|
一、考研阅读理解 昨天留的家庭作业: Professors routinely give advice to students but usually while their charges are still in school. Arthur Landy, a distinguished professor of biochemistry at Brown University, recently decided, however, that he had to remind a former premed student of his that "without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn\'t make sense." The sentiment was not original with Landy, of course. Thirty-six years ago geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, famously told the readers of The American Biology Teacher that "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." Back then, Dobzhansky was encouraging biology teachers to present evolution to their pupils in spite of religiously motivated opposition. Now, however, Landy was addressing Bobby Jindal — the governor of the state of Louisiana—on whose desk the latest antievolution bill, the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, was sitting, awaiting his signature. Remembering Jindal as a good student in his genetics class, Landy hoped that the governor would recall the scientific importance of evolution to biology and medicine. Joining Landy in his opposition to the bill were the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which warned that "Louisiana will undoubtedly be thrust into the national spotlight as a state that pursues politics over science and education," and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which told Jindal that the law would "unleash an assault against scientific integrity." Earlier, the National Association of Biology Teachers had urged the legislature to defeat the bill, pleading "that the state of Louisiana not allow its science curriculum to be weakened by encouraging the utilization of supplemental materials produced for the sole purpose of confusing students about the nature of science." But all these protests were of no avail. On June 26, 2008, the governor\'s office announced that Jindal had signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law. Why all the fuss? On its face, the law looks innocuous: it directs the state board of education to "allow and assist teachers and school administrators to create and foster an environment within public schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied," which includes providing "support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied." What\'s not to like? Aren\'t critical thinking, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion exactly what science education aims to promote? As always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. The law explicitly targets evolution, which is unsurprising — for lurking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky\'s dictum, nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense except in the light of creationism. 1. We can learn from Paragraphs 1 and 2 that______. A. Landy is a professor giving students advices in Brown University B. Landy takes a stand against Louisiana Science Education Act C. evolution is the only theory that makes sense in biology D. religion is the main obstacle to the theory of evolution 2. The main reason Jindal should reject the bill is that______. A. it can change the scientific nature of school education B. it will threaten the state\'s political interest to some degree C. it does not obey the federal legislative system D. it encourages the utilization of supplemental materials 3. According to Paragraph 4, the law signed by Jindal is superficially good for______. A. the development