题目内容
In recent years a new farming revolution has begun, one that involves the (21) of life at a fundamental level — the gene. The study of genetics has (22) a new industry called biotechnology. As the name suggests, it (23) biology and modem technology through such techniques as genetic engineering. Some of the new biotech companies specialize (24) agriculture and are working feverishly to duplicate seeds that give a high yield, that (25) diseases, drought and frost, and that reduce the need for (26) chemicals. (27) such goals could be achieved, it would be most beneficial. But some have raised concerns about genetically engineered crops. In nature, genetic diversity is created within certain space. A rose (28) be crossed with a different kind of rose, but a rose will never cross with a potato. Genetic engineering, (29) , usually involves taking genes from one species and inserting them into (30) in an attempt to transfer a desired characteristic. This could mean, (31) , selecting a gene which leads to the production of a chemical with anti-freeze quality from an arc- tic fish, and inserting (32) into a potato or strawberry to make it frost-resistant. In essence, then, biotechnology allows humans to (33) the genetic walls that separate species. Like the green revolution, (34) some call the gene revolution contributes to the problem of genetic uniformity — some say even more so that geneticists can employ techniques (35) as cloning and (36) culture, processes that produce perfectly (37) copies. Concerns about the erosion of biodiversity, therefore, (38) . Genetically altered plants, however, raise new issues, such as the effects that they may have (39) us and the environment. "We are flying blindly into a new era of agricultural biotechnology with high hopes, few constraints, and (40) idea of the potential outcomes," said science writer Jeremy Rifkin.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Passage 2 There are a great many careers in which the increasing emphasis is on specialization. You find these careers in engineering, in production, in statistical work, and in teaching. But there is an increasing demand for people who are able to take in a great area at a glance, people who perhaps do not know too much about any one field. There is, in other words, a demand for people who are capable of seeing the forest rather than the trees, of making general judgments. We can call these people "generalists". And they are particularly needed for positions in administration, where it is their job to see that other people do their work, where they have to plan for other people, to organize other people’s work, to begin it and judge it. The specialist understands one field; his concern is with technique and tools. He is a "trained" main and his educational background is properly technical or professional. The generalists and especially the administrators deal with people; his concern is with leadership, with planning, and with direction giving. He is an "educated" man; and the humanities are his strongest foundation. Very rarely is a specialist capable of being an administrator. And very rarely is a good generalist also a good specialist in a particular field. Any organization needs both kinds of people, though different organizations need them in different proportions. It is your task to find out, during your training period, into which of the two kinds of jobs you fit, and to plan your ca-leer accordingly. Your first job may turn out to be the right job for you but this is pure accident. Certainly you should not change jobs constantly or people will become suspicious of your ability to hold any job. At the same time, you must not look upon the first job as the final job. It is primarily a training job, a chance to understand yourself and your fitness for being an employee. During your training period, it is important ______.
Passage 4 How efficient is our system of criminal trial Does it really do the basic job we ask of it — convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent It is often said that the British trial system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do justice. The lawyers on each side are so engrossed in playing bard to win, Challenging each other and the judge on technical points, that the object of finding out the truth is almost forgotten. All the effort is concentrated on the big day, on the dramatic cross examination of the key Witnesses in front of the jury. Critics like to compare our "adversarial" system (resembling two adversaries engaged in a contest) with the continental "inquisitorial" system, under which the judge play a more important inquiring role. In early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were similar. At that time trial by "ordeal" — especially a religious event — was the main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this way eventually abandoned the two systems parted company. On the continent church-trained legal officials took over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and the jurymen who were illiterate and this meant that all the evidence had to be put to them orally. This historical accident dominates procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of mouth on the crucial day. On the other hand, in France for instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an investigating judge. This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much of its is just a public checking of the written records already gathered. The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock and barrel and enshrined it in their constitution. But, while the basic features of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way serious cases are handled. First, because the USA has virtually no contempt of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television, Americans lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and beliefs. In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled. Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain it is the solicitor who prepares the case, and the barrister who appears in court is not even allowed to meet witnesses beforehand. British barristers also alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. Being kept distant from the preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately. American lawyers, however, often know their cases better. Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries’ mistakes and successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt piecemeal. In Britain, newspapers ______.
