试题库在线考试题库-历年真题模拟试题及答案-考博英语在线试题测试中心-希赛网

题库

首页 > 题库 > 四川师范大学

Beneath its myriad rules, the fundamental purpose of ______ is to make the world a pleasanter place to live in, and you a more pleasant person to live with.

There is a general ______ that pouring old wine into the same bottles is the wrong way to go.

Brunner’s ______ to become the second woman ever to hold Cabinet rank was scuttled by the overwhelmingly male parliament, apparently because of sexual politics.

Producing elastin through chemical synthesis is a tedious process consuming ______ three months.

Fitness helps ______ signs of depression, such as indecision and lack of zest for daily activities.

Benjamin Franklin, tactless in his youth, became so diplomatic, so ______ at handling people that he was made American Ambassador to France.

In the case of Finney, where an attendant at a mental hospital caused the death of a patient by releasing a flow of boiling water into a bath, the test was whether he was grossly ______.

The “Echo House” will demonstrate how we can live with highly efficient insulation, solar heating, energy efficient ______ and organic gardening.

Mountain biking demands hill-walking strength as well as track riding skills. Initially, choose gentle routes among familiar terrain—or risk ______ shoulder-carriers!

Cooked vegetables are also valuable sources of certain vitamins and minerals, if the juice is eaten and if not cooked ______.

It is ______ who decides whether the accused is innocent or guilty.

“What do they eat in Hawaii?”“______ eat rice rather than potatoes.”

Bob takes pride in doing a job and getting it done ______ much time is required.

“Is George really leaving the university?”“Yes, but would you mind ______ to anyone?

Mary has brown hair. In fact, it’s quite similar in shape ______ yours.

Please excuse me if I have left any of my questions ______.

He promised me a letter; he ought to ______ it days ago.

Complicated ______ it is, the problem can be solved in only two hours with an electronic computer.

Imagine a disease spreading across the globe, killing mostly middle-aged people or leaving them chronically disabled. Then one day researchers come up with a drug that can prevent some of the disease’s nastier effects. You would think the world’s ageing public would be eternally grateful.The disease does exist. It is called tobacco addiction. The drug too is real and in animal tests has prevented lung damage that leads to emphysema. But the inventors have received no bouquets. Prevailing medical opinion seems to be that the drug is a mere sideshow, distracting smokers from the task of quitting. Another experimental drug, which could protect smokers against cancer, is also viewed with suspicion because it could give smokers an excuse not to quit.On the face of it these responses make sense. It is ingrained in society that smokers have only themselves to blame and their salvation lies in a simple act of will. If they will not quit smoking, they cannot expect help from anyone else.But this logic is flawed. Check a survey of smokers and you find two-thirds want to give up and one-third will have tried in the previous year. Yet, even with nicotine gum, patches and drugs to ease the ordeal, the quit rate is still under 10 percent. In the UK, the proportion of people who smoke has not fallen in a decade. Tobacco has a powerful grip, and many smoker are caught in a trap they cannot escape: they have a disease like any other and deserve the chance to reduce the harm it does to them.This reasoning is hard for many to swallow. It certainly leaves governments and anti-smoking groups in a bind. They are happy to pay lip service to methods for reducing harm—of which three are a growing number—but they are slow to create policies based upon them. European Union countries, for example, took years to even consider regulating the dangerous additives in cigarettes.One fear is that methods for reducing harm will dilute the message that tobacco kills—especially when given to youngsters. But that message won’t change, in the present case, even if both drugs turn out to work in human trials, they would not protect against all the deadly side effects of smoking. And the drugs do not have to be free to all. They could be available only on prescription for people who doctors believe genuinely cannot give up.There are things that no drug aimed at harm reduction will ever be able to do. It will not cut passive smoking or stop tobacco companies persuading millions of teenagers to light up. For these reasons all other ways to counter smoking must continue, from banning tobacco advertising to raising tobacco taxes. But it would be a mistake to ignore the harm reduction measures. For those who are not convinced, forget smokers for a moment. Preventive drugs could also help non-smokers, especially those working long hours as, say, musicians and bar staff in smoky rooms. Should we deny them too?1. The statement “But the inventors have received no bouquets” implies that .2. The author argues that .3. The author is trying to emphasize that the drugs .4. The drugs, according to the author, are expected .5. We can draw a conclusion from the passage that __.

Two equally brilliant scientists apply for a prestigious research fellowship awarded by a top scientific organization. One is white, the other black. Does the color of their skin matter?Most scientists will already be screaming a resounding “no”. Those who progress in science do so because of their work, not their pigmentation. Science is meritocratic and objective. It must therefore be rigorously color-blind and shun both racial discrimination and affirmative action.Well, let’s think about this. If science really is so meritocratic, where are all the black Nobel prizewinners and fellows of the Royal Society? The black chairs of government scientific panels? The black Richard Dawkinses and Susan Greenfields? When Newsweek magazine recently surveyed Europe’s largest 100 companies, it was shocked to unearth only six board members of non-European racial origin. One shudders to think what a similar survey of upper echelons of European science would reveal.Even the usually stick-in-the-mud British government now acknowledges there is a problem. Last month it promised new funding for projects designed to combat institutional racism in science education in schools. As measures go it is little and late, but welcome nonetheless. Despite starting school as the top achievers, black British children have long underperformed in science.And there are positive changes afoot higher up the scientific career ladder too. At present, few scientific organizations, funding bodies or labs in Europe bother even to track the racial backgrounds of those they hire or fund. As a result, the full scale of the under-representation problem is hidden. Not for much longer. Britain’s newly amended Race Relations Act requires all government bodies, including funding councils, to track the effects of their activities on different ethnic groups and ensure that all benefit equally. And next year a European Union directive will push all EU employers this way too.But ethnic monitoring alone will not create the black role models European science so badly needs. Something else is needed. Funding agencies and influential organizations like the Royal Society must bite the bullet of affirmative action. That means ring-fencing fellowships and grants for applicants from particular racial backgrounds. And it means seeking out those who have broken through the barriers of race and giving them preference over their equally well-qualified white peers for positions of influence and places in the spotlight.Tokenism and fine sentiments will no longer do. With other professions having already leapt ahead in this area, the enduring whiteness of science is more than an embarrassment: it is a barrier to its very credibility. If a large segment of Europe’s schoolchildren never see a scientist who looks like them, they will continue to think science is not for them. And if scientists don’t reflect the multiracial societies they live in, they’ll find it hard to win the public trust they crave. Does color matter? You bet it does.1. Science is not so meritocratic because .2. The embarrassing problem addressed in the passage .3. One of the positive changes afoot is .4. To bite the bullet of affirmative action is .5. The author argues that color matters because it is of __.

暂未登录

学员用户尊享特权

老师批改作业做题助教答疑学员专用题库高频考点梳理

上一页 1 2 3 4 5 6 下一页