题目内容
Text 1 Every newborn baby is dealt a hand of cards which helps to determine how long he or she will be allowed to play the game of life. Good cards will help those who have them to have a long and healthy existence, while bad cards will bring to those who have them terrible diseases like high blood pressure and heart disease. Occasionally, cards are dealt out that doom their holders to an early death. In the past, people never knew exactly which cards they had been dealt. They could guess at the future only by looking at the kind of health problems experienced by their parents or grandparents. Genetic testing, which makes it possible to find dangerous genes, has changed all this. But, until recently, if you were tested positive for a bad gene you were not obliged to reveal this to anyone else except in a few extreme circumstances. This month, however, Britain became the first country in the world to allow life insurers to ask for test results. So far, approval has been given only for a test for a fatal brain disorder known as Huntington’s disease. But ten other tests (for seven diseases) are already in use and are awaiting similar approval. The independent body that gives approval, the Department of Health’s genetics and insurance committee, does not have to decide whether the use of genetic information in insurance is ethical. It must judge only whether the tests are reliable to insurers. In the case of Huntington’s disease the answer is clear-cut. People unlucky enough to have this gene will die early, and cost life insurers dearly. This is only the start. Clear-cut genetic answers, where a gene is simply and directly related to a person’s risk of death, are uncommon. More usually, a group of genes is associated with the risk of developing a common disease, dependent on the presence of other genetic or environmental factors. But, as tests improve, it will become possible to predict whether or not a particular individual is at risk. In the next few years researchers will discover more and more about the functions of individual genes and what health risks — or benefits — are associated with them. Health authorities allow insurers to use genetic information for the purpose of
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Text 3 To understand how astrology works, we should first take a quick look at the sky. Although the stars are at enormous distances, they do indeed give the impression of being affixed to the inner surface of a great hollow sphere surrounding the earth. Ancient people, in fact, literally believed in the existence of such a celestial sphere. As the earth spins on its axis, the celestial sphere appears to turn about us each day, pivoting at points on a line with the earth’s axis of rotation. This daily turning of the sphere carries the stars around the sky, causing most of them to rise and set, but they, and constellations they define, maintain fixed patterns on the sphere, just as the continent of Australia maintains its shape on a spinning globe of the earth. Thus the stars were called fixed stars. The motion of the sun along the ecliptic is, of course, merely a reflection of the revolution of the earth around the sun, but the ancients believed the earth was fixed and the sun had an independent motion of its own, eastward among the stars. The glare of sunlight hides the stars in daytime, but the ancients were aware that the stars were up there even at night, and the slow eastward motion of the sun around the sky, at the rate of about thirty degrees each month, caused different stars to be visible at night at different times of the year. The moon, revolving around the earth each month, also has an independent motion in the sky. The moon, however changes it position relatively rapidly. Although it appears to rise and Set each day, as does nearly everything else in the sky, we can see the moon changing position during as short an interval as an hour or so. The moon’s path around the earth lies nearly in the same plane as the earth’s path around the sun, so the moon is never seen very far from the ecliptic in the sky. There are five other objects visible to the naked eye that also appear to move in respect to the fixed background of stars on the celestial sphere. These are the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. All of them revolve around the sun in nearly the same plane as the earth does. So they, like the moon, always appear near the ecliptic. Because we see the planets from the moving earth, however, they behave in a complicated way, with their apparent motions on the celestial sphere reflecting both their own independent motions around the sun and our motion as well. Which of the following is true about the motion of the moon
Text 2 Good teachers matter. This may seem obvious to anyone who has a child in school or, for that matter, to anyone who has been a child in school. For a long time, though, researchers couldn’t actually prove that teaching talent was important. But new research finally shows that teacher quality is a close cousin to student achievement: A great teacher can cram one-and-a-half grades’ worth of learning into a single year, while laggards are lucky to accomplish half that much. Yet, while we know now that better teachers are critical, flaws in the way that administrators select and retain them mean that schools don’t always hire the best. Failing to recognize the qualities that make teachers truly effective and to construct incentives to attract and retain more of these top performers has serious consequences. Higher salaries draw more weak as well as strong applicants into teaching — applicants the current hiring system can’t adequately screen. Unless administrators have incentives to hire the best teachers available, it’s pointless to give them a larger group to choose from. Study after study has shown that teachers with master’s degrees are no better than those without. Job experience does matter, but only for the first few years, according to research by Hoover Institution’s Eric A. Hanushek. A teacher with 15 years of experience is no more effective, on average, than a teacher with five years of experience, but which one do you think is paid more This toxic combination of rigid pay and steep rewards for seniority causes average quality to decline rather than increase as teacher groups get older. Top performers often leave the field early for industries that reward their excellence. Mediocre teachers, on the other hand, are soon overcompensated by seniority pay. And because