Question

【題目】Like most of you, I’ve grown up with science putting it into my head that eating Cholesterol (膽固醇) is bad for us. My doctor has scolded me repeatedly for liking high-cholesterol snacks. But now, after 40 years of giving cholesterol such a rap, the scientific experts are reportedly ready to reverse (顛倒) themselves. Suddenly, we’re going to be told that high-cholesterol foods are not bad for us after all.

This isn’t the first time science reverses what it believes to be true, nor will it be the last. To optimists, the fluidity of science’s conclusions is a good thing - prove that science is always correcting itself in light of the very latest information. But a modem society that looks increasingly to science for not just what to eat, but also how to behave and what to think? How can we trust an authority that often changes its mind in extreme ways?

Science’s typical way isn’t limited to matters of nutrition. Go ahead and check it out for yourself by looking at the qualifiers used in the vast majority of honestly written science news articles. You’ll see that the stories are laced with weak words and phrases such as: some, in certain circumstances, probably, perhaps, may, could, tends, suggests, indicates, according to, is linked to, plays a role in. The grave problem I’ve observed over the years is that too often science and its reporters create the impression of certainty when none is proved. The cholesterol story is but one example of that make-believe certainty.

How much should we be concerned about this? A great deal, I believe, given science’s great and growing influence on our lives. At the very least, each of us needs to -understand that the scientific worldview — impressive as it surely is — is built on shifting sands. As Einstein once observed, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

【1】The underlined part “giving cholesterol such a rap” (in Para. 1) means the author .

A. always promotes use of cholesterol B. sometimes stands for cholesterol

C. avoids cholesterol generally D. eats cholesterol regularly

【2】In the eyes of the author, changes in scientific statements .

A. are worrying B. are meaningless

C. are a good thing in a way D. are the major way to improve science

【3】According to the text, which of the following is NOT the word commonly used in scientific articles?

A. Likely B. Surely

C. Seems D. Appears

【4】What can be concluded from the passage?

A. Science can blind us.

B. Science need be open to doubt.

C. Science is not as important as thought.

D. Science should be built on experiments.

Answer 1

【答案】

【1】C

【2】A

【3】B

【4】A

【解析】本文通過科學(xué)界對(duì)膽固醇攝入的態(tài)度轉(zhuǎn)變指出了多年來觀察發(fā)現(xiàn)的一個(gè)嚴(yán)重問題-科學(xué)和它的記錄者在沒有得到證實(shí)的情況下，往往給人一種確定的印象。提出了科學(xué)要堅(jiān)持嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)膽B(tài)度。

【1】C詞義推斷題，根據(jù)前邊的內(nèi)容Like most of you, I’ve grown up with science putting it into my head that eating Cholesterol (膽固醇) is bad for us. My doctor has scolded me repeatedly for liking high-cholesterol snacks.可知多年以來高膽固醇的食物一直被認(rèn)為對(duì)我們身體不好，我們要控制膽固醇的攝入，故選C。

【2】A推理判斷題，根據(jù)文章第二段中作者提到“一個(gè)現(xiàn)代社會(huì)越來越注重科學(xué)，而不僅僅是吃什么，還有如何表現(xiàn)和思考什么？我們?cè)趺茨芟嘈乓粋�(gè)經(jīng)常以極端方式改變自己想法的權(quán)威呢？”可以推測(cè)出作者對(duì)于這種轉(zhuǎn)變是擔(dān)憂的，故選A。

【3】B細(xì)節(jié)理解題，根據(jù)文章第三段You’ll see that the stories are laced with weak words and phrases such as: some, in certain circumstances, probably, perhaps, may, could, tends, suggests, indicates, according to, is linked to, plays a role in.可知科學(xué)文章經(jīng)常使用一些弱詞或者短語(yǔ)，故選B。

【4】A推理判斷題，根據(jù)文章科學(xué)和它的記錄者在沒有得到證實(shí)的情況下，往往給人一種確定的印象，可以推測(cè)出科學(xué)讓我們盲目，故選A。