The twentieth century saw greater changes than any century before changes for the better, changes for the worse, changes that brought a lot of benefits to human beings ,changes that put man in danger .Many things caused the changes ,but ,in my opinion ,the most important was the progress in science.

       Scientific research in physics and biology has vastly broadened our views. It has given us a deeper knowledge of the structure of matter and of the universe ,it has brought us a better understanding of the nature of life and of its continuous development .Technology in the application of science has made big advances that have benefited us in nearly every part of life.

       The continuation of such activities in the twenty-first century will result in even greater advantages to human beings : in pure science―a wider and deeper knowledge in all fields of learning ;in applied science―a more reasonable sharing of material benefits ,and better protection of the environment.

       Sadly ,however ,there is another side to the picture .The creativity of science has been employed in doing damage to mankind .The application of science and technology to the development and production of weapons of mass destruction has created a real danger to the continued existence of the human race on this planet .We have seen this happen in the case of nuclear weapons ,Although their actual use has so far occurred only in the Second World War ,the number of nuclear weapons that were produced and made ready for use was so large that if the weapons had actually been used ,the result could have been the ruin of the human race ,as well as of many kinds of animals.

       William Shakespeare said. “The web of our life is of a mingled yarn（紗線）,good and ill together. “The above brief review of the application of only one part of human activities―science seems to prove what Shakespeare said. But does it have to be so ?Must the ill always go together with the good ?Are we biologically programmed for war?

72．Which of the following best shows the structure of the passage?

       （①=Paragraph 1,②=Paragraph 2, ③=Paragraph 3, ④=Paragraph 4,⑤=Paragraph 5）

73．From the fourth paragraph ,we can infer that       .

       A．a(chǎn) great many nuclear weapons were actually used for war

       B．a(chǎn) large number of nuclear weapons should have been used for war

       C．the author is doubtful about the ruin of human beings by nuclear weapons

       D．the author is anxious about the huge number of nuclear weapons on the earth

74．The underlined word “mingled” in the last paragraph most probably means     .

       A．simple                 B．mixed                  C．sad                     D．happy

75．What do you think the author is most likely to suggest if he continues to write?

       A．Further application of science to war.

       B．More reading of William Shakespeare.

       C．Proper use of science in the new century.

       D．Effective ways to separate the good from the ill.

The twentieth century saw greater changes than any century before: changes for the better, changes for the worse; changes that brought a lot of benefits to human beings, changes that put man in danger. Many things caused the changes, but, in my opinion, the most important was the progress in science.

Scientific research in physics and biology has vastly broadened our views. It has given us a deeper knowledge of the structure of matter and of the universe; it has brought us a better understanding of the nature of life and of its continuous development. Technology—the application of science—has made big advances that have benefited us in nearly every part of life.

The continuation of such activities in the twenty-first century will result in even greater advantages to human beings: in pure science — a wider and deeper knowledge in all fields of learning; in applied science — a more reasonable sharing of material benefits, and better protection of the environment.

Sadly, however, there is another side to the picture. The creativity of science has been employed in doing damage to mankind. The application of science and technology to the development and production of weapons of mass destruction has created a real danger to the continued existence of the human race on this planet. We have seen this happen in the case of nuclear weapons, Although

their actual use has so far occurred only the Second World War, the number of nuclear weapons that were produced and made ready for us was so large that if the weapons had actually been used, the result could have been the ruin of the human race, as well as of many kinds of animals.

William Shakespeare said, “The web of our life is of a mingled yarn(沙線), good and ill together.” The above brief review of the application of only one part of human activities — science seems to prove what Shakespeare said. But does it have to be so? Must the ill always go together with the good? Are we biologically programmed for war?

1．Which of the following best shows the structure of the passage?

    ①=Paragraph 1, ②=Paragraph 2, ③=Paragraph 3, ④=Paragraph 4, ⑤=Paragraph 5

2．From the fourth paragraph, we can infer that  ___________.

A．a(chǎn) great many nuclear weapons actually used for war

B．a(chǎn) large number of nuclear weapons should have been used for war

C．the author is doubtful about the ruin of human beings by nuclear weapons

D．the author is anxious about the huge number of nuclear weapons on the earth

3．The underlined word “mingled” in the last paragraph most probably means  ___________.

A．simple   B．mixed   C．sad   D．happy

4．What do you think the author is most likely to suggest if he continues to write?

