题目内容
案例分析题Invention and innovation have been quintessentially American pursuits from the earliest days of the republic. Benjamin Franklin was a world-famous scientist and inventor. Cyrus McCormick and his harvester, Samuel F. B. Morse and the telegraph, Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone—the 19th century produced a string of inventors and their world-changing creations. And then there was the greatest of them all, Thomas Alva Edison. He came up with the crucial devices that would give birth to three enduring American industries:electrical power, recorded music and motion pictures. Much of the world we live in today is a legacy of Edison and of his devotion to science and innovation. Edison taught us to invent, and for decades we were the best in the world. But today, more than 160 years after Edison’s birth, America is losing its scientific edge. A landmark report released in May by the National Science Board lays out the numbers:while U. S. investment in R&D as a share of total GDP has remained relatively constant since the mid-1980s at 2.7% , the federal share of R&D has been consistently declining—even as Asian nations like Japan and South Korea have rapidly increased that ratio. At the same time, American students seem to be losing interest in science. Only about one-third of U. S. bachelor’s degrees are in science or engineering now, compared with 63% in Japan and 53% in China. It’s ironic that nowhere is America’s position in science and technology more threatened than in the industry that Edison essentially invented: energy. Clean power could be to the 21st century what aeronautics and the computer were to the 20th, but the U. S. is already falling behind. Meanwhile, Congress remains largely paralyzed. Though in May the House of Representatives was finally able to pass the $ 86 billion America Competes Reauthorization Act, which would double the budgets of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Energy Department’s Office of Science, the bill’s fate is cloudy in the deadlocked Senate. "At this rate... we’ll be buying most of our wind generators and photovoltaic panels from other countries, " former NSF head Arden L. Bement said at a congressional hearing recently. "That’s what keeps me awake sometimes at night. " Some erosion of the U. S. ’s scientific dominance is inevitable in a globalized world and might not even be a bad thing. Tomorrow’s innovators could arise in Shanghai or Seoul or Bangalore. And Edison would counsel against panic—as he put it once, " Whatever setbacks America has encountered, it has always emerged as a stronger and more prosperous nation. " But the U. S. will inevitably decline unless we invest in the education and research necessary to maintain the American edge. The next generation of Edisons could be waiting. But unless we move quickly, they won’t have the tools they need to thrive. According to paragraph 2, which of the following decreasessince the mid-1980s（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
案例分析题The first time I tried shark-fin soup was at Time Warner’s annual dinner in Hong Kong. Shark-fin soup is a luxury item ($100 bowl in some restaurants)in Hong Kong and Mainland China, its biggest consumers; it’s a dish that embodies east Asia’s intertwined notions of hospitality and keeping (or losing) "face". "It’s like champagne", says Alvin Leung, owner of Bo Innovation, a Cantonese restaurant in Hong Kong. "You don’t open a bottle of Coke to celebrate. It’s a ritual. " Unfortunately, this gesture of hospitality comes with a price tag much bigger than that $ 100 bowl. All told, up to 70 million sharks are killed annually for the trade, despite the fact that 30% of shark species are threatened with extinction. "Sharks have made it through multiple mass extinctions on our planet, " says Matt Rand, director of Pew’s Global Shark Conservation division. "Now many species are going to go the way of the dinosaur—for a bowl of soup. " The shark-fin industry has gained notoriety in recent years not just because of what it’s doing to the global shark population but also because of what’s known as finning—the practice of catching a shark, removing its fins and dumping the animal back into the sea. While a pound of shark fin can go for up to $ 300, most shark meat isn’t particularly valuable, and it takes up freezer space and weight on fishing boats. Today, finning is illegal in the waters of the E. U. , the U. S. and Australia, among others; boats are required to carry a certain ratio of fins to carcasses(尸体) to prevent massive overfishing. But there are loopholes in antifinning laws that are easy to exploit. In the E. U. , for example, ships can land the fins separately from the carcasses, making the job of monitoring the weight ratio nearly impossible. In the U. S. , a boat found carrying nearly 65, 000 lb. ( 30, 000 kg) of illegal shark fins won a court case because it was registered as a cargo vessel, which current U. S. finning. laws do not cover. Sharks populations can’t withstand commercial fishing the way more fertile marine species can. Unlike other fish harvested from the wild, sharks grow slowly. They don’t reach sexual maturity until later in life—the female great white, for example, at 12 to 14 years—and when they do, they have comparatively few offspring at a time, unlike, tunas, which release millions of eggs when they spawn. The shark’s plight is starting to be weighed against the delicacy’s cultural value. The conservation group has lobbied local restaurants that offer the classic nine-course banquet served at Cantonese weddings, of which shark fin is traditionally a part, to offer a no-shark menu as a choice to couples. After my first encounter with shark-fin soup, I decided that, like my colleagues, I would probably skip it next time. Unfortunately, that next time came at an intimate dinner in a small, private dining room, where I was both a guest and a stranger. When the soup—the centerpiece of the meal—was set down before me, I ate it. Apparently, I’m not the only one to cave. "You go to a wedding, and you refused to eat it just because you feel you’re insulted— I’m not that extreme, " Leung, the chef, says. "If other people believe that it brings luck .or brings face, I’d be a spoilsport. "To make a dent in the slaughter of the sharks, however, there are going to have to be a lot of people willing to spoil this particular sport. It can be inferred from the passage that （）.
