题目内容
In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. Mark the correct answer to each question on ANSWER SHEET TWO. Questions 6 and 7 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions. Now listen to the news. Question 8 is based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the question. Now listen to the news. Which of the following is TRUE about Simon Bolivar
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. Mark the correct answer to each question on ANSWER SHEET TWO. Questions 6 and 7 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions. Now listen to the news. Which of the following problems is NOT caused by the heat
______ is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for human communication.
Rarely does it get much more ironic. Marc Hauser, a professor of psychology at Harvard who made his name probing the evolutionary origins of morality, is suspected of having committed the closest thing academia has to a deadly sin: cheating. It is not the first time the scientific world has been rocked by scandal. But the present furore, involving as it does a prestigious university and one of its star professors, will echo through common rooms and quadrangles far and wide. The story broke when the Boston Globe revealed that Dr. Hauser had been under investigation since 2007 for alleged misconduct at Harvard’s Cognitive Evolution Laboratory, which he heads. This investigation has resulted in the retraction of an oft-cited study published in 2002 in Cognition, the publication last month of a correction to a paper from 2007 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, and doubts about the validity of findings published in Science, also in 2007. Dr. Hauser was the only author common to all three papers. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education added further spice. It offered unsettling accounts by anonymous graduate students and research assistants depicting Dr. Hauser as brusquely dismissive of their attempts to discuss possible improprieties in data collection and interpretation. This prompted Michael Smith, the hitherto taciturn dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, to react. In an open letter to the faculty, he confirmed that an internal investigation had found Dr. Hauser "solely responsible" for eight instances of scientific misconduct, involving the three published papers and five other pieces of research. On the same day, Dr. Hauser, who is on leave and refusing to be interviewed, issued a single contrite statement apologising for having made some "significant mistakes". These would not be his first. So far, none of this constitutes conclusive evidence of fraud. Slapdash lab work is not the same as fabricating data and Harvard has kept mum about the precise nature of the charges, citing concerns about privacy. Many researchers, however, fear that this silence itself makes things worse and not just for Dr. Hauser and Harvard. The uncertainty about which of his results (for he has been a prolific researcher) are up to snuff means others in the field are finding it hard to decide what to rely on in their own work. And despite Dr. Hauser’s professed sole responsibility, a sizeable number of his present and former wards may unfairly be tainted by association. At the least, then, Dr. Hauser stands accused of setting the study of animal cognition back many years. Trying to discern an animal’s thought processes on the basis of its behaviour is notoriously tricky and subjective at the best of times. Now, his critics fear, no one will take it seriously. As Greg Laden, one of Dr. Hauser’s former colleagues, laments in a blog, "the hubris and selfishness of one person can do more in the form of damage than an entire productive career can do in the way of building of our collective credibility." Others are less depressed, warning against conflating scientific misconduct with difficult science. One corner-cutting researcher does not impugn a whole field. Clive Wynne, editor of Behavioural Processes, which published an "obsessively" immaculate paper by Dr. Hauser three days before the Globe’s revelations, says he is struck by how meticulous recent research in his discipline has been. In general, scientists see themselves better placed than most to weed out cheats. The more startling a paper’s claims, the more likely it is that others will try to replicate it and, if the claims were plausible, fail. Moreover, scientists want their work to be replicated; it is the only way it will stand the test of time, observes Robert Seyfarth, a primatologist and Dr. Hauser’s former mentor. Many researchers cite Harvard’s probe as further proof of science’s self-correcting mechanisms, and praise students for doughtily standing up to an authority figure of Dr. Hauser’s distinction. Gerry Altmann, editor of Cognition, agrees, adding: "Although at the time it might appear that each transgression is major, its eventual impact on science is minor." The phrase "up to snuff" in Paragraph 5 probably means _____ for a particular purpose.
In the summer of 1896, Mr. William Holt, a wealthy manufacturer of Chicago, was living temporarily in a little town of central New York, the name of which the writer’s memory has not retained. Mr. Holt had had "trouble with his wife." from whom he had parted a year before. Whether the trouble was anything more serious than "incompatibility of temper, " he is probably the only living person that knows: he is not addicted to the vice of confidences. One evening he had left the house of a brother whom he was visiting, for a stroll in the country. It may be assumed whatever the value of the assumption in connection with what is said to have occurred — that his mind was occupied with reflections on his domestic infelicities and the distressing changes that they had wrought ill his life. Whatever may have been his thoughts, they so possessed him that he observed neither the lapse of time nor whither his feet were carrying him; he knew only that he had passed far beyond the town limits and was traversing a lonely region by a road that bore no resemblance to the one by which he had left the village. In brief, he was "lost." Realizing his mischance, he smiled; central New York is not a region of perils, nor does one long remain lost in it. He turned about and went back the way that he had come. Before he had gone far he observed that the landscape was growing more distinct — was brightening. Everything was suffused with a soft. red glow in which he saw his shadow projected in the road before him. "The moon is rising, " he said to himself. Then he remembered that it was about the time of the new moon, and if that tricksy orb was in one of its stages of visibility it had set long before. He stopped and faced about, seeking the source of the rapidly broadening light. As he did so, his shadow turned and lay along the road in front of him as before. The light still came from behind him. That was surprising; he could not understand. Again he turned, and again, facing successively to every point of the horizon. Always the shadow was before—always the light behind, "a still and awful red." Holt was astonished — "dumfounded" is the word that he used in telling it — yet seems to have retained a certain intelligent curiosity. To test the intensity of the light whose nature and cause he could not determine, he took out his watch to see if he could make out the figures on the dial. They were plainly visible and the hands indicated the hour of eleven o’clock and twenty-five minutes. At that moment the mysterious illumination suddenly flared to an intense an almost blinding splendor, flushing the entire sky. extinguishing the stars and throwing the monstrous shadow of himself athwart the landscape. In that unearthly illumination he saw near him, but apparently in the air at a considerable elevation, the figure of his wife clad in her night-clothing and holding to her breast the figure of his child. Her eyes were fixed upon his wife with an expression which he afterward professed himself unable to name or describe, further than that it was "not of this life." The flare was momentary, followed by black darkness, in which, however, the apparition still showed white and motionless; then by insensible degrees it faded and vanished, like a bright image on the retina after the closing of the eyes. A peculiarity of the apparition, hardly noted at the time, but afterward recalled, was that it showed only the upper half of the woman’s figure: nothing was seen below the waist. The sudden darkness was comparative, not absolute, for gradually all objects of his environment became again visible. In the dawn of the morning Holt found himself entering the village at a point opposite to that at which he had left it. He soon arrived at the house of his brother, who hardly knew him. He was wildeyed haggard and gray as a rat. Almost incoherently, he related his night’s experience. "Go to bed, my poor fellow, " said his brother, "and — wait. We shall hear more of this." An hour later came the predestined telegram. Holt’s dwelling in one of the suburbs of Chicago had been destroyed by fire. Her escape cut off by the flames, his wife had appeared at an upper window her child in her arms. There she had stood, motionless, apparently dazed. Just as the firemen had arrived with a ladder the floor had given way, and she was seen no more. The moment of this culminating horror was eleven o’clock and twenty-five minutes, standard time. The word "infelicities" in Paragraph 2 probably means
微信支付 
支付宝支付