot,freefromtheconstraintsbindingtheireasternsisters.ThisinterpretationimpliedthattheWestprovidedacongenialenvironmentwherewomencouldaspiretotheirowngoals,freefromconstrictivestereotypesandsexistattitudes.InTurnerianterminology,thefrontierhadfurnishedagateofescapefromthebondageofthepast.Bythemiddleofthetwentiethcentury,theFrontierThesisfellintodisfavoramonghistorians.Later,Reactionistwriterstooktheviewthatfrontierwomenwerelonely,displacedpersonsinahostilemilieuthatintensifiedtheworstaspectsofgenderrelations.Therenaissanceofthefeministmovementduringthe1970sledtotheStasistSchool,whichsidesteppedthegoodbaddichotomyandarguedthatfrontierwomenlivedlivessimilartotheliveofwomenintheEast.Inonenow-standardtext,Faragherdemonstratedthepersistenceofthecultoftruewomanhoodandtheillusionaryqualityofchangeonthewestwardjourney.RecentlytheStasistpositionhasbeenrevisedbutnotentirelydiscountedbynewresearch.

复合题Passage AIt can be shown in facts and figures that cycling is thecheapest, most convenient, and most environmentallydesirable form of transport in towns, but such coldcalculations do not mean much on a frosty winter morning.The real appeal of cycling is that it is so enjoyable. Ithas none of the difficulties and tensions of other ways oftravelling so you are more cheerful after a ride, eventhough the rush hour.The first thing a non-cyclist says to you is “But isn’ tit terribly dangerous?” It would be foolish to deny thedanger of sharing the road with motor vehicles and it mustbe admitted that there are an alarming number of accidentsinvolving cyclists. However, although police recordsindicate that the car driver is often to blame, the answerlies with the cyclists. It is possible to ride in such away as to reduce risks to a minimum.If you decide to join the thousands in Britain who are nowreturning to cycling as a cheap, satisfying form oftransport, your first problem will be trying to decidewhat bike to buy. Here are three simple rules for buying abike:1)Always buy the best you can afford. Of course there hasto be a meeting point between what you would really likeand economic reality, but aim as high as you can and youwill get the benefit not only when you ride but also ifyou want to sell. Well-made bikes keep their value verywell. And don’ t forget to include in your calculationsthe fact that you’ ll begin saving money on fares andpetrol the minute you leave the shop.2) Get the best frame, the main structure of the bicycle,for your money as you can. Cheap brakes, wheels or gearscan easily be replaced by more expensive ones, but theframe sets the upper limit on any transformation. Youshould allow for the possibility that your cyclingambitions will grow with practice. When you begin, thefour miles to work may be the most you ever dream of, butafter a few months a Sunday ride into the country beginsto look more and more desirable. The best thing is to buya bike just a little bit better than you think you’ llneed, and then grow into it. Otherwise, try to get a modelthat can be improved.3) The fit is vital. Handlebars and seat height can beadjusted but you must get the right sized frame. On thewhole it is best to get the largest size you can manage.Frame sizes are measured in inches and the usual adultrange is from 21 inches to 25 inches, though extreme sizesoutside those measurements can be found. Some people sayif you take four inches off from your inside legmeasurement you will end up with the right size of bike.The basic principle though is that you should be able tostand with legs either side of the crossbar (the bar thatgoes from the handlebars to the seat) with both feetcomfortably flat on the ground.The author says that the best way to ensure that a bike is the right size for you is to _____.