A．Further application of science to war.  

B．More reading of William Shakespeare.

C．Proper us of science in the new century.   

D．Effective ways to separate the good from the ill.

The twentieth century saw greater changes than any century before: changes for the better, changes for the worse; changes that brought a lot of benefits to human beings, changes that put man in danger. Many things caused the changes, but, in my opinion, the most important was the progress in science.

Scientific research in physics and biology has vastly broadened our views. It has given us a deeper knowledge of the structure of matter and of the universe; it has brought us a better understanding of the nature of life and of its continuous development. Technology—the application of science—has made big advances that have benefited us in nearly every part of life.

The continuation of such activities in the twenty-first century will result in even greater advantages to human beings: in pure science — a wider and deeper knowledge in all fields of learning; in applied science — a more reasonable sharing of material benefits, and better protection of the environment.

Sadly, however, there is another side to the picture. The creativity of science has been employed in doing damage to mankind. The application of science and technology to the development and production of weapons of mass destruction has created a real danger to the continued existence of the human race on this planet. We have seen this happen in the case of nuclear weapons, Although

their actual use has so far occurred only the Second World War, the number of nuclear weapons that were produced and made ready for us was so large that if the weapons had actually been used, the result could have been the ruin of the human race, as well as of many kinds of animals.

William Shakespeare said, “The web of our life is of a mingled yarn(沙線), good and ill together.” The above brief review of the application of only one part of human activities — science seems to prove what Shakespeare said. But does it have to be so? Must the ill always go together with the good? Are we biologically programmed for war?

1．Which of the following best shows the structure of the passage?

    ①=Paragraph 1, ②=Paragraph 2, ③=Paragraph 3, ④=Paragraph 4, ⑤=Paragraph 5

2．From the fourth paragraph, we can infer that  ___________.

A．a(chǎn) great many nuclear weapons actually used for war

B．a(chǎn) large number of nuclear weapons should have been used for war

C．the author is doubtful about the ruin of human beings by nuclear weapons

D．the author is anxious about the huge number of nuclear weapons on the earth

3．The underlined word “mingled” in the last paragraph most probably means  ___________.

A．simple   B．mixed   C．sad   D．happy

4．What do you think the author is most likely to suggest if he continues to write?

A．Further application of science to war.  

B．More reading of William Shakespeare.

C．Proper us of science in the new century.   

D．Effective ways to separate the good from the ill.

“People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help deal with climate change,” the world’s leading authority on global warming has told The Observer.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.
Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel’s chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions (排放) and other environmental problems associated with raising cattle and other animals. “It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport,” he said.
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are produced during the production. For example, ruminants (反芻動(dòng)物), particularly cows, give off a gas called methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than CO₂.
Pachauri can expect some opposite responses from the food industry to his advice, though last night he was given unexpected support by Masterchef presenter and restaurateur John Torode. “I have a little bit and enjoy it,” said Torode. “Too much for any person is bad. But there’s a bigger issue here: where the meat comes from. If we all bought British and stopped buying imported food, we’d save a huge amount of carbon emissions.”
Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not regulate. “Eating less meat would help, there’s no question about that,” Watson said.
However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce them. “Some ideas were contradictory,” he said. “For example, one solution to emissions from cattle and other animals was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simple solutions being proposed.”
【小題1】What is directly related to global warming?

“People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help deal with climate change,” the world’s leading authority on global warming has told The Observer.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel’s chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions (排放) and other environmental problems associated with raising cattle and other animals. “It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport,” he said.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are produced during the production. For example, ruminants (反芻動(dòng)物), particularly cows, give off a gas called methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than CO₂.

Pachauri can expect some opposite responses from the food industry to his advice, though last night he was given unexpected support by Masterchef presenter and restaurateur John Torode. “I have a little bit and enjoy it,” said Torode. “Too much for any person is bad. But there’s a bigger issue here: where the meat comes from. If we all bought British and stopped buying imported food, we’d save a huge amount of carbon emissions.”

Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not regulate. “Eating less meat would help, there’s no question about that,” Watson said.

However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce them. “Some ideas were contradictory,” he said. “For example, one solution to emissions from cattle and other animals was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simple solutions being proposed.”

1.What is directly related to global warming?

2.Who holds a view opposite to the others’ in the passage?

3.It is implied in the passage that _____.

4. Which of the following might be the best title for the passage?