试题库在线考试题库-历年真题模拟试题及答案-英语在线试题测试中心-希赛网

题库

首页 > 题库 > 四六级英语

The Paris climate agreement finalised in December last year heralded a new era for climate action. For the first time, the world’s nations agreed to keep global warming well below 2℃.This is vital for climate-vulnerable nations. Fewer than 4% of countries are responsible for more than half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. In a study published in Nature Scientific Reports, we reveal just how deep this injustice runs.Developed nations such as Australia, the United States, Canada, and European countries are essentially climate “free-riders”: causing the majority of the problems through high greenhouse gas emissions, while incurring few of the costs such as climate change’s impact on food and water. In other words, a few countries are benefiting enormously from the consumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time contributing disproportionately to the global burden of climate change.On the flip side, there are many “forced riders”，who are suffering from the climate change impacts despite having scarcely contributed to the problem. Many of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries, the majority of which are African or small island states, produce a very small quantity of emissions. This is much like a non-smoker getting cancer from second-hand smoke, while the heavy smoker is fortunate enough to smoke in good health.The Paris agreement has been widely hailed as a positive step forward in addressing climate change for all, although the details on addressing “climate justice” can be best described as sketchy.The goal of keeping global temperature rise “well below” 2℃ is commendable but the emissions- reduction pledges submitted by countries leading up to the Paris talks are very unlikely to deliver on this.More than $100 billion in funding has been put on the table for supporting developing nations to reduce emissions. However, the agreement specifies that there is no formal distinction between developed and developing nations in their responsibility to cut emissions, effectively ignoring historical emissions. There is also very little detail on who will provide the funds or, importantly, who is responsible for their provision. Securing these funds, and establishing who is responsible for raising them will also be vital for the future of climate-vulnerable countries.The most climate-vulnerable countries in the world have contributed very little to creating the global disease from which they now suffer the most. There must urgently be a meaningful mobilisation of the policies outlined in the agreement if we are to achieve national emissions reductions while helping the most vulnerable countries adapt to climate change.And it is clearly up to the current generation of leaders from high-emitting nations to decide whether they want to be remembered as climate change tyrants or pioneers.The author is critical of the Paris climate agreement because （）.Why does the author call some developed countries climate “free-riders”？Why does the author compare the “forced riders” to second-hand smokers?What does the author say about the $100 billion funding?What urgent action must be taken to realise the Paris climate agreement?