复合题Nowadays everybody must be familiar with the words “pollution” and “population” . They are so well known that they from the subject of many a polite dinner-table discussion. The assembled company will nod its heads wisely and agree that “Something must be done” . Or perhaps a short argument will ensure: for there are those will claim that these problems have been exaggerated, who will laugh mockingly at people they call “doomsday ecologists” .Yet nobody can deny that pollution is rampant. The atmosphere is filthy. The introduction of smokeless zones has prevented pollution in the air from chimney and fires, but what of the fumes which pour out of cars, lorries and areoplanes? By the side of motorways the air is hazy and thick with the bitter sickly smell of burnt oil.Poisonous fumes from factories have sometimes made acres of surrounding land barren. Nor is the problem confined to land. Tons and tons of untreated chemical waste are pumped daily into rivers and the sea, and dead fish are to be seen floating in the water and washed up on the shores of seas , lakes and streams, while lethal oil slicks floating on the surface of the sea bring death to millions of sea- birds. Meanwhile, we are cheerfully using up the world’ s resources, and making needless water. Non-returnable bottles are convenient for manufactures but encourage litter, are often dangerous to dispose of and above all have merely to be replaced by others. Plastic, that wonderful substance is extremely difficult to dispose of at all. Yet now we make furniture out of it, while nearly all our goods are gaily and often unnecessarily wrapped up in it. This is to make us buy more, of course, and spend more. But alas, even food is short supply, for there are too many people in the world, and our number is growing rapidly.The more people, the more consumption, the more wastage of resources. The more people the world has to support, the more it will have to educate to face dwindling supplies. All people have an equal right to live, so why are some starving while others have enough to eat, and more? Surely at more rates, we must not eat more than we need, or waste what we don’ t.In London, the two monster problems have confronted each other threateningly for some time. Now, perhaps, pollution is winning. The place is grinding to a halt. People who do menial work cannot afford the high prices of accommodation, and they may be scandalously exploited by unscrupulous landlords. The population in such areas may be dense, with whole families squeezed into the room, yet the increasing number of derelict houses in the same areas tells another story.People who may go outside London to seek jobs, but they find many other cities have the same problems, albeit to a lesser extent. Filth and high prices have combined to make London and some other centers depressing places to live in. Depression fosters crime and violence, and these latter are increasing. The community, at a loss, is beginning to destroy itself.Who is to blame? The police, say some people, for not keeping order over traffic or criminals. The teachers, say the parents, who don’ t educate the kids right Then there are the transport workers. They are to blame for the rush hours, traffic jams and the daily misery of getting to and from work on too few buses.Is it surprising, then, that these three central groups of workers should be in short supply in London? Neither in policemen, teachers nor transport workers are highly paid. They work long, hard and sometimes dangerous hours, for which they receive little thanks from the community at large, since their presence is taken for granted. They are only noticed to be criticized. The teachers leave: many schools can only give their children part-time education. Juvenile boredom, then delinquency, increases. There are too few policemen to cope. The bus drivers, or the underground drivers go on strike for better pay and condition, and so the whole metropolis is gradually coming to a standstill.Politicians say we aren’ t to worry. We have only to vote for them and they will pull all to right. Yet, when elected, they seem to forget about the vast, amorphous, everyday problems that surround us.So, what with one thing and another, you see no way out, Like nearly all of us you just give up because you have a normal hard day’ s work ahead of you and you haven’ t the energy even to begin to cope with anything extra. Pollution, population; these problems can wait, you say. BUT THEY CAN’ T.In the last paragraphs, what’ s the author’ s tone towards the politician?

复合题Passage BThey poison the mind and corrupt the morals of the young, who waste their time sitting on sofa immersed in dangerous fantasy worlds. That, at least, was the charge leveled against novels during the 18th century by critics worried about the impact of a new medium on young people. Today the idea that novels can harm people sounds silly. And that is surely how history will judge modern criticism of video games, which are accused of turning young people into violent criminals. This week European justice ministers met to discuss how best to restrict the sale of violent games to children. Some countries, such as Germany, believe the answer is to ban some games altogether. That is going too far.Criticism of games is merely the latest example of a tendency to regard new and unfamiliar forms of entertainment as devils. In 1816 waltzing was condemned as a “fatal infection” ; in the 1950s comic books were accused of turning children into drug addicts and criminals. In each case the pattern is the same: young people adopt a new form of entertainment, older people are frightened by its unfamiliarity and condemn it, but eventually the young grow up and the new medium becomes accepted—at which point another example appears and the Cycle begins again.The opposition to video games is founded on the mistaken belief that most gamers are children. In fact, two-thirds of gamers are over 18 and the average garner is around 30. But the assumption that gamers are mostly children leads to a double standard. Violent films are permitted and the notion that some films are unsuitable for children is generally understood. Yet different rules are applied to games. Aren’ t games different because they are interactive? It is true that video games can make people feel excited or aggressive, but so do many sports. There is no evidence that video-gaming causes long-term aggression.Games ought to be age-rated, just as films are, and retailers should not sell adult-rated games to children any more than they should sell them adult-rated films. Ratings schemes are already in place, and in some countries restrictions on the scale of adult-rated games to minors have the force of law. But many games for children are bought by parents. Rather than banning some games outright, the best way to keep grown-up games away from children is to educate non-gaming parents that, as with films, not all games are suitable for children.Oddly enough, Hillary Clinton, one of the politicians who has led the criticism of the gaming industry in America, has recently come round to this view. But this week some European politicians seemed to be moving in the other direction: the Netherlands may follow Germany, for example, in banning some games outright. Not all adults wish to play violent games, just as not all of them enjoy violent movies. But they should be free to do so if they wish.Why does the author give the example about the charge against novels?

