题目内容
Passage Two The post-war explosion in the use of detergents (清结剂) was a prime cause for the deteriorating (恶化) condition of Thames twenty-five years ago. Between 1951 and 1961, detergent use increased three times. A tragic example of the results of this was when a man drowned because, though help was at hand, the would-be rescuers could not see him through the mass of foam. Previously, detergents had been of vegetable origin and caused no trouble. The new "hard" (technically, non-biodegradable 不能分解的) detergents contained elements which could not be degraded in the treatment plants sewage (污水) works. These detergents decreased the efficiency of plants by an estimated 30 percent. So when the waste water from the works was sent into the river, it still contained much "hard" detergent, which foamed or spread on the surface and greatly reduced the amount of oxygen naturally taken into the water. These detergents were also poisonous to fish. The threat became so serious that in 1957 the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents held talks with government representatives, river authorities and manufacturers. Through friendly persuasion manufactures voluntarily agreed to phase out (逐步停止) "hard" detergents in favor of biodegradable ones which could be broken down during sewage treatment. A very marked improvement to the Thames, and some other rivers, quickly came on the heels of this application of cooperative common sense. Continuing guard is kept on the Thames: Specialists watch over the river as doctors might do for a patient. Samples are taken daily at high and low tide at twenty-nine points on a fortnightly cycle. Thus is the health of the river constantly monitored: Any minor illness is at once corrected, continuing improvement joyously recorded. The restoration of the tidal Thames is perhaps best demonstrated by the following simple table: Take the figure 900 as representing the general degree of pollution in 1950. Twenty-five years later it was 250. In 1980 it read 90 -- a reduction of pollution over thirty years by 90 percent. Justifiably we can speak of "the Thames saved". Paragraph 4 is mainly about ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Passage One In the thirteenth century, in order to discover what language a child would speak if he heard no mother tongue, Frederic Ⅱ told the nurses to keep silent, and all the infants died before the first year. But dearly there was more than language deprivation here. What was missing was good mothering. Without good mothering, in the first year of life especially, the capacity to survive is serious affected. Today no such ruthless deprivation exists as that ordered by Frederick. Nevertheless, some children are still backward in speaking. Most often the reason for this is that the mother is insensitive to the cues and signals of the infant, whose brain is programmed to mop up language rapidly. There are critical times, it seems, when children learn more readily. If these sensitive periods are neglected, the ideal time for acquiring skills passes and they might never be learned so easily again. A bird learns to sing and to fly rapidly at the right time, but the process is slow and hard once the critical stage has passed. Linguists suggest that speech milestones are reached in a fixed sequence and at a constant age, but there are cases where speech has started late in a child who eventually turns out to be of high IQ, (Intelligence Quotient). At twelve weeks a baby smiles and utters vowel-like sounds; at twelve months he can speak simple words and understand simple commands; at eighteen months he has vocabulary of three to fifty words. At three he knows about 1,000 words which he can put into sentences, and at four his language differs from that of his parents in style rather than grammar. Recent evidence suggests that an infant is born with the capacity to speak. What is special about man’s brain, compared with that of the monkey, is the complex system which enables a child to connect the sight and feel of, say, a teddy-bear (玩具熊) with the sound pattern "teddy-bear". And even more incredible is the young brain’s ability to pick out an order in language from the hubbub of sound around him, to analyze, to combine and recombine the parts of a language in novel ways. But speech has to be triggered, and this depends on interaction between the mother and the child, where the mother recognizes the cues and signals in the child’s babbling, dinging, grasping, crying, smiling, and responds to them. Insensitivity of the mother to these signals dulls the interaction because the child gets discouraged and sends of only the obvious signals. Sensitivity to the child’s non-verbal cues is essential to the growth and development of language. According to the passage, which of the following is TRUE
Passage One In the thirteenth century, in order to discover what language a child would speak if he heard no mother tongue, Frederic Ⅱ told the nurses to keep silent, and all the infants died before the first year. But dearly there was more than language deprivation here. What was missing was good mothering. Without good mothering, in the first year of life especially, the capacity to survive is serious affected. Today no such ruthless deprivation exists as that ordered by Frederick. Nevertheless, some children are still backward in speaking. Most often the reason for this is that the mother is insensitive to the cues and signals of the infant, whose brain is programmed to mop up language rapidly. There are critical times, it seems, when children learn more readily. If these sensitive periods are neglected, the ideal time for acquiring skills passes and they might never be learned so easily again. A bird learns to sing and to fly rapidly at the right time, but the process is slow and hard once the critical stage has passed. Linguists suggest that speech milestones are reached in a fixed sequence and at a constant age, but there are cases where speech has started late in a child who eventually turns out to be of high IQ, (Intelligence Quotient). At twelve weeks a baby smiles and utters vowel-like sounds; at twelve months he can speak simple words and understand simple commands; at eighteen months he has vocabulary of three to fifty words. At three he knows about 1,000 words which he can put into sentences, and at four his language differs from that of his parents in style rather