单选题 Question 15-18

单选题One of London Zoo"s recent advertisements caused me some irritation, so patently did it distort reality. Headlined "Without zoos you might as well tell these animals to get stuffed", it was bordered with illustrations of several endangered species and went on to extol the myth that without zoos like London Zoo these animals "will almost certainly disappear forever". With the zoo world"s rather mediocre record on conservation, one might be forgiven for being slightly skeptical about such an advertisement. Zoos were originally created as places of entertainment, and their suggested involvement with conservation didn"t seriously arise until about 30 years ago, when the Zoological Society of London held the first formal international meeting on the subject. Eight years later, a series of world conferences took place, entitled "The Breeding of Endangered Species", and from this point onwards conservation became the zoo community"s buzzword. Tiffs commitment has now been clearly defined in The World Zoo Conservation Strategy (WZCS, September 1993), which-although an important and welcome document-does seem to be based on an unrealistic optimism about the nature of the zoo industry. The WZCS estimates that there are about 10,000 zoos in the world, of which around 1,000 represent a core of quality collections capable of participating in coordinated conservation programmes. This is probably the document"s first failing, as I believe that 10,000 is a serious underestimate of the total number of places masquerading as zoological establishments. Of course it is difficult to get accurate data but, to put the issue into perspective, I have found that, in a year of working in Eastern Europe, I discover fresh zoos on almost a weekly basis. The second flaw in the reasoning of the WZCS document is the naive faith it places in its 1,000 core zoos. One would assume that the caliber of these institutions would have been carefully examined, but it appears that the criterion for inclusion on this select list might merely be that the zoo is a member of a zoo federation or association. This might be a good starting point, working on the premise that members must meet certain standards, but again the facts don"t support the theory. The greatly respected American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) has had extremely dubious members, and in the UK the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland has occasionally had members that have been roundly censured in the national press. These include Robin Hill Adventure Park on the Isle Wight, which many considered the most notorious collection of animals in the country. This establishment, which for years was protected by the Isle"s local council (which viewed it as a tourist amenity), was finally closed down following a damning report by a veterinary inspector appointed under the terms of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. As it was always a collection of dubious repute, one is obliged to reflect upon the standards that the Zoo Federation sets when granting membership. The situation is even worse in developing countries where little money is available for redevelopment and it is hard to see a way of incorporating collections into the overall scheme of the WZCS. Even assuming that the WZCS"s 1,000 core zoos are all of a high standard—complete with scientific staff and research facilities, trained and dedicated keepers, accommodation that permits normal or natural behaviour, and a policy of co-operating fully with one another—what might be the potential for conservation? Colin Tudge, author of Last Animals at the Zoo (Oxford University Press, 1992), argues that "if the world"s zoos worked together in co-operative breeding programmes, then even without further expansion they could save around 2,000 species of endangered land vertebrates". This seems an extremely optimistic proposition from a man who must be aware of the failing and weaknesses of the zoo industry-the man who, when a member of the council of London Zoo, had to persuade the zoo to devote more of its activities to conservation. Moreover, where are the facts to support such optimism? Today approximately 16 species might be said to have been "saved" by captive breeding programmes, although a number of these can hardly be looked upon as resounding successes. Beyond that, about a further 20 species are being seriously considered for zoo conservation programmes. Given that the international conference at London Zoo was held 30 years ago, this is pretty slow progress, and a long way off Tudge"s target of 2,000.

单选题

单选题A.Ispentanhoureachonpsychologyandmathematics.B.Istudiedmathematicstwiceaslongaspsychology.C.Iworkedforfourhourslastnight.D.Istudiedforallbuttwohourslastnight.