复合题Passage AThe Taming of Demon GoutGout is the aristocrat of diseases. Ancient philosophers and physicians attributed to high living, and it has often afflicted men of exceptional talent. Michelangelo suffered from gout, as did Galileo, Martin Luther, Samuel Johnson, Darwin, Sitting Bull, Theodore Roosevelt and, more recently, Cyrus Vance. Gout was called opprobrium medicorum—the physicians’ shame—because so little could be done to treat it. Victims faced excruciating pain, severe crippling and often death from kidney failure. But modem medicine has turned the demon gout into amicus medicorum—the physicians’ friend.The typical gout patient is a middle-aged man. Hobbling into the doctor’ s office, he complains of a severe throbbing pain in a joint. The disease usually strikes the foot, but it can also afflict the knee, ankle, elbow and hand. The spot is so sore, he says, that a bed sheet resting lightly on it, or even the wisp of a breeze, produces almost unbearable agony.One look at the red and swollen toe, hot and full of fluid, tells the physician that he is probably dealing with gout. To confirm the preliminary diagnosis, the doctor draws a sample of fluid from the inflamed spot. Using a microscope, he searches for thin crystals of uric acid, a natural by-product of metabolism that rises to abnormal levels in gout sufferers.Rheumatologists have learned just how the uric-acid crystals create the painful symptoms of gout. A tiny urate crystal, explains New York University’ s Dr. Gerald Weissman, lodges in a white blood cell near the joint. Eventually, the cell ruptures and dies, releasing toxic enzymes that cause inflammation and searing pain.Relief: The first stage of treatment is to relieve the acute symptoms. Doctors used to prescribe colchicine, an extract of the autumn crocus whose medicinal value was first discovered by the ancient Greeks. But colchicine has unpleasant side effects, including diarrhea and vomiting. So today, most physicians favor indomethacin, a potent pain killer that also reduces swelling and inflammation. Relief from the pain begins almost immediately.The second phase of treatment is prevention. Gout patients are usually put on a lifelong course of daily medication. Small doses of colchicine are given for up to a year, followed by one of two newer drugs: probenicid, which increases the excretion of uric acid from the body, or allopurinol, which inhibits production of uric acid. With these medications, many patients never experience a second attack.The latest research has punctured some of the popular myths about gout.Examples:—Overeating. For centuries, gout was blamed on rich food, and patients were kept on a strict diet. Gluttony cannot cause the disease, but eating certain foods can bring on an attack. Uric acid is produced by the breakdown of substances called purines, which are concentrated in organ meats, sardines, anchovies, scallops and other delicacies. Happily, with proper drugs, the gout victim need not curb his appetite. Advises Dr. Gerald Rodnan of the University of Pittsburgh: “Be merry and take your medicine. ”—Drinking. Alcohol does block the kidneys’ ability to excrete uric acid, but gout patients on medication may imbibe moderately without fear of an attack.—Talent. For mysterious reasons, gout seems to strike the eminent and successful in disproportionate numbers. Studies of soldiers and college students have demonstrated some correlation between high intelligence and high uric- acid levels. “The connection is beyond grandmothers’ tales, ” says Weissman, “but a lot of trivial explanations are possible. Maybe bright people eat more meat or don’ t urinate as much. ”To treat the acute symptoms of gout, what is the possible reason why colchicine has now fallen out of favor with physicians?