of students\' discipline B. the creation of a liberal system C. the arrangement of school administration D. the cultivation of scientific thinking 4. It is implied in the last paragraph that______. A. the new bill may cause conflicts in education B. creationism believes the scientific origin of life C. evolution has a long history of being controversial D. supernatural power created the human society 5. What is the author\'s attitude towards Jindal\'s signing of the Act? A. Critical. B. Concerned. C. Indifferent. D. Sarcastic. 试题透析 1. 我们可以从第一、二段得知______。 A. 兰迪是布朗大学专门给予学生建议的教授 B. 兰迪对《路易斯安那州科学教育法案》持反对态度 C. 进化论是生物学中唯一有意义的理论 D. 宗教是进化论的主要障碍 [试题类型] 具体信息题。 [解题思路] 根据题干关键词 Paragraphs 1 and 2 可定位至文章第一、二段。第一段第二句指出，布朗大学的生物化学教授 Arthur Landy 决定提醒其以前的一位医学院预科学生“如果没有进化论，包括医学及生物科技在内的现代生物学都毫无意义可言（without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn\'t make sense）”。第二段最后一句指出，Landy 教授正在对路易斯安那州州长（即上文中的前医学院预科生）强调进化论的重要性，因为该州长的办公桌上正摆放着等待签署的《路易斯安那州科学教育法案》，而这一法案是反对进化论的（latest antievolution bill）。由此可知， Landy 教授肯定反对该法案，选项 [B] 与原文相符，为正确答案。 [干扰排除] 第一段第一句提到了大学教授通常会给学生提供各种建议（routinely give advice to students），但教授给建议的范围仅限于在校的学生。第二句随之说明，Landy 教授仍要给已经不在校园的学生（即路易斯安那州州长）提建议，且这句话很清楚地说明了 Landy 教授的职位：布朗大学杰出的生物化学教授（a distinguished professor of biochemistry at Brown University），故选项 [A] 可排除。第一段最后一句指出，如果没有进化论，包括医学与生物科技在内的现代生物学都是没有意义的，此处只是强调进化论是现代生物学的基础，并没有说生物学理论中只有进化论有意义，故选项 [C] 可排除。第二段第三句指出，Dobzhansky 鼓励生物学老师不要理会宗教势力的反对，把进化论的相关内容教授给学生，此处旨在强调教授进化论的重要性，并未分析其传播的主要障碍，选项 [D] 属无中生有，也可以排除。 2. 金德尔应该反对法案的主要原因是______。 A. 它会改变学校教育的科学性 B. 它会在某种程度上威胁到该州的政治利益 C. 它并不遵循联邦立法体制 D. 它鼓励补充性材料的使用 [试题类型] 推理引申题。 [解题思路] 本题就 Jindal 应该拒绝签署《路易斯安那州科学教育法案》的原因进行提问，故可定位至文章第三段。其中，第二句引用了美国生物科学研究所的观点：法案的颁布意味着路易斯安那州追求政治利益胜于其对科学与教育的追求，接着作者还引用美国科学促进协会的观点：该法案的颁布将会对科学诚信展开攻击（unleash an assault against scientific integrity）。第三句中，全国生物教师协会也指出，签署该法案会削弱自然科学课程的重要性。因此 Jindal 不应该签署这项法律是因为它会改变学校教育的科学性，故选项 [A] 为答案。 [干扰排除] 第三段第二句指出，美国生物科学研究所警告，签署这个法案将使路易斯安那州成为全美焦点（national spotlight），因为法律颁布以后该州将成为政治利益凌驾于科学与教育之上的一个州（pursues politics over science and education）。由此可知，该法案是有益于路易斯安那州的政治利益的，故选项 [B] 可以排除。文中并没有提到该法案与联邦立法体制的关系，故选项 [C] 属无中生有，也可排除。第三段最后一句指出，全国生物教师协会提出，路易斯安那州政府不应使用那些只会使学生们对科学的本质感到怀疑的补充性材料，那将削弱自然科学课程的重要性，此处是对法案的评价，并不是说该法案鼓励使用补充性材料，且这也不是 Jindal 应该拒绝签署该法案的原因，故选项 [D] 也可以排除。 3. 根据第四段可知，金德尔签署的法案表面上有益于______。 A. 学生守则的完善 B. 自由体系的创造 C. 校园管理的安排 D. 科学思维的培养 [试题类型] 具体信息题。 [解题思路] 根据题干关键词 Paragraph 4 可定位至文章第四段。该段第四句指出，从表面上看，该法律没有什么问题（On its face, the law looks innocuous），它允许并协助教师及学校管理人员在公立学校内创造并维护一个能促使学生进行批判性思考和逻辑分析，以及开放客观地讨论所学科学理论的环境，给予教师支持与引导，让他们用更有效的方法帮助学生理解、分析、批判并客观评估自己所学的科学理论。由此可见，这项法案表面上有助于培养学生们科学的思维习惯，故选项 [D] 符合原文内容，为正确答案。 [干扰排除] 由文章第四段第四句可知，该法案在表面上最显著的作用是对学生思维能力的培养，文章并没有提到该法案对“学生守则”、“自由体系”以及“校园管理”的影响，故选项 [A] 、 [B] 、 [C] 均可排除。 4. 文章最后一段暗示______。 A. 新的法案可能会引起教育界的争论 B. 神创论相信科学的生命起源观点 C. 进化论有漫长的饱受争议的历史 D. 超自然的力量创造了人类社会 [试题类型] 推理引申题。 [解题思路] 根据题干关键词 the last paragraph 可定位至文章最后一段。本段第一句指出，一直以来，在美国充满争议的进化论教学历史中（in the contentious history of evolution education），所有的争论都集中在细节上（the devil is in the details）。由此可知，在美国，进化论一直以来都饱受争议，故选项 [C] 与文意相符，为正确选项。 [干扰排除] 最后一段第一句首先指出，进化论在美国一直饱受争议，但是最后一段并没有涉及新法案会引起教育界争论的内容，故选项 [A] 可排除。最后一段第二句中，对 creationism 一词进行了解释：排斥对生命历史的科学解释，更倾向于认为存在超自然的人类创造者，即神创论认为人类是由某个神创造的，并不接受科学的生命起源观点，故选项 [B] 可以排除。文中仅指出神创论偏向于有造物主存在的超自然说法，并未提及超自然的力量创造了人类社会，故选项 [D] 也可以排除。 5. 作者对于金德尔签署《路易斯安那州科学教育法案》的行为持何种态度？ A. 批评的。 B. 担忧的。 C. 冷漠的。 D. 讽刺的。 [试题类型] 观点态度题。 [解题思路] 本题就作者对 Jindal 签署《路易斯安那州科学教育法案》的态度进行提问。纵观全文，第一至第三段以 Landy 教授“进化论是现代生物学的基础”的观点为出发点，指明了其对《路易斯安那州科学教育法案》的反对，而准备签署该法案的 Jindal 也遭到了多方的反对。尤其是第三段中引用了美国生物科学研究所、美国科学促进协会以及全国生物教师协会的观点，对这一法案以及 Jindal 进行了批判。