题目内容
The human nose is an underrated tool. Humans are often thought to be insensitive smellers compared with animals, (31) this is largely because, (32) animals, we stand upright. This means that our noses are (33) to perceiving those smells which float through the air, (34) the majority of smells which stick to surfaces. In fact, (35) , we are extremely sensitive to smells, (36) we do not generally realize it. Our noses are capable of (37) human smells even when these are (38) to far below one part in one million. Strangely, some people find that they can smell one type of flower but not another, (39) others are sensitive to the smells of both flowers. This may be because some people do not have the genes necessary to generate (40) smell receptors in the nose. These receptors are the cells which sense smells and send (41) to the brain. However, it has been found that even people insensitive to a certain smell (42) can suddenly become sensitive to it when (43) to it often enough. The explanation for insensitivity to smell seems to be that the brain finds it (44) to keep all smell receptors working all the time but can (45) new receptors if necessary. This may (46) explain why we are not usually sensitive to our own smells—we simply do not need to be. We are not (47) of the usual smell of our own house, but we (48) new smells when we visit someone else’s. The brain finds it best to keep smell receptors (49) for unfamiliar and emergency signals (50) the smell of smoke, which might indicate the danger of fire.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Debates among candidates are rare in most countries. But they have become a staple of American politics. Americans like debates because the candidates can be compared in an unscripted, live performance. History indicates that a bad performance, particularly a telling gaffe, can badly damage a candidate in the polls. The debates are a "key test" of the strength and abilities of the candidates. The unforgettable debate quip that can deflate a candidacy is the worst nightmare of any presidential hopeful. "There you go again", Ronald Reagan’s memorable retort to President Jimmy Carter, was a line that stuck with both viewers and commentators in the 1980 presidential campaign. Carter went on to lose the election, polls showed mostly because of the economy. But Carter’s debate performance didn’t help. The potential of debates to damage a vulnerable presidential hopeful is one reason why some candidates, particularly frontrunners, are reluctant to risk their chances in such an uncontrolled environment, But broadcast presidential debates, both in the primaries and in the general election, are now routine and expected by the American people. It was not always so. Face-to-face presidential debates began their broadcast history in 1948 when Republicans Thomas Dewey and Harold Stassen faced each other in a radio debate during the Oregon Republican presidential primary. The first broadcast television debates between the two major party nominees were in 1960 when Senator John F. Kennedy faced Vice President Richard Nixon. The debates were considered crucial to Kennedy’s narrow victory. Interestingly, Americans who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon had won. But the far larger television audience applauded Kennedy’s performance, testimony to the importance—in the television age—of image as well as substance. The point is Americans are concerned not just with a leader’s policies and ideology, but also with his character and temperament. In the contentious atmosphere of a debate, such personal attributes are easier for voters to judge than in pre-packaged campaign commercials or formal speeches. Since 1987, the presidential debates have been organized by the bipartisan organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Its purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the two major parties. In Election 2000, the commission set a threshold for the participation of third party candidates in the debates. They must show they have the support—as evidenced in a number of opinion polls—of at least 15 percent of the population. Whatever the quality of the debates in Election 2000, they are unlikely to equal the most famous political debates in American history which occurred long before the invention of radio and television. In 1858, Stephen Douglas debated Abraham Lincoln for a U.S. Senate seat. Douglas, a pro-slavery Democrat, was the incumbent. Lincoln was anti-slavery. "Honest Abe," as he was endearingly called, lost the Senate race, but two years later was elected the first Republican president of the United States. The Lincoln-Douglas debates are still heralded for the quality of the discourse at a crucial time in the nation’s history. In the Kennedy-Nixon debate, Nixon might have ______ than Kennedy.
