题目内容
Questions 1 to 5 are based on an interview. At the end of the interview you will be given]0 seconds to answer each of the following five questions. Now listen to the interview. Which of the following statements about the suffragette movement is TRUE according to Mrs. Bruce
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Students of United States history, seeking to identify the circumstances that encouraged the emergence of feminist movements, have thoroughly investigated the mid-nineteenth-century American economic and social conditions that affected the status of women. These historians, however, have analyzed less fully the development of specifically feminist ideas and activities during the same period. Furthermore, the ideological origins of feminism in the United States have been obscured because, even when historians did take into account those feminist ideas and activities occurring within the United States, they failed to recognize that feminism was then a truly international movement actually centered in Europe. American feminist activists who have been described as "solitary" and "individual theorists" were in reality connected to a movement—utopian socialism—which was already popularizing feminist ideas in Europe during the two decades that culminated in the first women’s rights conference held at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. Thus, a complete understanding of the origins and development of nineteenth-century feminism in the United States requires that the geographical focus be widened to include Europe and that the detailed study already made of social conditions be expanded to include the ideological development of feminism. The earliest and most popular of the utopian socialists were the Saint-Simonians. The specifically feminist part of Saint-Simonianism has, however, been less studied than the group’s contribution to early socialism. This is regrettable on two counts. By 1832 feminism was the central concern of Saint-Simonianism and entirely absorbed its adherents’ energy. Hence, by ignoring its feminism, European historians have misunderstood Saint-Simonianism. Moreover, since many feminist ideas can be traced to Saint-Simonianism, European historians’ appreciation of later feminism in France and the United States remained limited. Saint-Simon’s followers, many of whom were women, based their feminism on an interpretation of his project to reorganize the globe by replacing brute force with the rule of spiritual powers. The new world order would be ruled together by a male, to represent reflection, and a female, to represent sentiment. This complementarity reflects the fact that, while the Saint-Shnonians did not reject the belief that there were innate differences between men and women, they nevertheless foresaw an equally important social and political role for both sexes in their Utopia. Only a few Saint-Simonians opposed a definition of sexual equality based on gender distinction. This minority believed that individuals of both sexes were born similar in capacity and character, and they ascribed male-female differences to socialization and education. The envisioned result of both currents of thought, however, was that women would enter public life in the new age and that sexual equality would reward men as well as women with an improved way of life. What does the author think about most European historians who have studied the Saint-Simonians
Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only fuur years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers—one every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers—which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature—the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk—the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells—it is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely. Science is built on the honor system; the method of peer-review, in which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the field, is not meant to catch cheats. In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success. The questions raised anew by Hwang’s fall are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers. Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters; cell biologists have Cell; neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the accolades of academics and satisfy the publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications. Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature, not just the public. Scientists tend to pay more attention to the Big Two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they’re more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being oft-cited will increase a scientist’s "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the Impact Factor as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they’re considering supporting. Whether the clamor to appear in these journals has any bearing on their ability to catch fraud is another matter. The fact is that fraud is terrifically hard to spot. Consider the process Science used to evaluate Hwang’s 2005 article. Science editors recognized the manuscript’s import almost as soon as it arrived. As part of the standard procedure, they sent it to two members of its Board of Reviewing Editors, who recommended that it go out for peer review (about 30 percent of manuscripts pass this test). This recommendation was made not on the scientific validity of the paper, but on its "novelty, originality, and trendiness," says Denis Duboule, a geneticist at the University of Geneva and a member of Science’s Board of Reviewing Editors, in the January 6 issue of Science. After this, Science sent the paper to three stem-cell experts, who had a week to look it over. Their comments were favorable. How were they to know that the data was fraudulent "You look at the data and do not assume it’s fraud," says one reviewer, anonymously, in Science. In the end, a big scandal now and then isn’t likely to do much damage to the big scientific journals. What editors and scientists worry about more are the myriad smaller infractions that occur all the time, and which are almost impossible to detect. A Nature survey of scientists published last June found that one-third of all respondents had committed some forms of misconduct. These included falsifying research data and having "questionable relationships" with students and subjects—both charges leveled against Hwang. Nobody really knows if this kind of fraud is on the rise, but it is worrying. Science editors don’t have any plans to change the basic editorial peer: review process as a result of the Hwang scandal. They do have plans to scrutinize photographs more closely in an effort to spot instances of fraud, but that policy change had already been decided when the scandal struck. And even if it had been in place, it would not have revealed that Hwang had misrepresented photographs from two stem cell colonies as coming from 11 colonies. With the financial and deadline pressures of the publishing industry, it’s unlikely that the journals are going to take markedly stronger measures to vet manuscripts. Beyond replicating the experiments themselves, which would be impractical, it’s difficult to see what they could do to make science beyond the honor system. According to the passage, manuscripts of science are recommended on their ______.
