峥嵘岁月B. Game of Cat and Mouse
C. A New Examination-supervision System
D. Measures to Fight Against Dishonesty
Passage Two
Top marathon runners tend to be lean and light, star swimmers are long thighs with huge feet and gold medal weightlifters are solid blocks of muscle with short arms and legs. So, does your physical shape--and the way your body works--fit you for a particular sport? Or does your body develop a certain way because of your chosen sport?
"It's about 55:45, genes to the environment," says Mike Rennie, professor of clinical physiology at Britain's University of Nottingham Medical School. Rennie cites the case of identical twins from Germany, one of whom was a long-distance athlete, the other a powerful sportsman, so, "They look quite different, despite being identical twins."
Someone who's 1.5-meters tall has little chance of becoming an elite basketball player. Still, being over two meters tall won't automatically push you to Olympic gold. "Unless you have tactical sense where needed, unless you have access to good equipment, medical care and the psychological conditions, and unless you are able to drive yourself through pain, all the physical strength will be in vain," said Craig Sharp, professor of sports science at Britain's Brunel University.
Jonathan Robinson, an applied sports scientist at the University of Bath's sports development department, in southwest England, points to the importance of technique. "In swimming only 5-10 per cent of the propelling force comes from the legs, so technique is vital."
Having the right physique for the right sport is a good starting point. Seventeen years ago, the Australian Institute of Sport started a national Talent Search Program, which searched schools for 14-16-year-olds with the potential to be elite athletes. One of their first finds was Megan Still, world champion rower. In 1987, Still had never picked up an oar in her life. But she had almost the perfect physique for a rower. After intensive training, she won gold in women's rowing in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.
3
Other countries have followed the Australian example. Now the explosion of genetic knowledge has meant that there is now a search, not just for appropriate physique but also for "performance genes."
57. It can be concluded from the passage that__________.
A. physical strength is more important for sportspersons' success
B. training conditions are more important for sportspersons' success
C. genes are more important for sportspersons' success
D. psychological conditions are more important for sportspersons' success
58. The case of identical twins from Germany shows that_________.
A. environment can help determine people's body shape
B. genes are the decisive factors for people's body shape
C. identical twins are likely to enjoy different sports
D. identical twins may have different genes for different sports
59. Which of the following is NOT mentioned by Craig Sharp as a required quality for a sportsperson to win an Olympic gold medal?
A. The physical strength.
B. The right training conditions.
C. The talent for the sports.
D. The endurance for pains.
60. Seventeen years ago Megan Still was chosen for rowing because____________.
A. she had the talent for rowing
B. her body shape was right for a rower
C. she had the performance genes
D. she was a skillful rower
61. The word "elite" in Paragraph 5 means ________ .
A. the most wealthy
B. the most skilled
C. the most industrious
D. the most intelligent
62. The elite athletes of the future may come from people who naturally possess___________.
A. the best body shapes and an iron purpose
B. the extremes of the right physique and strong wills
C. the right psychological conditions and sports talents
D. the right physique and genes for sports
Passage Three
For years, a network of citizens' groups and scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. But who funded them?
Exxon's involvement is well known. ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. It makes most of its money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?
The website d612b89e360cba1aa811daaa, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organizations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organizations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organizations dislike are labeled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labeled "sound science".
This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric (对流层的) cooling - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.
While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon have been felt all over the world. By dominating the media debate on climate change during
4
seven or eight critical years in which urgent international talks should have been taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it should have been most persuasive, they have justified the money their sponsors have spent on them many times over.
63. Which of the following has NOT been done by the organizations to establish their position on climate change'?
A. Damaging the reputation of environmentalists.
B. Emphasizing the lack of consensus among scientists.
C. Stressing the unnecessary harm to tile global economy.
D. Protecting the scientific discoveries from being misused.
64. Which of the following is closest in meaning to "bogus' (in Paragraph 4)?
A. Reasonable.
B. Fake.
C. Limitless.
D. Inconsistent.
65. John Christy is mentioned to show_______________.
A. how closely these organizations work with scientists
B. how these organizations select scientific findings for their own purpose
C. how important correct data are for scientists to make sound discoveries
D. how one man's mistake may set back the progress of science
66. The organizations sponsored by Exxon ___________.
A. have lived up to their promises
B. have almost caused worldwide chaos
C. have failed to achieve their original goal
D. have misunderstood the request of the sponsor
67. The passage is mainly focused on____________.
A. Exxon's involvement in scientific scandals
B. Exxon's contributions to the issue of climate change
C. Exxon's role in delaying solutions to global warming
D. Exxon's efforts to promote more scientific discoveries
68. What is the author's tone in presenting the passage?
A. Factual.
B. Praiseful.
C. Biased.
D. Encouraging.
Passage Four
Where anyone reaching the age of 60 was considered to be near death's door at the turn of the 20th century, it is barely old enough for retirement at the turn of the 21st century. And scientists are still not holding back. They say that as new anti-ageing treatments become available, our species will get even older. While few would argue that living longer is an attractive idea, the rapid increase in the number of years begs a question: Can our health expectancy be as close as possible to our life expectancy?
Predictions for future health expectancy have changed over the past few decades. In the 1980s, life expectancy was increasing but the best data suggested that for every increased year of life expectancy, a greater fraction was disabled life expectancy. What we would see was a piling up of chronic illness and related disability which medical science couldn't prevent.
But that world view changed suddenly in the early 1990s with the publication of a study by researchers at Duke University, who had been following the health of 20,000 people for almost a decade. They showed that disability among the elderly was not only dropping, but it was doing so at an ever-increasing rate.
Arian Richardson, director of the Barshop Institute for Ageing and Longevity research, predicts that understanding the mechanisms behind calorie restriction and other genetic reasons behind ageing could be used within the next two decades to give people several extra healthy years of life. Restrict how much an animal eats, for example, and it will live longer. In lab experiments, rats on calorie-restricted diets were found to be physiologically younger, got diseases later in life and, at any rate, had less severe cases. "From the models that have been looked at, the increase in lifespan is usually in the range of 15-30% maximum," says Richardson. Cutting calories is thought to trigger a switch in an animal's behaviour from normal to a state of stasis in which growth and ageing are temporarily put on hold. When food becomes available again, the animal's behaviour switches back.
Richardson says that thinking about stopping ageing is a "little bit silly" at the moment but doesn't dismiss it altogether, arguing that none of the illnesses related to ageing should be inevitable. Start with a high-quality body (and that means eating your greens, not smoking and doing lots of exercise in your younger days) and you can keep it going for longer with high quality maintenance. "It'll be like the difference between a Rolls-Royce and
