For about three centuries we have been doing science, trying science out, using science for the construction of what we call modern civilization. Every dispensable item of contemporary technology, from canal locks to dial telephones to penicillin, was pieced together from the analysis of data provided by one or another series of scientific experiments. Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human interaction, long enough to settle back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go on with it or not. There is an argument.
Voices have been raised in protest since the beginning, rising in pitch and violence in the nineteenth century during the early stages of the industrial revolution, summoning urgent crowds into the streets any day on the issue of nuclear energy. The principal discoveries in this century, all in all, are the glimpses of the depth of our ignorance about nature. Things that used to seem clear and rational, matters of absolute certainty—Newtonian mechanics, for example—have slipped through our fingers, and we are left with a new set of gigantic puzzles, cosmic uncertainties, ambiguities; some of the laws of physics are amended every few years, some are canceled outright, some undergo revised versions of legislative intent as if they were acts of Congress.
Just thirty years ago we call it a biological revolution when the fantastic geometry of the DNA molecule was exposed to public view and the linear language of genetics was decoded. For a while, things seemed simple and clear, the cell was a neat little machine, a mechanical device ready for taking to pieces and reassembling, like a tiny watch. But just in the last few years it has become almost unbelievably complex, filled with strange parts whose functions are beyond today’s imagining.
It is not just that there is more to do; there is everything to do. What lies ahead, or what can lie ahead if the efforts in basic research are continued, is much more than the conquest of human disease or the improvement of agricultural technology or the cultivation of nutrients in the sea. As we learn more about fundamental processes of living things in general we will learn more about ourselves.
51. What CAN’T be inferred from the lst paragraph?
52. Man’s attitude toward scientific discoveries has always been( ).
53. Scientists have discovered in the past few years that( ).
54. What was hailed as a biological revolution thirty years ago?
55. The writer’s main purpose in writing this passage is to say that( ).
问题1选项
A.Scientific experiments in the past three hundred years have produced many valuable items.
B.For three hundred years there have been people holding hostile attitude toward science.
C.For centuries scientific discoveries have been hailed by the human world unanimously.
D.Three hundred years is not long enough to settle back for critical appraisal of the scientific method.
问题2选项
A.suspicious
B.undoubting
C.cynical
D.critical
问题3选项
A.the exposure of DNA to the public is unnecessary
B.the tiny cell in DNA is a neat little machine
C.man actually knows nothing about DNA
D.man has much to learn about DNA
问题4选项
A.Discovery of the structure of DNA.
B.The decoding of the linear language.
C.The mechanical device found in the human cell.
D.The unbelievable complexity of DN
问题5选项
A.science has greatly improved man’s life
B.science is far from perfect in exploration of the world
C.science has reached its climax in many fields
D.science has done too little to human beings
第1题:C
第2题:D
第3题:D
第4题:D
第5题:B
51.事实细节题。根据题干关键词定位到第一段,第一段讲述了科学相关的历史,定位到倒数第二句话Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human interaction, long enough to settle back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go on with it or not.(对于测试一种人类互动的新方法来说,三百年似乎太长了,足够让人们回过头来对科学方法进行批判性评估,甚至可能足够让人们投票决定是否继续使用它。)通过这句话可以得出,三百年的时候足够长,以至于人们开始批判性的评估科学了,因此C选项“几个世纪以来,科学发现一直受到人类世界的一致欢迎”,是和文章不符合的,因为科学已经开始被质疑了,因此C选项当选。A选项“过去三百年的科学实验产生了许多有价值的东西”,是文章中提到的;B选项“三百年来,有人对科学持敌对态度”,是文章的观点;D选项“三百年的时间不足以让我们回过头来对科学方法进行批判性的评价”,这个虽然与原文看似不符合,但是后文有一句There is an argument.“但是这是有争议的。”可以看出这句话是有争议的,因此D选项是有争议的,不当选。
52.根据题干定位到第二段的最后一句some of the laws of physics are amended every few years,some are canceled outright, some undergo revised versions of legislative intent as if they were acts of Congress.(有些物理定律每隔几年就会被修改,有些被彻底取消,有些经过了立法意图的修订,就好像它们是国会的法案一样。)可以得知人类对待科学发现并不认为它们是完美无缺的,而是不断修正、摈弃,甚至采取立法手段加以规范的,因此D选项“批判的”正确。A选项“怀疑的”;B选项“毋庸置疑的”;C选项“愤世嫉俗的”都不正确。
53.事实细节题。根据题干关键词定位到第三段的最后一句话But just in the last few years it has become almost unbelievably complex, filled with strange parts whose functions are beyond today’s imagining.(但就在最近几年,它已经变得几乎令人难以置信的复杂,充满了奇怪的部分,其功能超出了今天的想象。)可知,人们对于DNA的研究还所知甚少,因此D选项“关于DNA,人类还有很多要学习”正确。A选项“将DNA暴露给公众是不必要的”,与原文不符;B选项“DNA中的微小细胞是一台整洁的小机器”,是细胞,不是DNA中的细胞;C选项“人类实际上对DNA一无所知”,并不是一无所知,只是知之甚少。
54.根据题干关键词定位到第三段的第一句话Just thirty years ago we call it a biological revolution when the fantastic geometry of the DNA molecule was exposed to public view and the linear language of genetics was decoded. (就在30年前,当DNA分子奇妙的几何结构暴露在公众视野中,遗传学的线性语言被破译时,我们称之为一场生物学革命。)因此B选项“对线性语言的解码”正确。A选项“DNA结构的发现”;C选项“在人体细胞中发现的机械装置”以及D选项“DNA的复杂性令人难以置信”,都不是三十年前被称为生物学革命的原因。
55.主旨归纳题。根据题干关键词定位到最后一段It is not just that there is more to do; there is everything to do.(这不仅仅是因为我们有更多的工作要做;有很多事情要做。)从而清楚地表明了作者的观点:科学刚刚起步,前面的路还很长。因此B选项“科学在探索世界的过程中远非完美”是文章的同义转述项,正确。A选项“科学极大地改善了人们的生活”,这个说法是正确的,但是不是作者写这篇文章的目的;C选项“科学在许多领域都达到了顶峰”,无关项;D选项“科学对人类的贡献太少了”,与原文不符。