单选题Questions 11-15 For several days I saw little of Mr. Rochester. In the morning he seemed much occupied with business, and in the afternoon gentlemen from the neighbourhood called and sometimes stayed to dine with him. When his foot was well enough, he rode out a great deal. During this time, all my knowledge of him was limited to occasional meetings about the house, when he would sometimes pass me coldly, and sometimes bow and smile. His changes of manner did not offend me, because I saw that I had nothing to do with the cause of them. One evening, several days later, I was invited to talk to Mr. Rochester after dinner. He was sitting in his armchair, and looked not quite so severe, and much less gloomy. There was a smile on his lips, and his eyes were bright, probably with wine. As I was looking at him, he suddenly turned, and asked me, "do you think I'm handsome, Miss Eyre?" The answer somehow slipped from my tongue before I realized it: "No, sir. " "Ah, you really are unusual! You are a quiet, serious little person, but you can be almost rude. " "Sir, I'm sorry. I should have said that beauty doesn't matter, or something like that." "No, you shouldn't! I see, you criticize my appearance, and then you stab me in the back! You have honesty and feeling. There are not many girls like you. But perhaps I go too fast. Perhaps you have awful faults to counterbalance your few good points. I thought to myself that he might have too. He seemed to read my mind, and said quickly, ""Yes, you're right. I have plenty of faults. I went the wrong way when I was twenty-one, and have never found the right path again. I might have been very different. I might have been as good as you, and perhaps wiser. I am not a bad man, take my word for it, but I have done wrong. It wasn't my character, but circumstances which were to blame. Why do I tell you all this? Because you're the sort of person people tell their problems and secrets to, because you're sympathetic and give them hope. " It seemed he had quite a lot to talk to me. He didn't seem to like to finish the talk quickly, as was the case for the first time. "Don't be afraid of me, Miss Eyre. " He continued. "You don't relax or laugh very much, perhaps because of the effect Lowood School has had on you. But in time you will be more natural with me, and laugh, and speak freely. You're like a bird in a cage. When you get out of the cage, you'll fly very high. Good night. /

单选题Questions 27-30

单选题We'd better ______ for the bell is ringing. [A] stop to talk [B] to stop to talk [C] stop talking [D] to stop talking

单选题

单选题Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following interview.

单选题 BQuestions 19-22/B

单选题 Questions 6～10 Science is a dominant theme in our culture. Since it touches almost every facet of our life, educated people need at least some acquaintance with its structure and operation. They should also have an understanding of the subculture in which scientists live and the kinds of people they are. An understanding of general characteristics of science as well as specific scientific concepts is easier to attain if one knows something about the things that excite and frustrate the scientist. This book is written for the intelligent student or lay person whose acquaintance with science is superficial; for the person who has been presented with science as a musty storehouse of dried facts; for the person who sees the chief objective of science as the production of gadgets; and for the person who views the scientists as some sort of magician. The book can be used to supplement a course in any science, to accompany any course that attempts to give an understanding of the modern world, of-independently of any course—simply to provide a better understanding of science. We hope this book will lead readers to a broader perspective on scientific attitudes and a more realistic view of what science is, who scientists are, and what they do. It will give them an awareness and understanding of the relationship between science and our culture and an appreciation of the roles science may play in our culture. In addition, readers may learn to appreciate the relationship between scientific views and some of the values and philosophies that are pervasive in our culture. We have tried to present in this book an accurate and up-to-date picture of the scientific community and the people who populate it. That population has in recent years come to comprise more and more women. This increasing role of women in the scientific subculture is not an unique incident but, rather, part of the trend evident in all segments of society as more women enter traditionally male-dominated fields and make significant contributions. In discussing these changes and contribution, however, we are faced with a language that is implicitly sexist, one that uses male nouns or pronouns in referring to unspecified individuals. To offset this built-in bias, we have adopted the policy of using plural nouns and pronouns whenever possible and, when absolutely necessary, alternating he and she. This policy is far from being ideal, but it is at least an acknowledgment of the inadequacy of our language in treating half of the human race equally. We have also tried to make the book entertaining as well as informative. Our approach is usually informal. We feel, as do many other scientists, that we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously. As the reader may observe, we see science as a delightful pastime rather than as a grim and dreary way to earn a living.