第四段则指出该法案表面上的好处：有助于培养学生的批判性思维、逻辑分析能力等，“表面上”表明作者并不认为该法案存在实际的有益之处。最后一段作者则说明了该法案背后与进化论相违背的原理：神创论，而神创论是排斥生命起源的科学解释的，同时最后一句话作者将 Dobzhansky 的话进行了改编——正是因为神创论，《路易斯安那州的科学教育法案》才变得有意义，其嘲讽的语气溢于言表。综上可推出，作者是反对神创论以及以此为基础的新法案的，故选项 [A] 最符合作者的态度，为正确答案。 [干扰排除] 由解题思路的分析可知，作者在文中并没有表现出漠不关心的态度，首先可排除选项 [C] 。本题就作者对 Jindal 签署《路易斯安那州科学教育法案》的态度提问，文章第四段第二句指出 Jindal 已经签署了该法案，故作者的态度不应该是“担忧的”，选项 [B] 可以排除。虽然文章最后一句话表现出了作者对路易斯安那州通过的这一法案的嘲讽，但嘲讽只是作者态度的一部分，不及批判更能概括全文中暗含的作者的态度，故选项 [D] 也可排除。 词汇突破 distinguished /dɪ\'stɪŋgwɪʃt/ adj. 卓越的；杰出的：She is a distinguished novelist and philosopher. 她是一位杰出的小说家和哲学家。 *premed /\'prɪmed/ adj. 医科大学预科的 sentiment /\'sentɪmənt/ n. 观点；态度：What are your sentiments on this issue? 你对这个问题有什么看法？ address /ə\'dres/ v. 对……提出（意见或书面陈述）：Please address all complaints to the manager. 一切意见均请向经理提出。 thrust /θrʌst/ v. 挤；推；用力插：She thrust the money into his hands. 她把钱硬塞进他的手里。 *unleash /ʌn\'liː ʃ/ v. 放开；释放 assault /ə\'sɔː lt/ n. （武力的或口头上的）攻击，袭击：Traditional family values are increasingly under assault. 传统的家庭观念正日益受到冲击。 integrity /ɪn\'tegrəti/ n. 诚实；正直：intellectual integrity 做学问的诚信 plead /pliː d/ v. 提出……为理由：Managers pleaded that there was not enough time to make the changes. 经理们提出，没有足够的时间作出变动。 curriculum /kə\'rɪkjʊləm/ n. 全部的课程：Teachers feel that the present curriculum is too narrow. 教师们感觉现在的课程过于狭窄。 utilization /ˌjuː təlaɪ\'zeɪʃn/ n. 使用；利用：Sensible utilization of the world\'s resources is a priority. 理智地利用地球资源是当务之急。 be of no avail 没有帮助、用处或效果：The advice we got was of no avail. 我们得到的建议没有用。 fuss /fʌs/ n. 反对；争论：The longer working hours caused a big fuss. 延长工作时间的做法引起了强烈反对。 *innocuous /ɪ\'nɒkjʊəs/ adj. 无害的；无意冒犯的 *contentious /kən\'tenʃəs/ adj. 引起争论的；有争议性的 *lurk /lɜː k/ v. （令人不快的事物）暗藏，潜在 *creationism /kriː \'eɪʃnɪzəm/ n. 神创论（相信宇宙万物如《圣经》所述，皆由上帝创造，而非自然进化形成） *supernatural /ˌsuː pə\'nætʃrəl/ adj. 超自然的；神灵的 account /ə\'kaʊnt/ n. 解释；说明：give a plausible account 作出看似合理的解释 *mutate /mjuː \'teɪt/ v. 使（某物）改变，转变 *dictum /\'dɪktəm/ n. 权威意见；格言；名言 全文翻译 大学教授通常会给学生们提供建议，但他们的责任范围往往仍仅限于学校。不久前，美国布朗大学杰出的生物化学教授阿瑟·兰迪则认为，他必须提醒他的一位前医学院预科学生：“如果没有进化论，包括医学和生物科技在内的现代生物学都毫无意义可言。”当然，这个观点并非兰迪最先提出的。众所周知，36 年前，遗传学家特奥多修斯·多布任斯基就告诉过《美国生物学教师》期刊的读者：“正是因为进化论，生物学才变得有意义”。在当时，多布任斯基就鼓励生物学教师不要理会宗教势力的反对，把进化论的相关内容教授给他们的学生。然而，现在兰迪教授正在向美国路易斯安那州州长博比·金德尔提出异议，因为金德尔的办公桌上正摆着等待他签署的最新的反进化论法案——所谓的《路易斯安那州科学教育法案》。 兰迪记得金德尔曾是他遗传学课堂上的好学生，他希望州长还能记得进化论对于生物学及医学的科学意义。除了兰迪之外，美国生物科学研究所以及美国科学促进协会也参与了对该法案的反对活动，前者表示：“路易斯安那州将会成为一个追求政治胜于追求科学与教育的州，毫无疑问，这将使其成为全美的焦点。” 后者则告诉金德尔，该法案将“对科学诚信展开攻击”。更早些时候，全国生物教师协会就曾敦促路易斯安那州州议会否决该法案，并提出“路易斯安那州不应鼓励使用那些只会使学生们对科学的本质感到怀疑的补充性材料，那会削弱自然科学课程的重要性”。 不过，所有的这些抗议都是徒劳的。2008 年 6 月 26 日，路易斯安那州州长办公室宣布，金德尔已经在《路易斯安那州科学教育法案》上签字，使之成为法律了。可是为什么会有这些无谓的争论呢？从表面上看来，该法律并没有什么问题：它指导路易斯安那州教育委员会“允许并协助公立学校的教师和学校管理人员创造并维护一个能促使学生进行批判性思考和逻辑分析，以及开放客观地讨论所学科学理论的氛围”，这包括“为教师提供支持与指导，让他们用更有效的方法帮助学生理解、分析、批判并客观地评估所学的科学理论”。这有什么让人不满的呢？批判性思考、逻辑分析，以及开放客观的讨论，这些不正是科学教育旨在提倡的吗？ 一直以来，在美国饱受争议的进化论教学史上，所有的争议都集中在细节上。该法案明显针对进化论而设，这丝毫不令人奇怪——因为隐藏在该法案背后的是神创论，该学说排斥对生命历史的科学解释，而偏向于有造物主存在的超自然说法。我们其实可以把多布任斯基的名言改一改：正是因为神创论，路易斯安那州的科学教育法案才变得有意义。 二、今日家庭作业: In most industrialized countries about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, for a ratio of 1.05, known as the secondary sex ratio, or SSR; the primary sex ratio is the ratio at conception. This is often expressed as the percentage of boys among all births, or about 51.2 percent. The percentage of males among all births is not fixed, however. Since the 1950s and 1960s the overall SSR has been declining in the U.S., Canada and several European countries. There are both personal and environmental factors that affect the average sex ratio. The chance of having a boy appears to decline