Passage 4 How efficient is our system of criminal trial Does it really do the basic job we ask of it — convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent It is often said that the British trial system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do justice. The lawyers on each side are so engrossed in playing bard to win, Challenging each other and the judge on technical points, that the object of finding out the truth is almost forgotten. All the effort is concentrated on the big day, on the dramatic cross examination of the key Witnesses in front of the jury. Critics like to compare our "adversarial" system (resembling two adversaries engaged in a contest) with the continental "inquisitorial" system, under which the judge play a more important inquiring role. In early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were similar. At that time trial by "ordeal" — especially a religious event — was the main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this way eventually abandoned the two systems parted company. On the continent church-trained legal officials took over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and the jurymen who were illiterate and this meant that all the evidence had to be put to them orally. This historical accident dominates procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of mouth on the crucial day. On the other hand, in France for instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an investigating judge. This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much of its is just a public checking of the written records already gathered. The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock and barrel and enshrined it in their constitution. But, while the basic features of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way serious cases are handled. First, because the USA has virtually no contempt of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television, Americans lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and beliefs. In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled. Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain it is the solicitor who prepares the case, and the barrister who appears in court is not even allowed to meet witnesses beforehand. British barristers also alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. Being kept distant from the preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately. American lawyers, however, often know their cases better. Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries’ mistakes and successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt piecemeal. The passage ______.
Passage 3 On Tuesday August 11th, 1911, a young artist, Louis Beraud, arrived at the Louvre in Paris to complete a painting of the Salon Carre. This was the room where the world’s most famous painting, the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci, was on display. To his surprise there was an empty space where the painting should have been. At 11 o’clock the museurn authorities realized that the painting had been stolen. The next day headlines all over the world announced the theft. Actually the Leonardo had been gone for more than twenty-four hours before anyone noticed it was missing. The museum was always closed on Mondays for maintenance. Just before closing time on Sunday three men had entered the museum, where they had hidden themselves in a storeroom. The actual theft was quick and simple. Early the next morning Perrugia removed the painting from the wall while the others kept watch. Then they went out a hack exit. Nothing was seen or heard of the painting for two years when Perrugia tried to sell it to a dealer for half a million lire. Perrugia was arrested on December 13th Perrugia claimed he had stolen it as an act of patriot-ism, because, he said, the painting had been looted from the Italian nation by Napoleon. Perrugia was imprisoned for 7 months. It seemed that the crime of the century had been solved. But had it Perrugia was keen to claim all responsibility for the theft, and it was twenty years before the whole story came out. In fact Perrugia bad been working for two master criminals, Valfierno and Chaudron, who went unpunished for their crime. They would offer to steal a famous painting from a gallery for a crooked dealer or an unscrupulous private collector. They would then make a copy of the picture and, with the help of bribed gallery attendants, tape the copy to the back of the original painting. The dealer would then be taken to the gallery and would be invited to make a secret mark on the back of the painting. Of course the dealer would actually be marking the copy. Valfierno would later produce forged newspaper cuttings announcing the theft of the original, and then produce the copy, complete with secret marking. If the dealer were to see the painting still in the gallery, he would be persuaded that it was a copy, and that he possessed the genuine one. Chaudron then painted not one, but six copies of the Mona Lisa, using 400-year-old wood panels from antique Italian furniture The forgeries were carefully aged, so that the varnish was cracked and dirty. Valfierno commissioned Perrugia to steal the original, and told him to hide it until Valfierno contacted him Perrugia waited in vain in a tiny room in Paris with the painting, but heard nothing from his partners in crime. They had gone to New York, where the six copies were already in store. They had sent them there before the original was stolen. At that time it was quite common for artists to copy old masters, which would be sold quite honestly as imitations, so there had been no problems with US Customs. Valfierno went on to sell all six copies for $ 300 000 each. Valfierno told the story to a journalist in 1914, on condition that it would not be published until his death. Does the story end there Collectors have claimed that Perrugia returned a copy. It is also possible that Leonardo may have painted several versions of the Mona Lisa, or they might be copies made by Leonardo’s pupils. There has been a lot of controversy and argument about the 450-year-old painting, but after all, maybe that’s what She’s smiling about. It is implied in the passage that ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付