The Red Cross is an international organization, which cares for people who are in need of help. A man in a Paris (56) who needs blood, a woman in Mexico who was (57) in an accident, and (58) in India that lost their (59) in a storm may all be (60) by the Red Cross.The Red Cross (61) in almost every country around the (62) . The world Red Cross organizations are sometimes (63) the Sun or the Red Lion. All of these organizations (64) a common aim of (65) to help people in need.The idea of (66) an organization to help the sick and wounded during a war was (67) by Joan Dunant.In 1859, he (68) how people were (69) on a battlefield in Italy. He wanted to help all the wounded people (70) which side they were fighting for. The most important (71) of his work was an international treaty (条约). It (72) prisoners of war, the sick and wounded, and other (73) during a war.The American Red Cross was (74) by Lara Barton in 1881.Today the Cross in the United States provides a number of (75) for the public. 56().
Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only fuur years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers—one every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers—which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature—the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk—the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells—it is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely. Science is built on the honor system; the method of peer-review, in which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the field, is not meant to catch cheats. In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success. The questions raised anew by Hwang’s fall are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers. Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters; cell biologists have Cell; neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the accolades of academics and satisfy the publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications. Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature, not just the public. Scientists tend to pay more attention to the Big Two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they’re more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being oft-cited will increase a scientist’s "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the Impact Factor as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they’re considering supporting. Whether the clamor to appear in these journals has any bearing on their ability to catch fraud is another matter. The fact is that fraud is terrifically hard to spot. Consider the process Science used to evaluate Hwang’s 2005 article. Science editors recognized the manuscript’s import almost as soon as it arrived. As part of the standard procedure, they sent it to two members of its Board of Reviewing Editors, who recommended that it go out for peer review (about 30 percent of manuscripts pass this test). This recommendation was made not on the scientific validity of the paper, but on its "novelty, originality, and trendiness," says Denis Duboule, a geneticist at the University of Geneva and a member of Science’s Board of Reviewing Editors, in the January 6 issue of Science. After this, Science sent the paper to three stem-cell experts, who had a week to look it over. Their comments were favorable. How were they to know that the data was fraudulent "You look at the data and do not assume it’s fraud," says one reviewer, anonymously, in Science. In the end, a big scandal now and then isn’t likely to do much damage to the big scientific journals. What editors and scientists worry about more are the myriad smaller infractions that occur all the time, and which are almost impossible to detect. A Nature survey of scientists published last June found that one-third of all respondents had committed some forms of misconduct. These included falsifying research data and having "questionable relationships" with students and subjects—both charges leveled against Hwang. Nobody really knows if this kind of fraud is on the rise, but it is worrying. Science editors don’t have any plans to change the basic editorial peer: review process as a result of the Hwang scandal. They do have plans to scrutinize photographs more closely in an effort to spot instances of fraud, but that policy change had already been decided when the scandal struck. And even if it had been in place, it would not have revealed that Hwang had misrepresented photographs from two stem cell colonies as coming from 11 colonies. With the financial and deadline pressures of the publishing industry, it’s unlikely that the journals are going to take markedly stronger measures to vet manuscripts. Beyond replicating the experiments themselves, which would be impractical, it’s difficult to see what they could do to make science beyond the honor system. Science and Nature are top journals in the world in that ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付