单选题Questions 26-30 Actually, though, America, the "land of immigrants", has always had people of many different nationalities and languages. The 1990 census indicates that almost 14% of Americans speak a non- English language at home. Yet only 3% reported that they spoke English "not well" or "not at all". That means that slightly more than one out of 10 Americans could be considered bilingual. Besides that, many high school and college students--and even some elementary school students--are required to take a foreign language as a part of their curriculum. In addition to old standbys like Spanish, German and French, more and more students are opting Eastern European and Asian languages. Of course, not all students keep up their foreign language abilities. As the old saying goes, "If you don"t use it, you lose it. " But still, a growing number of Americans are coming to appreciate the benefits of being multilingual. Ethnic enclaves, found particularly in major metropolitan centers, have preserved the language and culture of American immigrants. Some local residents can function quite well in their native language, without having to bother learning English. Regions such as southern Florida and the Southwest have numerous Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. In fact, Spanish speakers--numbering over 17 million--compose the largest non-English linguistic group in America. But Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian, Polish and many other ethnic groups add to the linguistic flavor of America. Foreign languages are so commonly used in some ethnic neighborhoods that visitors might think they are in another country! Although some Americans welcome this linguistic and cultural diversity, others have begun to fear that the English language is being threatened. Since the 1980s, the "English Only" movement has sought to promote legislation which would establish English as the "official language" and restrict the use of non-English language. However, some groups, including TESOL, the organization for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language, object to such "language restrictionism". Their view, known as "English Plus", suggests that Americans should have respect for people"s native language and culture, while promoting the teaching of English to help them fit into the mainstream of society. But so far, 19 states have passed English Only legislation, and the topic is the focus of an ongoing debate. Whether or not English is the official language of the United States, it remains the "language of wider communication". Nearly everyone recognizes the need to develop proficiency in English in order to do well in America. To help those who want to brush up on their English skills, English as a Second Language (ESL) classes abound. Cities with large numbers of recent immigrants often set up bilingual education programs to teach students content subjects in their native language while they improve their English. Language educators often have strong and divergent views as to which approach helps learners achieve better results: a bilingual approach, an ESL approach--or even a pure immersion ("sink or swim") approach. However, alI these teachers share a common commitment: to help students function well in English. Americans recognize that English is the international language, and people with good English skills can get by in many international settings. On the other hand, in a world growing increasingly smaller, second language skills can be a great favor. They can build cross-cultural bridges and give people an edge in a variety of career fields. Indeed, lack of foreign language proficiency can limit one"s chances for advancement and keep one in a cultural dead-end street. As many people in America are discovering, being monolingual is no laughing matter.

单选题 Scientists have discovered a way of manipulating a gene that turns animals into drones incapable of becoming bored even when performing repetitive tasks. Experiments on rhesus monkeys have shown for the first time that animal behaviour can be permanently altered, turning the subjects from aggressive to "compliant" creatures. The genes are identical in humans. Although the research is intended to advance the treatment of mental illness, it will raise images of the Epsilon caste created by Aldous Huxley to carry out menial jobs in his novel, Brave New World. It could also do away with the need for motivational coaching and perhaps one day provide a cure for those who dread returning to work on Mondays. The experiments—detailed in the journal Nature Neuroscience—involved blocking the effect of a gene in the brain called D2, which cut the link between the monkeys' motivation and perceived reward. Instead of speeding up with the approach of a deadline or the prospect of a "treat", the monkeys could still work enthusiastically for long periods. "Most people are motivated to work hard and well only by the expectation of reward, whether it's a pay cheque or a word of praise," said Barry Richmond, a neuro-biologist at America's National Institute of Mental Health, who led the project. "We could remove that link and create a situation where repetitive hard work would continue without any reward. " The experiments involved getting monkeys to operate levers in response to colour changes on screens in front of them. Normally they work hardest and fastest with the fewest mistakes if they think a reward for the "work" is imminent. But Richmond's team found they could make the monkeys work their hardest and fastest all the time, without any complaint or sign of slacking, just by manipulating D2 so that they forgot about expectation of reward. "We make decisions all the time based on how valuable we think a reward is and how much time we think it is going to take to get it," said Richmond. "In depression, people think no reward is worthwhile and all work is too burdensome. In obsessive compulsive disorder, people work and are never satisfied by what they have done. If we can find the disturbance in the brain circuitry related to emotions and reward, we might be able to relieve the symptoms." He said the technicalities of permanently altering human behaviour by gene manipulation are currently too complex and humans who underwent this treatment to become live manifestations of Huxley's Epsilons would not function well. "They would be indiscriminate and not be able to appreciate that their efforts were wasted if there was a problem further along a production line," Richmond said. "It would be more to the point for us to motivate people using normal motivating factors. " However, he and other scientists acknowledge that methods of manipulating human physical and psychological traits are just around the corner and the technology will emerge first as a lucrative add-on available from IVF clinics. "There's no doubt we will be able to influence behaviour," said Julian Savulescu, a professor of ethics at Oxford University. He said: "Genetically manipulating people to become slaves is not in their interests, but other changes might be. We have to make choices about what makes a good life for an individual." Richmond's findings were discussed at a Royal Society meeting organised by Bob Edwards, the scientist whose work led to the creation of Louise Brown, the world's first test tube baby. In a presentation entitled Designing Babies: What the Future Holds, Yuri Verlinsky, a scientist from the University of Chicago who is at the forefront of embryo manipulation, said: "As infertility customers are investing so much time, money and effort into having a baby, shouldn't they have a healthy one and what is to stop them picking a baby for its physical and psychological traits?" The advent of the technology is considered so serious in America that a meeting to discuss setting up a legal framework for "germline" genetic manipulation is being held in Washington, D.C. in December.