复合题The biggest problem facing Chile as it promotes itself asa tourist destination to be reckoned with, is that it isat the end of the earth. It is too far south to be aconvenient stop on the way to anywhere else and is muchfarther than a relatively cheap half-days flight awayfrom the big tourist markets, unlike Mexico, for example.Chile, therefore, has to fight hard to attract tourists,to convince travelers that it is worth coming halfwayround the world to visit. But it is succeeding, not onlyin existing markets like the USA and Western Europe but innew territories, in particular the Far East. Marketscloser to home, however, are not being forgotten. Morethan 50% of visitors to Chile still come from its nearestneighbor, Argentina, where the cost of living is muchhigher.Like all South American countries, Chile sees tourism as avaluable earner of foreign currency, although it has beenfar more serious than most in promoting its image abroad.Relatively stable politically within the region, it hasbenefited from the problems suffered in other areas. InPeru,guerrilla warfare in recent years has dealt a heavyblow to the tourist industry and fear of street crime inBrazil has reduced the attraction of Rio de Janeiro as adream destination for foreigners.More than 150, 000 people are directly involved in Chilestourist sector, an industry which earns the country morethan US $ 950 million each year. The state-run NationalTourist Service, in partnership with a number of privatecompanies, is currently running a worldwide campaign,taking part in trade fairs and international events toattract visitors to Chile.Chiles great strength as a tourist destination is itsgeographical diversity. From the parched Atacama Desert inthe north to the Antarctic snowfields of the south, it ismore than 5, 000 km long. With the Pacific on one side andthe Andean mountains on the other, Chile boasts naturalattractions. Its beaches are not up to Caribbean standardsbut resorts such as Vina del Mar are generally clean andun-spoilt and have a high standard of services.But the trump card is the Andes mountain range. There area number of excellent ski resorts within one hours driveof the capital, Santiago, and the national parks in thesouth are home to rare animal and plant species. The parksalready attract specialist visitors, includingmountaineers, who come to climb the technically difficultpeaks, and fishermen, lured by the salmon and trout in theregions rivers.However, infrastructural development in these areas islimited. The ski resorts do not have as many lifts astheir European counterparts and the poor quality of roadsin the south means that only the most determined travelerssee the best of the national parks.Air links between Chile and the rest of the world are, atpresent, relatively poor. While Chiles two largestairlines have extensive networks within South America,they operate only a small number of routes to the UnitedStates and Europe, while services to Asia are almost non-existent.Internal transport links are being improved and luxuryhotels are being built in one of its national parks. Noris development being restricted to the Andes. EasterIsland and Chiles Antarctic Territory are also on thelist of areas where the Government believes it can createtourist markets.But the rush to open hitherto inaccessible areas to masstourism is not being welcomed by everyone. Indigenous andenvironmental groups, including Greenpeace, say that manyparts of the Andes will suffer if they become over-developed. There is a genuine fear that areas of Chilewill suffer the cultural destruction witnessed in Mexicoand European resorts.The policy of opening up Antarctica to tourism is alsopolitically sensitive. Chile already has permanentsettlements on the ice and many people see the decision toallow tourists there as a political move, enhancingSantiagos territorial claim over part of Antarctica.The Chilean Government has promised to respect theenvironment as it seeks to bring tourism to these areas.But there are immense commercial pressures to exploit thecountrys tourism potential. The Government will have tomonitor developments closely if it is genuinely concernedin creating a balanced, controlled industry and if theprice of an increasingly lucrative tourist market is notgoing to mean the loss of many of Chiles natural riches.According to the author, what is Chile’ s greatest attraction?

复合题Science may never answer the most puzzling of all dinosaur questions. What killed these mighty creatures?One of the most popular theories about the death of the dinosaurs is that the world just grew too cold for them. Indeed, for age, cold-blood creatures, even a few nights of cold could spell death. How could the weather have changed? Scientists think there might have been a cooling in the earth’ s atmosphere during the Late Cretaceous Period.The shifts of the earth’ s surface might have upset theclimate and the colder weather might have attacked theplants first. As they died off, the plant-eating dinosaurswould have starved to death. And without plant-eaters forfood, the meat-eating dinosaurs would have been the nextto die.Not everyone agrees that a change in weather would havebeen enough to kill the dinosaurs. Some scientists saythat dinosaurs might have been warm-blooded. Warm-bloodedanimals are able to make their body heat. They can live inmuch colder climates than cold-blooded animals.Other scientists ask why dinosaurs could not just haveadapted to the cold water. In