题目内容
College sports in the United States are a huge deal. Almost all major American universities have football, baseball, basketball and hockey programs, and (21) millions of dollars each year to sports. Most of them earn millions (22) as well, in television revenues, sponsorships. They also benefit (23) from the added publicity they get via their teams. Big-name universities (24) each other in the most popular sports. Football games at Michigan regularly (25) crowds of over 90,000. Basketball’s national collegiate championship game is a TV (26) on a par with (与…相同或相似)any other sporting event in the United States, (27) perhaps the Super Bowl itself. At any given time during fall or winter one can (28) one’s TV set and see the top athletic programs--from schools like Michigan, UCLA, Duke and Stanford -- (29) in front of packed houses and national TV audiences.The athletes themselves are (30) and provided with scholarships. College coaches identify (31) teenagers and then go into high schools to (32) the country’s best players to attend their universities. There are strict rules about (33) coaches can recruit--no recruiting calls after 9 p. m., only one official visit to a campus--but they are often bent and sometimes (34) Top college football programs (35) scholarships to 20 or 30 players each year, and those student-athletes, when they arrive (36) campus, receive free housing, tuition, meals, books, etc.In return, the players (37) the program in their sport. Football players at top colleges (38) two hours a day, four days a week from January to April. In summer, it’s back to strength and agility training four days a week until mid-August, when camp (39) and preparation for the opening of the September-to-December season begins (40) . During the season, practices last two or three hours a day from Tuesday to Friday. Saturday is game day. Mondays are an officially mandated day of rest. 24().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
British cancer researchers have found that childhood leukaemia is caused by an infection and clusters of cases around industrial sites are the result of population mixing that increases exposure. The research published in the British Journal of Cancer backs up a 1988 theory that some as yet unidentified infection caused leukaemia--not the environmental factors widely blamed for the disease."Childhood leukaemia appears to be an unusual result of a common infection," said Sir Richard Doll, an internationally-known cancer expert who first linked tobacco with lung cancer in 1950. "A virus is the most likely explanation. You would get an increased risk of it if you suddenly put a lot of people from large towns in a rural area, where you might have people who had not been exposed to the infection. " Doll was commenting on the new findings by researchers at Newcastle University, which focused on a cluster of leukaemia cases around the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria in northern England. Scientists have been frying to establish why there was more leukaemia in children around the Sellafield area, but have failed to establish a link with radiation or pollution. The Newcastle University research by Heather Dickinson and Louise Parker showed the cluster of cases could have been predicted because of the amount of population mixing going on in the area, as large numbers of construction workers and nuclear staff moved into a rural setting. "Our study shows that population mixing can account for the (Sellafield) leukaemia cluster and that all children, whether their parents are incomers or locals, are at a higher risk if they are born in an area of high population mixing," Dickinson said in a statement issued by the Cancer Research Campaign, which published the British Journal of Cancer.Their paper adds crucial weight to the 1988 theory put forward by Leo Kinlen, a cancer epidemiologist at Oxford University, who said that exposure to a common unidentified infection through population mixing resulted in the disease. According to the passage, which of the following is true（）.
British cancer researchers have found that childhood leukaemia is caused by an infection and clusters of cases around industrial sites are the result of population mixing that increases exposure. The research published in the British Journal of Cancer backs up a 1988 theory that some as yet unidentified infection caused leukaemia--not the environmental factors widely blamed for the disease."Childhood leukaemia appears to be an unusual result of a common infection," said Sir Richard Doll, an internationally-known cancer expert who first linked tobacco with lung cancer in 1950. "A virus is the most likely explanation. You would get an increased risk of it if you suddenly put a lot of people from large towns in a rural area, where you might have people who had not been exposed to the infection. " Doll was commenting on the new findings by researchers at Newcastle University, which focused on a cluster of leukaemia cases around the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria in northern England. Scientists have been frying to establish why there was more leukaemia in children around the Sellafield area, but have failed to establish a link with radiation or pollution. The Newcastle University research by Heather Dickinson and Louise Parker showed the cluster of cases could have been predicted because of the amount of population mixing going on in the area, as large numbers of construction workers and nuclear staff moved into a rural setting. "Our study shows that population mixing can account for the (Sellafield) leukaemia cluster and that all children, whether their parents are incomers or locals, are at a higher risk if they are born in an area of high population mixing," Dickinson said in a statement issued by the Cancer Research Campaign, which published the British Journal of Cancer.Their paper adds crucial weight to the 1988 theory put forward by Leo Kinlen, a cancer epidemiologist at Oxford University, who said that exposure to a common unidentified infection through population mixing resulted in the disease. Which statement can be supported by Heather Dickinson and Louise Parker’s new findings（）.