than grammar. Recent evidence suggests that an infant is born with the capacity to speak. What is special about man’s brain, compared with that of the monkey, is the complex system which enables a child to connect the sight and feel of, say, a teddy-bear (玩具熊) with the sound pattern "teddy-bear". And even more incredible is the young brain’s ability to pick out an order in language from the hubbub of sound around him, to analyze, to combine and recombine the parts of a language in novel ways. But speech has to be triggered, and this depends on interaction between the mother and the child, where the mother recognizes the cues and signals in the child’s babbling, dinging, grasping, crying, smiling, and responds to them. Insensitivity of the mother to these signals dulls the interaction because the child gets discouraged and sends of only the obvious signals. Sensitivity to the child’s non-verbal cues is essential to the growth and development of language. Which of the following is NOT implied in the passage
Passage Two The post-war explosion in the use of detergents (清结剂) was a prime cause for the deteriorating (恶化) condition of Thames twenty-five years ago. Between 1951 and 1961, detergent use increased three times. A tragic example of the results of this was when a man drowned because, though help was at hand, the would-be rescuers could not see him through the mass of foam. Previously, detergents had been of vegetable origin and caused no trouble. The new "hard" (technically, non-biodegradable 不能分解的) detergents contained elements which could not be degraded in the treatment plants sewage (污水) works. These detergents decreased the efficiency of plants by an estimated 30 percent. So when the waste water from the works was sent into the river, it still contained much "hard" detergent, which foamed or spread on the surface and greatly reduced the amount of oxygen naturally taken into the water. These detergents were also poisonous to fish. The threat became so serious that in 1957 the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents held talks with government representatives, river authorities and manufacturers. Through friendly persuasion manufactures voluntarily agreed to phase out (逐步停止) "hard" detergents in favor of biodegradable ones which could be broken down during sewage treatment. A very marked improvement to the Thames, and some other rivers, quickly came on the heels of this application of cooperative common sense. Continuing guard is kept on the Thames: Specialists watch over the river as doctors might do for a patient. Samples are taken daily at high and low tide at twenty-nine points on a fortnightly cycle. Thus is the health of the river constantly monitored: Any minor illness is at once corrected, continuing improvement joyously recorded. The restoration of the tidal Thames is perhaps best demonstrated by the following simple table: Take the figure 900 as representing the general degree of pollution in 1950. Twenty-five years later it was 250. In 1980 it read 90 -- a reduction of pollution over thirty years by 90 percent. Justifiably we can speak of "the Thames saved". Which statement is TRUE according to the passage
TEXT 1 Today, some critics argue that progress on environmental problems has been elusive. There is some truth in that. In the last decade, environmental problems have mounted across the world. Yet over the same 10 years, society had marshaled its resources to address these challenges. The original response was slow. But it is gathering speed, with technological breakthroughs and a growing awareness that a clean environment is essential for development. Of course, we should greatly intensify efforts to tackle poverty and environmental degradation. They endanger our health, security and the innumerable benefits that come to us from nature. But we should also remember our real accomplishments. We have slashed emissions of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer and threaten human health. Industrialized nations largely eliminated chlorofluoro-carbon and halons, the major ozone-threatening gases, by the end of 1995. Fourteen countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have reduced their consumption of ozone-depleting substances by more than 90 percent. And many developing countries are ahead of the timetable that gives them until 2010 to phase out those gases. We are relying less on dirty fuels. Five million energy-efficient lights have been installed in poor countries and those with transitional economies. Wind power generation capacity has increased from near zero to l, 700 megawatts. Virtually unknown in 1992, solar borne systems using photovoltaic technology now provide power to more than a million rural households. At least 30 major companies have committed to investing $10 to $15 billion in renewable energy over the next five years. The private sector is playing an increasingly constructive role. This is an acknowledgment that preserving the environment is both good business and a moral obligation. Companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, Dupont and BP Amoco are working to reduce their negative impact on climate change and increase the options for cleaner energy. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has helped to launch the global alliance for improved nutrition, an innovative public-private partnership that seeks to fortify food in a cost-effective way to improve the health, cognitive development and productivity of people in poor countries. One of the linchpins of these innovative, cooperative efforts is the Global Environment Facility. As the official financing "engine" for the international agreements on biodiversity, climate change, and persistent organic pollutants, the agency earmarks funds for projects with global environmental benefits in 160 countries. It had provided $ 4.2 billion in grants and lever- aged $12 billion in additional financing. The agency has also given 3,000 small grants of up to $ 50,000 each directly to non-governmental organizations and community groups in 60 countries for projects that reconcile global environmental benefits with sustainable livelihoods for local people. We can build on the strengths we have developed over the past 10 years and move ahead with confidence that sustainable development goals are indeed achievable. What does the word "elusive" in the first sentence mean
微信支付 
支付宝支付