题目内容
TEXT E The sense of honour appears to be dying. Who fights duels to defend his reputation anymore The idea merely strikes us as odd. How often does someone resign public office as a form of protest against his government’s policies about this or that Most of us submerge our consciences in the policies of our company or organisation (and in our own self-interest) and regard loyalty as more important than dishonour. We had an honour code when I went to college; that was in the late 1950s. During exams no one monitored you: instructors came in, handed out the blue books, handed out the exams, and left. During the four years I was there, I can recall only one case of cheating. Students simply did not break the code. In World War Il men died more or less willingly for the nation and the nation’s honour, and they were honoured for it in return. Now we have become cynical about such things; the nation lies, fights unjustifiable wars; the nation robs the poor to give to the rich. At my college the students used to agree to inform on their friends rather than suffer a breach in the honour code. A sense of honour is a sense that there are standards of behaviour one must live up to, even at the cost of one’s personal happiness, even at the cost of one’s life. Without such a sense one has to make up one’s rights and wrongs as one goes along--usually, as it happens, to one’s own advantage. Morality thereby becomes a matter of expedience: nothing seems worth dying for, and life loses its beauty and some of its value. Our recent history has deprived us of models. I cherish the story of John Stubbs, a Puritan divine of Queen Elizabeth’s time who strongly opposed her projected marriage to the Duke of Alencon. Stubbs knew the penalty for doing so, which was the loss of a hand; nevertheless, he published a pamphlet against, the marriage. He was accordingly tried, convicted, and led out for public execution of the sentence. Stubbs laid his right hand on the block, the ax fell, and he rose to his feet, lifted the bloody stump high in the air, and cried out to the crowd, "Long live the queen!" In spite of the blood and the horror, it is the beauty of such an act that stands out. A man lives up to his beliefs; he acts with courage and great style and literally gives himself in the service of something he feels is greater than himself. We cannot help but honour him, whether we agree with his beliefs or not, The main idea of the passage is that______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
根据下列材料回答下列问题。 全国分品种农产品生产价格指数农产品名称2006200720082009生产价格总指数113.09101.39101.20118.49种植业产品115.86101.55104.50109.82粮食126.2199.08102.OO110.26谷物128.0699.23102.14108.95小麦131.1696.41100.07105.5稻谷136.30101.57102.02105.43玉米116.9297.97103.02115.04豆类120.2995.7099.29122.62大豆120.1794.2499.17124.17油料116.5891.33104.83133.44棉花79.54111.8297.06109.60糖料104.86111.57121.13100.00烟叶108.42103.2699.67106.26蔬菜105.17107.22109.29106.85水果98.63107.41111.35101.27茶叶111.22110.22106.96112.34畜牧业产品111.08100.5294.33131.36猪(毛重)112.8497.5890.59145.85牛(毛重)103.93101.66100.58117.46羊(毛重)103.72101.70101.77121.01肉禽111.80105.6197.17117.02禽蛋112.58106.3895.98115.89奶类103.7399.62102.90106.23毛绒类103.10106.51105.70106.69 如果按照2008年到2009年烟叶的生产价格指数增幅，预计2010年烟叶的生产价格指数为( )。
[文档开始] 燥声的危害 燥声是任何一种人都不需要的声音，不论是音乐，还是机器发出来的声音，只要令人生厌，对人们形成干扰，它们就被称为燥声。一般将60分贝作为令人烦恼的音量界限，超过60分贝就会对人体产生种种危害。 强烈的燥声会引起听觉器官的损伤。当你刚从机器轰鸣的厂房出来时，可能会感到耳朵听不清声音了，必须过一会儿才能恢复正常，这便是燥声性耳聋。如果长期在这种环境下工作，会使听力显著下降。 燥声会严重干扰中枢神经正常功能，使人神经衰弱、消化不良，以至恶心、呕吐、头痛，它是现代文明病的一大根源。 燥声还会影响人们的正常工作和生活，使人不易入睡，容易惊醒，产生各种不愉快的感觉，对脑力劳动者和病人的影响就更大了。 [文档结束] 在考生文件夹下，打开文档WDA3_03.DOC，复制文档WDA3_02.DOC的内容。将正文文字(“噪声是任何一种……影响就更大了”)设置为小四号、宋体，将第三段(“噪声会严重干扰……的一大根源”)移至第二段(“强烈的噪声……听力显著下降”)之前。各段落首行缩进0.9厘米，设置标题段的段后间距为15磅。存储为文档WDA3_03.DOC。
What is most likely to be the treatment for Richard
Passage Two Supporters of the biotech industry have accused an American scientist of misconduct after she testified to the New Zealand government that a genetically modified(GM) bacterium could cause serious damage if released. The New Zealand Life Sciences Network, an association of pro-GM scientists and organizations, says the view expressed by Elaine Ingham, a soil biologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, was exaggerated and irresponsible. It has asked her university to discipline her. But Ingham stands by her comments and says the complaints are an attempt to silence her. "They’re trying to cause trouble with my university and get me fired," Ingham told New Scientist. The controversy began on 1 February, when Ingham testified before New Zealand’s Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, which will determine how to regulate GM organisms. Ingham claimed that a GM version of a common soil bacterium could spread and destroy plants if released into the wild. Other researchers had previously modified the bacterium to produce alcohol from organic waste. But Ingham says that when she put it in soil with wheat plants, all of the plants died within a week.. "We would lose terrestrial(陆生的)plants... this is an organism that is potentially deadly to the continued survival of human beings," she told the commission. She added that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) canceled its approval for field tests using the organism once she had told them about her research in 1999. But last week the New Zealand Life Sciences Network accused Ingham of "presenting inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information" and "generating speculative doomsday scenarios (世界末日的局面)that are not scientifically supportable". They say that her study doesn’t even show that the bacteria would survive in the wild, much less kill massive numbers of plants. What’s more, the network says that contrary to Ingham’s claims, the EPA. was never asked to consider the organism for field trials. The EPA has not commented on the dispute. But an e-mail to the network from Janet Anderson, director of the EPA’s bio pesticides (生物杀虫剂)division, says "there is no record of a review and/or clearance to field test". Ingham says EPA officials had told her that the organism was approved for field tests, but says she has few details. It’s also not clear whether the organism, first engineered by a German institute for biotechnology, is still in use. Whether Ingham is right or wrong, her supporters say opponents are trying unfairly to silence her. "I think her concerns should be taken seriously. She shouldn’t be harassed in this way," says Ann Clarke, a plant biologist at the University of Guelph in Canada who also testified before the commission. "It’s an attempt to silence the opposition." The passage centers on the controversy ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付