1-10) completion 填空
4.business area 商业区
5.5th floor 第五层楼
7.a week 一周
11-15) multiple choices
11. C valuable for South America trip for a second time
12. C when you first meet tour leaders
13. A water
14. A.in the land
15.A after consulted the tour guide
16. D by plane
17. C by car
18. G by donkey
19. A by minivan
20. E by train
Section 3 两学校负责人之间的对话
21. A too many people
22. C repetitive information
23. H time consuming
24. F well organized
25. E inefficient information
26. D no opportunity
B oil rig damage to Sea bed
C fir for potential students
challenging experts’ opinion concerns
sources of information
Section 4 专利相关的律师岗位介绍
P3 Communication in science
Science plays an increasingly significant role in people’s lives, making the
faithful communication of scientific developments more important than ever.
Yet such communication is fraught with challenges that can easily distort
discussions, leading to unnecessary confusion and misunderstandings.
Some problems stem from the esoteric nature of current research and the
associated difficulty of finding sufficiently faithful terminology ( 术语). Abstraction
and complexity are not signs that a given scientific direction is wrong,
as some commentators have suggested, but are instead a tribute to the success
of human ingenuity in meeting the increasingly complex challenges that
nature presents. They can, however, make communication more difficult. But
many of the biggest challenges for science reporting arise because in areas of
evolving research, scientists themselves often only partly understand the full
implications of any particular advance or development. Since that dynamic
( 动态的） applies to most of the scientific developments that directly affect
people’s lives global warming, cancer research, diet studies—learning how to
overcome it is critical to spurring ( 刺激，鼓励）a more informed scientific
debate among the broader public.
Ambiguous word choices are the source of some misunderstandings. Scientists
often employ colloquial terminology, which they then assign a specific
meaning that is impossible to fathom ( 彻底理解)without proper training.
The term “relativity,” for example, is intrinsically misleading. Many interpret
the theory to mean that everything is relative and there are no absolutes. Yet
although the measurements any observer makes depend on his coordinates
and reference frame, the physical phenomena he measures have an invariant
description that transcends that observer’s particular coordinates. Einstein’s
theory of relativity is really about finding an invariant description of physical
phenomena. True, Einstein agreed with the idea that his theory would have
been better named “Invarianten theorie.“(【德】， 不变理论） But the term
“relativity” was already entrenched at the time for him to change.测 机经
“The uncertainty principle” is another frequently abused term. It is sometimes
interpreted as a limitation on observers and their ability to make measurements.
E But it is not about intrinsic limitations on any one particular measurement;
it is about the inability to precisely measure particular pairs of quantities
simultaneously? The first interpretation is perhaps more engaging from a
philosophical or political perspective. It’s just not what the science is about.
Even the word “theory” can be a problem. Unlike most people, who use
the word to describe a passing conjecture that they often regard as suspect,
physicists have very specific ideas in mind when they talk about theories.
For physicists, theories entail a definite physical framework embodied in a
set of fundamental assumptions about the world that lead to a specific set of
equations and predictions—ones that are borne out by successful predictions.
Theories aren’t necessarily shown to be correct or complete immediately.
Even Einstein took the better part of a decade to develop the correct version
of his theory of general relativity. But eventually both the ideas and the
measurements settle down and theories are either proven correct, abandoned or
absorbed into other, more encompassing theories.
“Global warming” is another example of problematic terminology.
Climatologists ( 气象学家） predict more drastic fluctuations in temperature
and rainfall— not necessarily that every place will be warmer. The name
sometimes subverts the debate, since it lets people argue that their winter was
worse, so how could there be global wanning? Clearly “global climate change”
would have been a better name. But not all problems stem solely from poor
word choices. Some stem from the intrinsically complex nature of much of
modern science. Science sometimes transcends this limitation: remarkably,
chemists were able to detail the precise chemical processes involved in the
destruction of the ozone layer, making the evidence that chlorofluorocarbon
gases (Freon, for example) were destroying the ozone layer indisputable.
A better understanding of the mathematical significance of results and less
insistence on a simple story would help to clarify (澄清) many scientific discussions.
For several months, Harvard was tortured months, Harvard was tortured
by empty debates over the relative intrinsic scientific abilities of men and
women. One of the more amusing aspects of the discussion was that those
who believed in the differences and those who didn’t used the same evidence
about gender-specific special ability. How could that be? The answer is that the
data shows no substantial effects. Social factors might account for these tiny
differences, which in any case have an unclear connection to scientific ability.
Not much of a headline when phrased that way, is it? Each type of science
has its own source of complexity and potential for miscommunication. Yet
there are steps we can take to improve public understanding in all cases. The
first would be to inculcate greater understanding and acceptance of indirect
scientific evidence. The information from an unmanned space mission is no
less legitimate than the information from one in which people are on board.
This doesn’t mean never questioning an interpretation, but it also doesn’t
mean equating indirect evidence with blind belief, as people sometimes
suggest. Second, we might need different standards for evaluating science with
urgent policy implications than research with purely theoretical value. When
scientists say they are not certain about their predictions, it doesn’t necessarily
mean they’ve found nothing substantial. It would be better if scientists were
more open about the mathematical significance of their results and if the
public didn’t treat math as quite so scary; statistics and errors, which tell us the
uncertainty in a measurement, give us the tools to evaluate new developments
But most important, people have to recognize that science can be complex.
If we accept only simple stories, the description will necessarily be distorted.
When advances are subtle or complicated, scientists should be willing to go
the extra distance to give proper explanations and the public should be more
patient about the truth. Even so, some difficulties are unavoidable. Most
developments reflect work in progress, so the story is complex because no one
yet knows the big picture.
27. A.Science plays an increasingly significant role in people’s lives.
28. C Scientists do not toally comprehend the meaning of certain scientific evolution.
29. B common people may be misled by the inaccurate choice of scientific phrase
30. D Freon’s destructive process on environmental
31.B The proof applied by both sides seemed to be of no big difference
34. Not givem
40. general relativity
Figures show that in some countries, there is an ever-increasing proportion of population aged 15 or younger. What do you think the effect of current and future in those countries.
Section 4新西兰珍惜鸟fairy tern种保护问题
P1 Natural Pesticide in India 印度农村农药
P3 historian and film