they are paid more than their skills command elsewhere, these less-capable pedagogues settle in to provide many years-of ineffectual instruction. So how can we separate the wheat from the chaff in the teaching profession To make American schools competitive, we must rethink seniority pay, the value of master’s degrees, and the notion that a teacher can teach everything equally well — especially math and science — without appropriate preparation in the subject. Our current education system is unlikely to accomplish this dramatic rethinking. Imagine, for a moment, that American cars had been free in recent decades, while Toyotas and Hondas sold at full price. We’d probably be driving Falcons and Corvairs today. Free public education suffers from a lack of competition in just this way. So while industries from aerospace to drugs have transformed themselves in order to compete, public schooling has stagnated. School choice could spark the kind of reformation this industry needs by motivating administrators to hire the best and adopt new strategies to keep top teachers in the classroom. The lesson that good teachers matter should be taught, not as a theory, but as a practice. The expression “separate the wheat from the chaff in the teaching profession” is closest in meaning to
Text 1 Every newborn baby is dealt a hand of cards which helps to determine how long he or she will be allowed to play the game of life. Good cards will help those who have them to have a long and healthy existence, while bad cards will bring to those who have them terrible diseases like high blood pressure and heart disease. Occasionally, cards are dealt out that doom their holders to an early death. In the past, people never knew exactly which cards they had been dealt. They could guess at the future only by looking at the kind of health problems experienced by their parents or grandparents. Genetic testing, which makes it possible to find dangerous genes, has changed all this. But, until recently, if you were tested positive for a bad gene you were not obliged to reveal this to anyone else except in a few extreme circumstances. This month, however, Britain became the first country in the world to allow life insurers to ask for test results. So far, approval has been given only for a test for a fatal brain disorder known as Huntington’s disease. But ten other tests (for seven diseases) are already in use and are awaiting similar approval. The independent body that gives approval, the Department of Health’s genetics and insurance committee, does not have to decide whether the use of genetic information in insurance is ethical. It must judge only whether the tests are reliable to insurers. In the case of Huntington’s disease the answer is clear-cut. People unlucky enough to have this gene will die early, and cost life insurers dearly. This is only the start. Clear-cut genetic answers, where a gene is simply and directly related to a person’s risk of death, are uncommon. More usually, a group of genes is associated with the risk of developing a common disease, dependent on the presence of other genetic or environmental factors. But, as tests improve, it will become possible to predict whether or not a particular individual is at risk. In the next few years researchers will discover more and more about the functions of individual genes and what health risks — or benefits — are associated with them. The author’s purpose in writing the passage is
Text 2 Good teachers matter. This may seem obvious to anyone who has a child in school or, for that matter, to anyone who has been a child in school. For a long time, though, researchers couldn’t actually prove that teaching talent was important. But new research finally shows that teacher quality is a close cousin to student achievement: A great teacher can cram one-and-a-half grades’ worth of learning into a single year, while laggards are lucky to accomplish half that much. Yet, while we know now that better teachers are critical, flaws in the way that administrators select and retain them mean that schools don’t always hire the best. Failing to recognize the qualities that make teachers truly effective and to construct incentives to attract and retain more of these top performers has serious consequences. Higher salaries draw more weak as well as strong applicants into teaching — applicants the current hiring system can’t adequately screen. Unless administrators have incentives to hire the best teachers available, it’s pointless to give them a larger group to choose from. Study after study has shown that teachers with master’s degrees are no better than those without. Job experience does matter, but only for the first few years, according to research by Hoover Institution’s Eric A. Hanushek. A teacher with 15 years of experience is no more effective, on average, than a teacher with five years of experience, but which one do you think is paid more This toxic combination of rigid pay and steep rewards for seniority causes average quality to decline rather than increase as teacher groups get older. Top performers often leave the field early for industries that reward their excellence. Mediocre teachers, on the other hand, are soon overcompensated by seniority pay. And because they are paid more than their skills command elsewhere, these less-capable pedagogues settle in to provide many years-of ineffectual instruction. So how can we separate the wheat from the chaff in the teaching profession To make American schools competitive, we must rethink seniority pay, the value of master’s degrees, and the notion that a teacher can teach everything equally well — especially math and science — without appropriate preparation in the subject. Our current education system is unlikely to accomplish this dramatic rethinking. Imagine, for a moment, that American cars had been free in recent decades, while Toyotas and Hondas sold at full price. We’d probably be driving Falcons and Corvairs today. Free public education suffers from a lack of competition in just this way. So while industries from aerospace to drugs have transformed themselves in order to compete, public schooling has stagnated. School choice could spark the kind of reformation this industry needs by motivating administrators to hire the best and adopt new strategies to keep top teachers in the classroom. The lesson that good teachers matter should be taught, not as a theory, but as a practice. By citing the example of the automobile industry, the author intends to argue that
微信支付 
支付宝支付