fact fossils have been foundthat show dinosaurs might have lived far north as Alaska,and as far south as Antarctica.In the late 1970s a naturalist named Walter Alvarez wasstudying the layer of rock that marks the end of the Ageof Dinosaurs. He made a puzzling discovery. Alvarez founda layer of clay which contained a great deal of metalcalled iridium. This metal is only found in the earth’ score, or in comets and asteroids from outer space. Otherscientists in different parts of the world found thisiridium-rich clay in the same layer as Alvarez. Couldvolcanoes have spit up large amounts of iridium from theearth core? Alvarez and others didn’ t think so. There wasjust too much iridium over too much land.Alvarez came up with the theory that a large asteroid fromouter space must have hit the earth sixty-five millionyears ago. The crash would have sent great clouds of dust—and iridium—into the air. It would have blocked out thesunlight and may have changed the earth’ s temperatures instrange ways.Without sunlight, plants would not have been able to grow.With the plants gone, many other forms of life would havestarved. A horrible chain of death would have brought downone mighty animal after another on land and in water.If a giant crash like this did kill of the dinosaurs, howdid other animals survive? Many kinds of insects, smallmammals, reptiles, birds and fish continued to live pastthe end of the Cretaceous Period. How did they manage?Some animals can wait out a disaster better than others.Small, slow-moving animals such as turtles and crocodilescan go for longer periods without food than large, activeanimals. Some sea animals live on types of plants thatdon’ t need much sunlight. And small mammals such assquirrels get through a long winter—they hibernate.The idea of a great asteroid or comet crash isfascinating. But it would mean the dinosaurs would allhave been killed within a very short time—perhaps over afew months or years. What if the dinosaurs did not die outso quickly?Many scientists think that the dinosaurs had started todie off millions years before the end of the CretaceousPeriod. And even more amazing, fossils have been found inthe U. S. and southern China that might show dinosaurslived long after they were supposed to have disappeared.In Montana, located in the north-western U. S. , dinosaurfossils have been found in a layer of rock that date toaround 40, 000 years after the end of the CretaceousPeriod.And the fossils in southern China show that dinosaursmight have survived longest in that area. They were foundin a layer almost a million years after the last dinosaurwas supposed to have died.Could the death of the dinosaurs have been caused by theirmoving into new areas? Illness and disease can be carriedby travelling animals. Is it possible that dinosaurs andother creatures died of terrible diseases caught fromother animals?Changes tong ago on the earth’ s surface might have joinedpieces of land that were once separate. With new landlinks, dinosaurs and other animals might have travelled toareas they had never seen before. Away from home, theywould have met up with new kinds of animals and might havecaught diseases that they had no defense against!Out of all the possible theories on the death of the dinosaur, is there a theory with convincing evidence? Why?

复合题Icameawayfrommyyearsofteachingonthecollegeanduniversitylevelwithaconvictionthatenactment,performance,dramatizationarethemostsuccessfulformsofteaching.Studentsmustbeincorporated,made,sofaraspossible,anintegralpartofthelearningprocess.Thenotionthatlearningshouldhaveinitanelementofinspiredplaywouldseemtothegreaterpartoftheacademicestablishmentmerelysilly,butthatisnonethelessthecase.OfEzekielCheever,themostfamousschoolmasteroftheMassachusettsBayColony,hisonetimestudentCottonMatherwrotethathesoplannedhislessonsthathispupils“cametoworkasthoughtheycametoplay”,andAlfredNorthWhitehead,almostthreehundredyearslater,notedthatateachershouldmakehis/herstudents“gladtheywerethere”Since,wearetold,80to90percentofallinstructioninthetypicaluniversityisbythelecturemethod,weshouldgivecloseattentiontothisform.ofeducation.Thereis,Ithink,muchtruthinPatriciaNelsonLimerick’sobservationthat“lecturingisanunnaturalact,anactforwhichGoddidnotdesignhumans.Itisperfectlyallright,nowandthen,forahumantobepossessedbytheurgetospeak,andtospeakwhileothersremainsilent.Buttodothisregularly,onehourand15minutesatatime...foronepersontodragonwhileotherssitinsilence?...IdonotbelievethatthisiswhattheCreator...designedhumanstodo”.Thestrange,almostincomprehensiblefactisthatmanyprofessors,justastheyfeelobligedtowritedully,believethattheyshouldlecturedully.Toshowenthusiasmistoriskappearingunscientific,un-objective;itistoappealtothestudents’emotionsratherthantheirintellect.Thustheideallectureisonefilledwithfactsandreadinanunchangedmonotone.Thecultoflecturingdully,likethecultofwritingdully,goesback,ofcourse,someyears.EdwardShils,professorofsociology,recallstheprofessorsheencounteredattheUniversityofPennsylvaniainhisyouth.Theyseemed“apriesthood,ratherunevenintheirmeritsbutuniform.intheirbearing;theyneverreferredtoanythingpersonal.Somereadfromoldlecturenotesandthenhaltinglyexplainedthethumb-wornlastlines.Otherslecturedfromcardsthathadservedforyears,tojudgebythewornedges...Theteachersbeganontime,endedontime,andlefttheroomwithoutsayingawordmoretotheirstudents,veryseldombeingdetainedbyquestioners...Theclasseswerenotlarge,yettherewasnodiscussion.Noquestionswereraisedinclass,andtherewerenoofficehours”.