单选题Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following interview.

单选题

单选题

单选题

单选题Questions 23-26

单选题It looked like Google"s stock market flotation might be derailed at the last minute by an interview in Playboy magazine that seemed to contravene listing rules. However, the Securities and Exchange Commission has reportedly given it the go-ahead, and the search-engine company could be valued at as much as $36 billion when its shares start trading. Is it worth anything like that? Google"s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, have always had an air of niceness about them: after all, Google was the first company to promise "not to be evil" in the prospectus for its initial public offering (IPO). Bat it appears as if the founders of the world"s biggest Internet search engine have a touch of naivety about them too. In April, as they were planning Google"s IPO, they gave an interview to Playboy magazine. Alas, such interviews can fall foul of America"s tight rules on stock market flotations, which are designed to prevent companies from hyping their stock ahead of a listing. And so, just as the bidding for the shares got under way on Friday August 13th, it looked like the IPO might have to be pulled. In the end, it didn"t come to that. The Securities and Exchange Commission, America"s main financial regulator, reportedly gave the IPO the go-ahead after Google refiled its offering document with the Playboy article attached. And so the innovative Dutch auction for the firm"s shares is expected to wind up on Wednesday, with investors who hid at or above a market-clearing price paying that price. Google shares are likely to begin trading on the Nasdaq market on Thursday. The company and its bankers have declined to give details of bidding levels, but the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that most bids are within or above Google"s own estimated range of $108-$135 per share, valuing the company at up to $36 billion. The Playboy fiasco is simply the latest controversy to befall Google over the past few months. It has already had to offer to buy back shares improperly issued ahead of the flotation. And at the end of July, Google"s website was crippled by an Internet worm, MyDoom. Of course, there are many investors with an interest in playing up Google"s problems and talking down its worth, so as to get the shares more cheaply in the Dutch auction. And Wall Street banks, whose lucrative stranglehold on IPOs is threatened, are also keen to prove that companies cannot list without the help of banks in finding buyers for them. But even some supporters of the auction admit that Google"s shares may be wildly overvalued, and that investors may not be taking into account threats to its dominance of the Internet-search market. While Google is the undoubted leader in online searches, with more than a third of the market in June, its profits are still modest: it made $143m after tax in the first half of the year. At the expected valuation, it would be worth a staggering 187 times current earnings. Such a valuation implies a future of rapid growth and high profit margins. But, while most expect Google"s revenues to continue to soar, its ability to make money from such sales is in doubt. Google makes most of its money from so-called sponsored links—discreet ads that come up with any search—and can do so because of its dominance in search. But that lead is under threat. Until this year, Yahoo!, an Internet portal, used Google to power its searches, paying a license fee for the technology. But Yahoo! has acquired a number of other search engines, and in February cut its ties to Google. Google"s share of all searches has fallen from 75% at its peak to around half, and Yahoo! is not far behind. Moreover, Yahoo! has a key advantage over Google: because of its vast base of registered users (100m people use its e-mail, travel and other services), it is in a better position to tailor searches to users" needs. Microsoft poses a threat to Google too. The software giant is developing its own search service, and plans to integrate this into its Windows operating software from 2006.