案例分析题The first time I tried shark-fin soup was at Time Warner’s annual dinner in Hong Kong. Shark-fin soup is a luxury item ($100 bowl in some restaurants)in Hong Kong and Mainland China, its biggest consumers; it’s a dish that embodies east Asia’s intertwined notions of hospitality and keeping (or losing) "face". "It’s like champagne", says Alvin Leung, owner of Bo Innovation, a Cantonese restaurant in Hong Kong. "You don’t open a bottle of Coke to celebrate. It’s a ritual. " Unfortunately, this gesture of hospitality comes with a price tag much bigger than that $ 100 bowl. All told, up to 70 million sharks are killed annually for the trade, despite the fact that 30% of shark species are threatened with extinction. "Sharks have made it through multiple mass extinctions on our planet, " says Matt Rand, director of Pew’s Global Shark Conservation division. "Now many species are going to go the way of the dinosaur—for a bowl of soup. " The shark-fin industry has gained notoriety in recent years not just because of what it’s doing to the global shark population but also because of what’s known as finning—the practice of catching a shark, removing its fins and dumping the animal back into the sea. While a pound of shark fin can go for up to $ 300, most shark meat isn’t particularly valuable, and it takes up freezer space and weight on fishing boats. Today, finning is illegal in the waters of the E. U. , the U. S. and Australia, among others; boats are required to carry a certain ratio of fins to carcasses(尸体) to prevent massive overfishing. But there are loopholes in antifinning laws that are easy to exploit. In the E. U. , for example, ships can land the fins separately from the carcasses, making the job of monitoring the weight ratio nearly impossible. In the U. S. , a boat found carrying nearly 65, 000 lb. ( 30, 000 kg) of illegal shark fins won a court case because it was registered as a cargo vessel, which current U. S. finning. laws do not cover. Sharks populations can’t withstand commercial fishing the way more fertile marine species can. Unlike other fish harvested from the wild, sharks grow slowly. They don’t reach sexual maturity until later in life—the female great white, for example, at 12 to 14 years—and when they do, they have comparatively few offspring at a time, unlike, tunas, which release millions of eggs when they spawn. The shark’s plight is starting to be weighed against the delicacy’s cultural value. The conservation group has lobbied local restaurants that offer the classic nine-course banquet served at Cantonese weddings, of which shark fin is traditionally a part, to offer a no-shark menu as a choice to couples. After my first encounter with shark-fin soup, I decided that, like my colleagues, I would probably skip it next time. Unfortunately, that next time came at an intimate dinner in a small, private dining room, where I was both a guest and a stranger. When the soup—the centerpiece of the meal—was set down before me, I ate it. Apparently, I’m not the only one to cave. "You go to a wedding, and you refused to eat it just because you feel you’re insulted— I’m not that extreme, " Leung, the chef, says. "If other people believe that it brings luck .or brings face, I’d be a spoilsport. "To make a dent in the slaughter of the sharks, however, there are going to have to be a lot of people willing to spoil this particular sport. It is implied in this passage that to protect shark from extinction, the most important thing to do is （）
稻草包裹树体防寒一般到春末夏初拆除，不易过早拆除。
案例分析题Humans have never lacked for ways to get wasted. The natural world is full of soothing but addictive leaves and fruits and fungi, and for centuries, science has added them to the pharmacopoeia to relieve the pain of patients. In the past two decades, that’s been especially true. As the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations developed new policies to treat pain more actively, approaching it not just as an unfortunate side effect of illness but as a fifth vital sign, along with temperature, heart rate, respirtory rate and blood pressure, a bounty of new opoids(鸦片类物)has rolled off Big Pharma’s production line.There was fentanyl, synthetic opioid around since the 1960s that went into wide use as a treatment for cancer pain in the 1990s. That was followed by Oxycodone, a short-acting drug for more routine pain, and after thatcame Oxycontin, a 12-hour formulation of the same powerful pill. Finally came hydrocodone. The government considers hydrocodone a Schedule Ⅲ drug—one with a " moderate or low" risk of dependency, as opposed to Schedule Ⅱ’s, which carry a "severe" risk. Physicians must submit a written prescription for Schedule Ⅱ drugs ; for Schedule Ⅲ’s, they just phone the pharmacy. ( Schedule I substances are drugs like heroin that are never prescribed. ) For patients, that wealth of choices spelled danger.The result has hardly been surprising. Since 1990, there has been a tenfold increase in prescriptions for opioids in the U. S. , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP). In 1990 there were barely 6, 000 deaths from accidental drug poisoning in the U. S. By 2007 that number had nearly quintupled, to 27, 658.Health officials do not tease out which drug is responsible for every death, and it’s not always possible. "There may be lots of drugs on board, " says Cathy Barber, director of the Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health. "Is it the opioid that caused the death Or is it the combination of opioid, benzodiazepine and a cocktail the person had" Still, most experts agree that nothing but the exploding availability of opioids could be behind the exploding rate of death.Despite such heavy death toil, the suivellance over these popular pills faces regulatory maze. In early 2009, the FDA announced that it was initiating a " risk-evaluation and mitigation strategy". The regulations the FDA is empowered to issue include requiring manufacturers to provide better information to patients and doctors, requiring doctors to meet certain educational criteria before writing opioid prescriptions and limiting the number of docs and pharmacies allowed to prescribe or dispense the drugs. "And with all that, "warns Dr. John Jenkins, director of the FDA’s Office of New Drugs, " we do still have to make sure patients have access to drugs they need. "Any regulations the FDA does impose won’t be announced until 2011 at the earliest and could take a year or more to roll out. That leaves millions of people continuing to fill prescriptions, tens of thousands per year dying and patients in genuine pain wondering when a needed medication will relieve their suffering—and when it could lead to something worse. The soaring number of death from drug poisoning is due to （）
微信支付 
支付宝支付