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) . 72（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
For those who regard the al-Jazeera TV channel as a biased, anti-western mouthpiece for Osama bin Laden, the announcement that it will start broadcasting 24 hours a day in English next year will be unwelcome. Its likeliest audience is Muslims (1) the Middle East who do not speak Arabic. Will al-Jazeera’s reports of suffering and rage in Iraq and beyond inspire anger (2) America and its (3) at home, tooThe new service may prove a bit less (4) than its Arabic sibling. Nigel Parsons, its managing editor, says that al-Jazeera has been too strident on (5) in the past, and that the English channel will (6) to redress that. It will strive (7) balance, credibility and authority, he says, and it will signal a new maturity for al-Jazeera, which was started by the emir of Qatar in 1996.It will broadcast its own original content—news, documentaries and talk shows— (8) studios in Doha, London and Washington, (9) international news beyond the Middle East. especially the developing countries often (10) by existing English-language channels.A1-Jazeera is already enjoying a fresh burst of (11) outside the Middle East. Around the same time that the interim government in Iraq ordered it to shut its bureau in Baghdad, westerners started watching "Control Room," a film sympathetic (12) the station directed by Jehane Noujaim. At a screening in London last week an audience of local journalists laughed along (13) al-Jazeera’s reporters and editors (14) the (15) of the American military.The biggest mystery about al-Jazeera surround its funding, which "Control Room" sadly did not (16) . Qatar has a new (17) in the world (18) to the station. That may be why the emir is willing to spend (19) an English-language channel even (20) the original Arabic one is probably losing money. Read the following text. Choose the best word (s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1.13（）
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) . 66（）
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) . 75（）
We tend to think of the decades immediately following World War Ⅱ as a time of prosperity and growth, with soldiers returning home by the millions, going off to college on the G.I. Bill and lining up at the marriage bureaus.But when it came to their houses, it was a time of common sense and a belief that less truly could be more. During the Depression and the war, Americans had learned to live with less, and that restraint, in combination with the postwar confidence in the future, made small, efficient housing positively stylish.Economic condition was only one stimulus for the trend toward efficient living. The phrase "less is more" was actually first popularized by a German, the architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, who like other people associated with the Bauhaus, a school of design, emigrated to the United States before World War Ⅱ and took up posts at American architecture schools. These designers, including Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer, came to exert enormous influence on the course of American architecture, but none more so than Mies.Mies’s signature phrase means that less decoration, properly deployed, has more impact than a lot. Elegance, he believed, did not derive from abundance. Like other modem architects, he employed metal, glass and laminated wood (胶合板)—materials that we take for granted today but that in the 1940s symbolized the future. Mies’s sophisticated presentation masked the fact that the spaces he designed were small and efficient, rather than big and often empty.The apartments in the elegant towers Mies built on Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive, for example, were smaller—two-bedroom units under 1,000 square feet—than those in their older neighbors along the city’s Gold Coast. But they were popular because of their airy glass walls, the views they afforded and the elegance of the buildings’ details and proportions, the architectural equivalent of the abstract art so popular at the time.The trend toward "less" was not entirely foreign. In the 1930s Frank Lloyd Wright started building more modest and efficient houses—usually around 1,200 square feet—than the sprawling two-story ones he had designed in the 1890s and the early 20th century.The "Case Study Houses" commissioned from talented modem architects by Califomia Arts ＆ Architecture magazine between 1945 and 1962 were yet another homegrown influence on the "less is more" trend. Aesthetic effect came from the landscape, new materials and forthright detailing. In his Case Study House, Ralph Rapson may have mispredicted just how the mechanical revolution would impact everyday life—few American families acquired helicopters, though most eventually got clothes dryers—but his belief that self-sufficiency was both desirable and inevitable was widely shared. What do we learn about the design of the "Case Study House"（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付