For me, scientific knowledge is divided into mathematical sciences, natural sciences or sciences dealing with the natural world (physical and biological sciences), and sciences dealing with mankind (psychology, sociology, all the sciences of cultural achievements, every kind of historical knowledge). Apart from these sciences is philosophy, about which we Will talk later. In the first place, all this is pure of theoretical knowledge, sought only for the purpose of understanding, in order to fulfil the need to understand what is intrinsic and consubstantial to man. What distinguishes man from animal is that he knows and needs to know. If man did not know that the world existed, and that the world was of a certain kind, that he was in the world and that he himself was of a certain kind, he wouldn’t be man. The technical aspects or applications of knowledge are equally necessary for man and are of the greatest importance because they also contribute to defining him as man and permit him to pursue a life increasingly more truly human.But even while enjoying the results of technical progress, he must defend the primacy and autonomy of pure knowledge. Knowledge sought directly for its practical applications will have immediate and foreseeable success, but not the kind of important result whose revolutionary scope is in large part unforeseen, except by the imagination of the Utopians. Let me recall a well-known example. If the Greek mathematicians had not applied themselves to the investigation of conic sections, zealously and without the least suspicion that it might someday be useful, it would not have been possible centuries later to navigate far from shore. The first man to study nature of electricity could not imagine that their experiments, carried on because of mere intellectual curiosity, would eventually lead to modern electrical technology, without which we can scarcely conceive of contemporary life. Pure knowledge is valuable for its own sake, because the human spirit cannot resign itself to ignorance. But, in addition, it is the foundation for practical results that would not have been reached if this knowledge had not been sought disinterestedly. The author does not include among the science the study of （）.
For me, scientific knowledge is divided into mathematical sciences, natural sciences or sciences dealing with the natural world (physical and biological sciences), and sciences dealing with mankind (psychology, sociology, all the sciences of cultural achievements, every kind of historical knowledge). Apart from these sciences is philosophy, about which we Will talk later. In the first place, all this is pure of theoretical knowledge, sought only for the purpose of understanding, in order to fulfil the need to understand what is intrinsic and consubstantial to man. What distinguishes man from animal is that he knows and needs to know. If man did not know that the world existed, and that the world was of a certain kind, that he was in the world and that he himself was of a certain kind, he wouldn’t be man. The technical aspects or applications of knowledge are equally necessary for man and are of the greatest importance because they also contribute to defining him as man and permit him to pursue a life increasingly more truly human.But even while enjoying the results of technical progress, he must defend the primacy and autonomy of pure knowledge. Knowledge sought directly for its practical applications will have immediate and foreseeable success, but not the kind of important result whose revolutionary scope is in large part unforeseen, except by the imagination of the Utopians. Let me recall a well-known example. If the Greek mathematicians had not applied themselves to the investigation of conic sections, zealously and without the least suspicion that it might someday be useful, it would not have been possible centuries later to navigate far from shore. The first man to study nature of electricity could not imagine that their experiments, carried on because of mere intellectual curiosity, would eventually lead to modern electrical technology, without which we can scarcely conceive of contemporary life. Pure knowledge is valuable for its own sake, because the human spirit cannot resign itself to ignorance. But, in addition, it is the foundation for practical results that would not have been reached if this knowledge had not been sought disinterestedly. In the paragraph that follows this passage, we may expect the author to discuss （）.
微信支付 
支付宝支付