单选题Questions 6-10 A study of art history might be a good way to learn more about a culture than is possible to learn in general history classes. Most typical history courses concentrate on politics, economics, and war. But art history focuses on much more than this because art reflects not only the political values of a people, but also religious beliefs, emotions, and psychology. In addition, information about the daily activities of our ancestors--or of people very different from our own--can be provided by art. In short, art expresses the essential qualities of a time and a place, and a study of it clearly offer us a deeper understanding than can be found in most history books. In history books, objective information about the political life of a country is presented; that is, facts about politics are given, but opinions are not expressed. Art, on the other hand, is subjective: it reflects emotions and opinions. The great Spanish painter Francisco Goya was perhaps the first truly "political" artist. In his well-known painting The Third of May 1808, he criticized the Spanish government for its misuse of power over people. Over a hundred years later, symbolic images were used in Pablo Picasso"s Guernica to express the horror of war. Meanwhile, on another continent, the powerful paintings of Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, and David Alfaro Siqueiros--as well as the works of Alfredo Ramos Martines--depicted these Mexican artists" deep anger and sadness about social problems. In the same way, art can reflect a culture"s religious beliefs. For hundreds of years in Europe, religious art was almost the only type of art that existed. Churches and other religious buildings were filled with paintings that depicted people and stories from the Bible. Although most people couldn"t read, they could still understand biblical stories in the pictures on church walls. By contrast, one of the main characteristics of art in the Middle East was (and still is) its absence of human and animal images. This reflects the Islamic belief that statues are unholy.

单选题Questions 19-22

单选题If trees fall in the middle of a city, does anyone make a sound? So far, not much of one—and that's a problem. To most of us, city trees are to genuine forests what gardens are to jungles or fish tanks are to the ocean—pocket-size imitations of the wild world, decorative perhaps but playing no real role in the global ecosystem. But urban trees are a lot more important than that, and at the moment, they're in decline. Tree cover from city to city has been measured by any number of studies, so direct comparisons of figures are hard, but across the country, things are trending downward. In the past few decades, Washington has lost half its tree cover; San Diego's is off about a quarter; the cover in cities in Michigan, North Carolina and Florida has fallen to about 27% of what it once was; Chicago and Philadelphia are just 16%. "Urban deforestation," says Ed Macie, an urban specialist with the U.S. Forest Service in Atlanta, "compares with what's going on in the world's rain forests." As with so many other environmental problems, there are a lot of things causing the tree trouble. In the mid to late 20th century, Dutch elm disease wiped out millions of city trees, and now bark beetles, gypsy moths and emerald ash borers are chomping through millions more, thanks in part to climate change that makes cities more hospitable to the pests. The fact that so many trees exist in cities to be eaten in the first place is a tribute to our greener impulses. Many municipalities planted their now towering canopies right after World War II, but age is taking a toll as a lot of those trees simply reach the end of their life span. Development too much is a problem. In and around cities, single-family homes that once covered only a portion of their lot are being replaced by McMansions that don't leave enough yard space to support large-canopied trees. Sprawl is causing the footprints of cities themselves to increase, with what was once relatively lush land being bulldozed and paved over. Urban fiscal woes have had a hand as well. Cities unable to keep up with the maintenance of large roadside trees swap them for pygmy-statured hawthorns and crape myrtles. Newly designed parks are replacing trees with no-fuss tennis courts and playgrounds. "Budgets are tight, and no one is giving extra money to plant larger trees," says Greg McPherson, director of the U.S. Forest Service Center for Urban Forest Research.. All this hits the environment hard, starting with air quality. But it's the thermometer that most noticeably reflects the loss of trees. A high canopy prevents sunlight and heat from ever reaching the ground; by contrast, unshaded asphalt soaks up thermal energy and radiates it back, creating what is known as heat islands. Local governments are finally responding to the problem. More than 2,000 big and small cities have launched long-term planting and preservation programs. For now, the most immediate answer is less the planting strategy than the preservation one, something that can best be achieved by curbing sprawl and downsizing our taste for too-big homes. For people who plan cities as well as those who live there, it's important to remember that most of the time, sidewalks and sycamores are equally important.