with the mother\'s age, the father\'s age and the number of children the family already has. These effects are small. One study in Denmark found that the SSR of children born to fathers younger than 25 was 51.6 percent, which decreased to 51.0 percent among children of fathers at least 40 years of age. Therefore it is unlikely that the declining SSR in many countries results solely from large-scale changes in such personal factors. With regard to environmental factors, improved prenatal and childbirth care during the first part of the 20th century is largely responsible for an increased SSR over this period in many countries. The male fetus is more susceptible to loss in the womb than is the female fetus, so with more conceptions reaching term, proportionally more males are born. It is difficult to discern how much of the decrease in sex ratio since the 1950s arises from contaminants in the environment. What is known is that drug use, high occupational exposures and environmental accidents can affect SSR. For example, hopeful mothers taking clomiphene citrate (Clomid) for infertility bore babies with an SSR of only 48.5 percent. Workers producing 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), a chemical used to kill worms in agriculture, experienced even larger decreases in the number of male babies. Effects of DBCP on sperm quality were discovered incidentally when male workers found that they were unable to father children. After the exposure ended, male workers experienced some recovery of sperm quality and 36 children were born to 44 workers. Of these 36 children only 10 were boys—an SSR of just 27.8 percent. These dramatic changes resulting from extreme exposures raise the concern that chemicals in the environment at lower concentrations may also change the SSR by exposing people over longer periods of time. For example, there are reports that parental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury, each of which is widely distributed in the environment, can affect the sex ratio. Confirming such effects will take careful work on large populations, but the results may be quite important. 1. According to Paragraph 1, the overall SSR______. A. indicates the birth rate after the 1950s and 1960s B. varies with the changes of many factors C. shows the possibility of more boys being born D. is a settled figure describing birth rate of male 2. According to Paragraph 2, SSR______. A. is related to the number of family members B. bears a close relationship to the age of parents C. aroused lots of concerns with its decline D. is hardly influenced by the changes in personal factors 3. During the first part of the 20th century, SSR\'s increase is due to the fact that______. A. male fetus is more vulnerable to loss than female fetus B. the serious environment pollution was under control C. hospitals become much more responsible than before D. the improvement in medical care increased the survival rate of male fetus 4. We can infer from the case of the workers producing DBCP that______. A. environment contributes much to the decline of SSR B. DBCP has incurable influence on people\'s fertility C. chemical substances in the environment can affect SSR D. workers quickly restored their health after exposure 5. The author may agree that______. A. exposure to PCBs will cause great decrease in SSR B. it\'s necessary to carry out more researches C. studies should focus on the effects of PCBs and mercury D. studies on SSR seem to be costly 答案可以回复在留言区哦！~ |
|
|
来自： 昵称70934705 > 《待分类》
