题目内容
Despite the scandals over leaked e-mails, the scientific evidence for global warming remains strong. The question, then, is to what (62) have the controversies eroded (消弱) the public’s trust in climate science or, worse, in the scientists themselvesThere has (63) been some decline. (64) , a closer look at the data across multiple polls shows that, broadly speaking, the public trusts scientists, believes in global warming and wants governments to do something about it. The public seems to have done what the mainstream media could not: it has kept the scandals in (65) . The harsh verbal attacks (66) climate science and scientists are actually coming from a (67) handful of critics, and they do not (68) a broader revival of skepticism.Yet few climate scientists are likely to take (69) in this news. For them, the real (70) of public trust is the level of political (71) on global warming: if people truly believe the science, (72) why have so few of them demanded action of their governments The problem is that people assess information from any number of (73) , not just scientists. And people make decisions on the (74) of self-interest and their own hopes, fears and values, which will not necessarily (75) what many researchers deem self-evident.The scientific community must recognize that the (76) surrounding climate change can produce responses in the public and politicians on many different levels. Facts (77) matter. Scientists must continue to engage the public in plain language, (78) the evidence for climate change in a clear and (79) way. And they must provide policy-makers with accurate, credible and (80) information. Scientists will be only as persuasive as they are trusted, which means that cultivating the public’s trust must be the scientific community’s top (81) . 67（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
For these blanks, you can either use the exact words you have just heard or write down the main points in your own words. Finally, when the passage is read for the third time, you should check what you have written.Why do so many people live to a healthy old age in certain parts of the world What is the (36) of their long lives Three things seem to (37) to it: fresh air, flesh food and a simple way of life. People work near their homes in the clean, mountain air instead of travelling long (38) to work by bus, car or train. They do not sit all day in (39) offices or factories, but work hard outdoors in the fields. They take more exercise and eat less food than people in the cities of the West. For years, the Hunaz of the Himalayas did not need policemen, lawyers or doctors. There was no crime, no (40) and not much illness in their society. They were a happy, peaceful people, famous all over India for their long, healthy lives.Although many people are keen on (41) out ways to live a longer life, there are people worrying about their (42) years. Once a retired doctor I (43) shared with me his worries: It’s only natural to look forward to something better. (44) . It is one of life’s great ironies that the longer we live, the less there is to look forward to. Retirement may bring with it the fulfillment of a lifetime’s dreams. (45) . From then on, the dream fades. (46) .Who wants to live long enough to become a doddering wreck Who wants to go back to that most dreadful of all human conditions, a second childhood 37（）
Passage ThreeQuestions 32 to 35 are based on the passage you have just heard.
Despite the scandals over leaked e-mails, the scientific evidence for global warming remains strong. The question, then, is to what (62) have the controversies eroded (消弱) the public’s trust in climate science or, worse, in the scientists themselvesThere has (63) been some decline. (64) , a closer look at the data across multiple polls shows that, broadly speaking, the public trusts scientists, believes in global warming and wants governments to do something about it. The public seems to have done what the mainstream media could not: it has kept the scandals in (65) . The harsh verbal attacks (66) climate science and scientists are actually coming from a (67) handful of critics, and they do not (68) a broader revival of skepticism.Yet few climate scientists are likely to take (69) in this news. For them, the real (70) of public trust is the level of political (71) on global warming: if people truly believe the science, (72) why have so few of them demanded action of their governments The problem is that people assess information from any number of (73) , not just scientists. And people make decisions on the (74) of self-interest and their own hopes, fears and values, which will not necessarily (75) what many researchers deem self-evident.The scientific community must recognize that the (76) surrounding climate change can produce responses in the public and politicians on many different levels. Facts (77) matter. Scientists must continue to engage the public in plain language, (78) the evidence for climate change in a clear and (79) way. And they must provide policy-makers with accurate, credible and (80) information. Scientists will be only as persuasive as they are trusted, which means that cultivating the public’s trust must be the scientific community’s top (81) . 79（）
Will the European Union make it The question would have sounded strange not long ago. Now even the project’s greatest cheerleaders talk of a continent facing a "Bermuda triangle" of debt, demographic decline and lower growth.As well as those chronic problems, the EU faces an acute crisis in its economic core, the 16 countries that use the single currency. Markets have lost faith that the euro zone’s economies, weaker or stronger, will one day converge thanks to the discipline of sharing a single currency, which denies uncompetitive members the quick fix of devaluation.Yet the debate about how to save Europe’s single currency from disintegration is stuck. It is stuck because the euro zone’s dominant powers, France and Germany, agree on the need for greater harmonisation within the euro zone, but disagree about what to harmonise.Germany thinks the euro must be saved by stricter rules on borrowing, spending and competitiveness, backed by quasiautomatic (半自动的) sanctions for governments that stray. These might include threats to freeze EU funds for poorer regions and EU mega-projects, and even the suspension of a country’s voting rights in EU ministerial councils. It insists that economic coordination should involve all 27 members of the EU club, among whom there is a small majority for free-market liberalism and economic rigour; in the inner core alone, Germany fears, a small majority favour French interference.A "southern" camp headed by France wants something different: "European economic government" within an inner core of euro-zone members. Translated, that means politicians intervening in monetary policy and a system of redistribution from richer to poorer members, via cheaper borrowing for governments through common Eurobonds or complete fiscal transfers. Finally, figures close to the French government have murmured, euro-zone members should agree to some fiscal and social harmonisation: e.g., curbing competition in corporate-tax rates or labour costs.It is too soon to write off the EU. It remains the world’s largest trading block. At its best, the European project is remarkably liberal: built around a single market of 27 rich and poor countries, its internal borders are far more open to goods, capital and labour than any comparable trading area. It is an ambitious attempt to blunt the sharpest edges of globalisation, and make capitalism kind and gentle.The problem is that the "European social model" has become, too often, a synonym (同义词) for a very expensive way of doing things. It has also become an end in itself, with some EU leaders calling for Europe to grow purely in order to maintain its social-welfare systems. That is a pretty depressing call to arms: become more dynamic so Europe can still afford old-age pensions and unemployment benefits. To solve the euro problem, Germany proposes that （）.
微信支付 
支付宝支付