单选题Pupils at GCSE are to be allowed to abandon learning traditional "hard" science, including the meaning of the periodic table, in favour of "soft" science such as the benefits of genetic engineering and healthy eating. The statutory requirement for pupils to learn a science subject will be watered down under a new curriculum introduced next year. There will be no compulsion to master the periodic table—the basis of chemistry—nor basic scientific laws that have informed the work of all the great scientists such as Newton and Einstein. The changes, which the government believes will make science more "relevant" to the 21st century, have been attacked by scientists as a "dumbing down" of the subject. In June the government had to announce financial incentives to tackle a shortage of science teachers. Academics have estimated that a fifth of science lessons are taught by teachers who are not adequately qualified. Most children now study for the double-award science GCSE, which embraces elements of biology, chemistry and physics. This GCSE will be scrapped and ministers have agreed that from next year all 14-years-old will be required to learn about the general benefits and risks of contemporary scientific developments, in a new science GCSE. A harder science GCSE will also be introduced as an optional course. One expert involved in devising the new system believes it will halve the number of state school pupils studying "hard" science. Independent schools and more talented pupils in the state sector are likely to shun the new papers in favour of the GCSEs in the individual science disciplines of physics, chemistry and biology. These will continue to require pupils to achieve an understanding of scientific principles. The new exams were devised after proposals by academics at King's College London, who told ministers that science lessons were often "dull and boring" and required pupils to recall too many facts. Their report said: "Contemporary analyses of the labour market suggest that our future society will need a larger number of individuals with a broader understanding of science both for their work and to enable them to participate as citizens in a democratic society. " However, Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, warned that reducing the "hard" science taught in schools would create problems. "I can understand the government's motives," he said. "There is a crisis of public confidence in science which is reducing the progress of policy on such issues as nuclear energy and stem cell research. But sixth-formers are already arriving at university without the depth of knowledge required." Others endorse the new approach. Results at North Chadderton upper school in Oldham—one of 80 schools piloting the new "softer" GCSE, named Twenty first Century Science have improved. Martyn Overy, the head of science, said: "The proportion getting higher grades in science went up from 60% to 75%. The course kept their interest, had more project work and was more relevant. " As part of their course, the pupils studied what kind of food they needed to keep fit and healthy. Critics say it is only marginally more demanding than following the advice of Nigella Lawson, the television chef, who promotes the benefits of eating proper meals instead of snacking from the fridge. Some science teachers are skeptical. Mo Afzal, head of science at the independent Warwick school, said. "These changes will widen the gap between independent and state schools. Even the GCSE that is designed for those going on to A-level science is not as comprehensive as the test it replaces." John Holman, director of the National Science Learning Centre at York University, who advised the government on the content of the new system, said: "The new exam is not dumbing down. The study of how science works is more of a challenge than rote learning. " SCIENCE LESSONS Out 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　In Periodic table______ The drugs debate______ Ionic equations______ Slimming issues______ Structure of the atom______ Smoking and health______ Boyle's law______ IVF treatment______ Ohm's law______ Nuclear controversy______