Debates among candidates are rare in most countries. But they have become a staple of American politics. Americans like debates because the candidates can be compared in an unscripted, live performance. History indicates that a bad performance, particularly a telling gaffe, can badly damage a candidate in the polls. The debates are a "key test" of the strength and abilities of the candidates. The unforgettable debate quip that can deflate a candidacy is the worst nightmare of any presidential hopeful. "There you go again", Ronald Reagan’s memorable retort to President Jimmy Carter, was a line that stuck with both viewers and commentators in the 1980 presidential campaign. Carter went on to lose the election, polls showed mostly because of the economy. But Carter’s debate performance didn’t help. The potential of debates to damage a vulnerable presidential hopeful is one reason why some candidates, particularly frontrunners, are reluctant to risk their chances in such an uncontrolled environment, But broadcast presidential debates, both in the primaries and in the general election, are now routine and expected by the American people. It was not always so. Face-to-face presidential debates began their broadcast history in 1948 when Republicans Thomas Dewey and Harold Stassen faced each other in a radio debate during the Oregon Republican presidential primary. The first broadcast television debates between the two major party nominees were in 1960 when Senator John F. Kennedy faced Vice President Richard Nixon. The debates were considered crucial to Kennedy’s narrow victory. Interestingly, Americans who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon had won. But the far larger television audience applauded Kennedy’s performance, testimony to the importance—in the television age—of image as well as substance. The point is Americans are concerned not just with a leader’s policies and ideology, but also with his character and temperament. In the contentious atmosphere of a debate, such personal attributes are easier for voters to judge than in pre-packaged campaign commercials or formal speeches. Since 1987, the presidential debates have been organized by the bipartisan organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Its purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the two major parties. In Election 2000, the commission set a threshold for the participation of third party candidates in the debates. They must show they have the support—as evidenced in a number of opinion polls—of at least 15 percent of the population. Whatever the quality of the debates in Election 2000, they are unlikely to equal the most famous political debates in American history which occurred long before the invention of radio and television. In 1858, Stephen Douglas debated Abraham Lincoln for a U.S. Senate seat. Douglas, a pro-slavery Democrat, was the incumbent. Lincoln was anti-slavery. "Honest Abe," as he was endearingly called, lost the Senate race, but two years later was elected the first Republican president of the United States. The Lincoln-Douglas debates are still heralded for the quality of the discourse at a crucial time in the nation’s history. The failure of Carter is used to illustrate the impotence of a candidate’s
Science is committed to the universal. A sign of this is that the more successful a science becomes, the broader the agreement about its basic concepts. There is not a separate Chinese or American or Soviet thermodynamics, for example; there is simply thermodynamics. For several decades of the twentieth century there was a Western and a Soviet genetics, the latter associated with Lysenko’s theory that environmental stress can produce genetic mutations. Today Lysenko’s theory is discredited, and there is now only one genetics. As the corollary of science, technology also exhibits the universalizing tendency. This is why the spread of technology makes the world look ever more homogeneous. Architectural styles, dress styles, musical styles—even eating styles—tend increasingly to be world styles. The world looks more homogeneous because it is more homogeneous. Children who grow up in this world therefore experience it as a sameness rather than a diversity, and because their identities are shaped by this sameness, their sense of differences among cultures and individuals diminishes. As buildings become more alike, the people who inhabit the buildings become more alike. The result is described precisely in a phrase that is already familiar: the disappearance of history. The automobile illustrates the point with great clarity. A technological innovation like streamlining or allwelded body construction may be rejected initially, but if it is important to the efficiency, or economics of automobiles, it will reappear in different ways until it is not only accepted but universally regarded as an asset. Today’s automobile is no longer unique to a given company or even to a given national culture, its basic features are found, with variations, in automobiles in general, no matter who makes them. As in architecture, so in automaking. In a given cost range, the same technology tends to produce the same solutions. The visual evidence for this is as obvious for cars as for buildings. Today, if you choose models in the same price range, you will be hard put at 500 paces to tell one make from another. In other words, the specifically American traits that lingered in American automobiles in the 1960s—traits that linked American cars to American history—are disappearing. Even the Volkswagen Beetle has disappeared and has taken with it the visible evidence of the history of streamlining that extends from D’Arcy Thompson to Carl Breer to Ferdinand Porsche. If man creates machines, machines in turn shape their creators. As the automobile is universalized, it universalizes those who use it. Like the World Car he drives, modern man is becoming universal. No longer quite an individual, no longer quite the product of a unique geography and culture, he moves from one climatecontrolled shopping mall to another, one airport to the next, from one Holiday Inn to its successor three hundred miles down the road; but somehow his location never changes. He is cosmopolitan. The price he pays is that he no longer has a home in the traditional sense of the word. The benefit is that he begins to suspect home on the traditional sense is another name for limitations, and that home in the modern sense is everywhere and always surrounded by neighbors. Today automobiles produced by different countries may have the same basic features because
The human nose is an underrated tool. Humans are often thought to be insensitive smellers compared with animals, (31) this is largely because, (32) animals, we stand upright. This means that our noses are (33) to perceiving those smells which float through the air, (34) the majority of smells which stick to surfaces. In fact, (35) , we are extremely sensitive to smells, (36) we do not generally realize it. Our noses are capable of (37) human smells even when these are (38) to far below one part in one million. Strangely, some people find that they can smell one type of flower but not another, (39) others are sensitive to the smells of both flowers. This may be because some people do not have the genes necessary to generate (40) smell receptors in the nose. These receptors are the cells which sense smells and send (41) to the brain. However, it has been found that even people insensitive to a certain smell (42) can suddenly become sensitive to it when (43) to it often enough. The explanation for insensitivity to smell seems to be that the brain finds it (44) to keep all smell receptors working all the time but can (45) new receptors if necessary. This may (46) explain why we are not usually sensitive to our own smells—we simply do not need to be. We are not (47) of the usual smell of our own house, but we (48) new smells when we visit someone else’s. The brain finds it best to keep smell receptors (49) for unfamiliar and emergency signals (50) the smell of smoke, which might indicate the danger of fire.
微信支付 
支付宝支付