Are We in an Innovation Lull?[A] Scan the highlights of this year’s Consumer Electronics Show （CES）, and you may get a slight feeling of having seen them before. Many of the coolest gadgets this year are the same as the coolest gadgets last, year—or the year before, even. The booths are still exciting, and the demos are still just as crazy. It is still easy to be dazzled by the display of drones （无人机），3D printers, virtual reality goggles （眼镜）and more “ smart” devices than you could ever hope to catalog. Upon reflection, however, it is equally easy to feel like you have seen it all before. And it is hard not to think: Are we in an innovation lull （间歇期）?[B] In some ways, the answer is yes. For years, smartphones, televisions, tablets, laptops and desktops have made up a huge part of the market and driven innovation. But now these segments are looking at slower growth curves—or shrinking markets in some cases一as consumers are not as eager to spend money on new gadgets. Meanwhile, emerging technologies—the drones, 3D printers and smart- home devices of the world—now seem a bit too old to be called “the next big thing.”[C] Basically the tech industry seems to be in an awkward period now. “There is not any one-hit wonder, and there will not be one for years to come,” said Gary Shapiro, president and chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association （CTA）. In his eyes, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that innovation has stopped. It has just grown up a little. “Many industries are going out of infancy and becoming adolescents," Shapiro said.[D] For instance, new technologies that are building upon existing technology have not found their footing well enough to appeal to a mass audience, because, in many cases, they need to work effectively with other devices to realize their full appeal. Take the evolution of the smart home, for example. Companies are pushing it hard but make it almost overwhelming even to dip a toe in the water for the average consumer, because there are so many compatibility issues to think about. No average person wants to figure out whether their favorite calendar software works with their fridge or whether their washing machine and tablet get along. Having to install a different app for each smart appliance in your home is annoying; it would be nicer if you could manage everything together. And while you may forgive your smartphone an occasional fault, you probably have less patience for error messages from your door lock.[E] Companies are promoting their own standards, and the market has not had time to choose a winner yet as this is still very new. Companies that have long focused on hardware now have to think of ecosystems instead to give consumers practical solutions to their everyday problems. “The dialogue is changing from what is technologically possible to what is technologically meaningful,” said economist Shawn DuBravac. DuBravac works for CTA一which puts on the show each year一and said that this shift to a search for solutions has been noticeable as he researched his predictions for 2016.[F] “So much of what CES has been about is the cool. It is about the flashiness and the gadgets,” said John Curran, managing director of research at Accenture. “But over the last couple of years, and in this one in particular, we are starting to see companies shift from what is the largest screen size, the smallest form factor or the shiniest object and more into what all of these devices do that is practical in a consumer’s life.” Even the technology press conferences, which have been high-profile in the past and reached a level of drama and theatrics fitting for a Las Vegas stage, have a different bent to them. Rather than just dazzling with a high cool factor, there is a focus on the practical. Fitbit, for example, released its first smartwatch Monday, selling with a clear purpose—to improve your fitness——and promoting it as a ''tool, not a toy." Not only that, it supports a - number of platforms: Apple’s iOS, Google's Android and Microsoft’s Windows phone.[G] That seems to be what consumers are demanding, after all. Consumers are becoming increasingly bored with what companies have to offer: A survey of 28,000 consumers in 28 countries released by Accenture found consumers are not as excited about technology as they once were. For example, when asked whether they would buy a new smartphone this year, only 48 percent said yes—a six- point drop from 2015.[H] And when it comes to the hyper-connected super-smart world that technology firms are painting for us, it seems that consumers are growing more uneasy about handing over the massive amounts of consumer data needed to provide the personalized, customized solutions that companies need to improve their services. That could be another explanation for why companies seem to be strengthening their talk of the practicality of their devices.[I] Companies have already won part of the battle, having driven tech into every part of our lives, tracking our steps and our veiy heartbeats. Yet the persistent question of “Why do I need that?"一 or, perhaps more tellingly, “Why do you need to know that?”一dogs the steps of many new ventures. Only 13 percent of respondents said that they were interested in buying a smartwatch in 2016, for example—an increase of just one percent from the previous year despite a year of high- profile launches. That is bad news for any firm that may hope that smaitwatches can make up ground for maturing smartphone and tablet markets. And the survey found flat demand for fitness monitors, smart thermostats （恒温器）and connected home cameras, as well.[J] According to the survey, that lack of enthusiasm could stem from concerns about privacy and security. Even among people who have bought connected devices of some kind, 37 percent said that they are going to be more cautious about using these devices and services in the future. A full 18 percent have even returned devices until they feel they can get safer guarantees against having their sensitive information hacked.[K] That, too, explains the heavy Washington presence at this year's show, as these new technologies intrude upon heavily regulated areas. In addition to many senior officials from the Federal Trade and Federal Communications commissions, this year’s list of policy makers also includes appearances from Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, to talk about smart cities, and Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Michael Huerta, to talk about drones.[L] Curran, the Accenture analyst, said that increased government interest in the show makes sense as technology becomes a larger part of our lives. “There is an incompatibility in the rate at which these are advancing relative to the way we're digesting it,” he said. “Technology is becoming bigger and more aspirational, and penetrating almost every aspect of our lives. We have to understand and think about the implications, and balance these great, innovations with the potential downsides they naturally carry with them.”

It is important that scientists be seen as normal people asking and answering important questions. Good, sound science depends on（）, experiments and reasoned methodologies. It requires a willing¬ness to ask new questions and try new approaches. It requires one to take risks and experience failures. But good science also requires（）understanding, clear explanation and concise presentation.Our country needs more scientists who are willing to step out in the public（）and offer their opinions on important matters. We need more scientists who can explain what they are doing in language that is （） and understandable to the public. Those of us who are not scientists should also be prepared to support public engagement by scientists, and to（）scientific knowledge into our public communications.Too many people in this country, including some among our elected leadership, still do not understand how science works or why robust, long-range investments in research vitally matter. In the 1960s, the United States （） nearly 17% of discretionary (可酌情支配的)spending to research and development, （） decades of economic growth. By 2008, the figure had fallen into the single （） . This occurs at a time when other nations have made significant gains in their own research capabilities.At the University of California (UC), we （） ourselves not only on the quality of our research, but also on its contribution to improving our world. To （） the development of science from the lab bench to the market place, UC is investing our own money in our own good ideas.

Directions: For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write a short essay on invention. Your essay should include the importance of invention and measures to be taken to encourage invention. You are required to write at least 150 words but no more than 200 words.

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 3 4 5 6 7 8 下一页