单选题In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talkshow, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack each other- hurl insults, even- and it counts as logical argument. I cannot understand it. It seems that our society favours a kind of ritualized aggression. Everywhere you look, in newspapers and on television, issues are presented using the terminology of war and conflict. We hear of battles, duels and disputes. We see things in terms of winners and losers, victors and victims. The problem is society"s unquestioning belief in the advantages of the debate as a way of solving disagreements, even proving right from wrong. Our brainwashing begins early at school, when the brightest pupils are co-opted onto the debating system. They get there because they can think up a good argument to support their case. Once on the debate team, they learn that they earn bonus points for the skill with which they verbally attack, or insult, the opposing team. They win if they can successfully convince the audience that they are right, even if the case they are arguing is clearly nonsensual. They do this by proving themselves to be stronger, brighter, more outrageous, even. The training in this adversarial approach continues at our tertiary institutions. The standard way to present an academic paper, for instance, is to take up an opposing argument to something expressed by another academic. The paper must set out to prove the other person wrong. This is not at all the same thing as reading the original paper with an open mind and discovering that you disagree with it. The reverence for the adversarial approach spills over into all areas of life. Instead of answering their critics, politicians learn to sidestep negative comments and turn the point around to an attack on accusers. Defense lawyers argue the case for their clients even when they suspect they may be guilty. And ordinary people use the same tactics—just listen to your teenager next time you pull him up for coming home late. You can be sure a stream of abuse will flow about your own time—keeping, your irritating habits, your history of bad parenting. Unfortunately, the smarter your kid, the better his or her argument against you will be. You"ll be upset, but you"ll comfort yourself that those teenage monsters of yours will one day turn into mature, though adults who can look after themselves—by which you mean, of course, they will be able to argue their way out of sticky situations. It"s not that you should never use angry words, or take up a position in opposition to someone or something. There are certainly times when one should take a stand, and in such cases strong words are quite appropriate: if you witness injustice, for instance, or feel passionately about another"s folly. Mockery—so cruel when practised on the innocent—can be very useful in such situations. There is no better way to bring down a tyrant than to mock him mercilessly. What I dislike is the automatic assumption most people have when it comes to disagreements: they should attack, abuse, preferably overpower their opponent, at whatever the cost. The approach is so ingrained that "compromise" has become a dirty word. We feel guilty if we are conciliatory rather than confrontational. We have trained ourselves, or been brainwashed into believing, that to be pleasant is a sign of weakness. But just think how easy it can be to persuade a "difficult" person to be considerate of you or your wished when you are pleasant to them, and unthreatening. Give them a way out of a potentially aggressive situation without losing face, and they will oblige you willingly. Discuss a subject without taking an adversarial position and you will find the other person happy to explore the possibilities with you. I"m prepared to bet on it. You"ll get closer to the truth of the matter than you would by going to each other hammer and tongs.

单选题 {{B}}Questions 15-18{{/B}}

单选题 Questions 15-18

单选题Question 16-20 Racket, din clamor, noise, whatever you want to call it, unwanted sound is America"s most widespread nuisance. But noise is more than just a nuisance. It constitutes a real and present danger to people"s health. Day and night, at home, at work, and at play, noise can produce serious physical and psychological stress. No one is immune to this stress. Though we seem to adjust to noise by ignoring it, the ear, in fact, never closes and the body still responds--sometimes with extreme tension, as to a strange sound in the night. The annoyance we feel when faced with noise is the most common outward symptom of the stress building up inside us. Indeed, because irritability is so apparent, legislators have made public annoyance the basis of many noise abatement programs. The more subtle and more serious health hazards associated with stress caused by noise traditionally have been given much less attention. Nevertheless, when we are annoyed or made irritable by noise, we should consider these symptoms fair warning that other thing may be happening to us, some of which may be damaging to our health. Of many health hazards to noise, hearing loss is the most clearly observable and measurable by health professionals. The other hazards are harder to pin down. For many of us, there may be a risk that exposure to the stress of noise increases susceptibility to disease and infection. The more susceptible among us may experience noise as a complicating factor in heart problems and other diseases. Noise that causes annoyance and irritability in health persons may have serious consequences for these already ill in mind or body. Noise affects us throughout our lives. For example, there are indications of effects on the unborn child when mothers are exposed to industrial and environmental noise. During infancy and childhood, youngsters exposed to high noise levels may have trouble falling asleep and obtaining necessary amounts of rest. Why, then, is there not greater alarm about these dangers? Perhaps it is because the link between noise and many disabilities or diseases has not yet been conclusively demonstrated. Perhaps it is because we tend to dismiss annoyance as a price to pay for living in the modern world. It may also be because we still think of hearing loss as only an occupational hazard.

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题

单选题

单选题 Questions 19-22

单选题 BQuestions 19-22/B

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

单选题Question 27-30

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

单选题{{B}}Questions 1 to 5 are based on the following conversation.{{/B}}

单选题Advances in surveillance technology could seriously damage individual privacy unless drastic measures are taken to protect personal data, scientists have said. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, gave warning last year that Britain was "sleepwalking" into a surveillance society. Yesterday the country"s leading engineers developed the theme, fleshing out a dystopian vision that not even George Orwell could have predicted. They said that travel passes, supermarket loyalty cards and mobile phones could be used to track individuals" every move. They also predicted that CCTV (close-circuit television) footage could become available for public consumption and that terrorists could hijack the biometric chips in passports and rig them up as a trigger for explosives. The report by the Royal Academy of Engineering, Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance—Challenges of Technological Change, argues that the scientists developing surveillance technology should also think about measures to protect privacy. "Just as security features have been incorporated into car design, privacy-protecting features should be incorporated into the design of products and services that rely on divulging personal information," the report says. "There is a choice between a Big Brother world where individual privacy is almost extinct and a world where the data are kept by individual organizations or services and kept secret and secure." The report says that shoppers should be allowed to buy goods and services without revealing their identities to the companies that provide them. It argues that travel and supermarket loyalty cards and mobile phones are mines of personal information that should be closely scrutinized to make sure that data is not abused. Professor Nigel Gilbert, chairman of the report group, said. "In most cases, supermarket loyalty cards will have your name on. Why? What is needed in a loyalty card is for the supermarket to know what has been bought so you can get your discounts." "Does it need to identify you? No, it just needs authentication that you"ve bought the goods. It is the same for Oyster cards on the Tube, some of which you have to register for. These are all apparently small things but people are being required to give away more identification information than is required." Ian Forbes, the report"s coauthor, said that because footage from CCTV cameras could be digitized and potentially stored for ever, that necessitated greater scrutiny of the controlling networks. Britain has about five million CCTV cameras, one for every 12 people. The report says: "Give this potential, it cannot be guaranteed that surveillance images will remain private, or will not be altered, misused or manipulated." The report also gives warning that biometric passports and identity cards would give fresh opportunities to fraudsters and terrorists to read remotely the data chips that they contain. It says that it could be possible to rig a bomb to go off in the presence of a certain person or someone of a particular nationality. The report proposes that the Information Commissioner should be given extended powers, and that stiffer penalties, including prison sentences, should be introduced for those who misuse personal data. The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee is expected to announce an inquiry into the growing use of surveillance.

单选题 Questions 6-10 For centuries, explorers have risked their lives venturing into the unknown for reasons that were to varying degrees economic and nationalistic. Columbus went west to look for better trade routes to the Orient and to promote the greater glory of Spain. Lewis and Clark journeyed into the American wilderness to find out what the U.S. had acquired when it purchased Louisiana, and the Apollo astronauts rocketed to the moon in a dramatic show of technological muscle during the cold war. Although their missions blended commercial and political-military imperatives, the explorers involved all accomplished some significant science simply by going where no scientists had gone before. Today Mars looms as humanity's next great terra incognita. And with doubtful prospects for a short-term financial return, with the cold war a rapidly fading memory and amid a growing emphasis on international cooperation in large space ventures, it is clear that imperatives other than profits or nationalism will have to compel human beings to leave their tracks on the planet's reddish surface. Could it be that science, which has long played a minor role in exploration, is at last destined to take a, leading role? The question naturally invites a couple of others.. Are there experiments that only humans could do on Mars? Could those experiments provide insights profound enough to justify the expense of sending people across interplanetary space? With Mars the scientific stakes are arguably higher than they have ever been. The issue of whether life ever existed on the planet, and whether it persists to this day, has been highlighted by mounting evidence that the Red Planet once had abundant stable, liquid water and by the continuing controversy over suggestions that bacterial fossils rode to Earth on a meteorite from Mars. A more conclusive answer about life on Mars, past or present, would give researchers invaluable data about the range of conditions under which a planet can generate the complex chemistry that leads to life. If it could be established that life arose independently on Mars and Earth, the finding would provide the first concrete clues in one of the deepest mysteries in all of science: the prevalence of life in the universe.