试题库在线考试题库-历年真题模拟试题及答案-考博英语在线试题测试中心-希赛网

大连理工大学

As Dr. Samuel Johnson said in a different era about ladies preaching, the surprising thing about computers is not that they think less well than a man, but that they think at all. The early electronic computer did not have much going for it except a marvelous memory and some good math skills. But today the best models can be wired up to learn by experience, follow an argument, ask proper questions and write poetry and music. They can also carry on somewhat puzzling conversations.Computers imitate life. As computers get more complex, the imitation gets better. Finally, the line between the original and the copy becomes unclear. In another 15 years or so, we will see the computer as a new form of life.The opinion seems ridiculous because, for one thing, computers lack the drives and emotions of living creatures. But drives can be programmed into the computer’s brain just as nature programmed them into our human brains as part of the equipment for survival.Computers match people in some roles, and when fast decisions are needed in a crisis, they often surpass them. Having evolved when the pace of life was slower, the human brain has an inherent defect that prevents it from absorbing several streams of information simultaneously and acting on them quickly. Throw too many things at the brain at one time and it freezes up.We are still in control, but the capabilities of computers are increasing at a fantastic rate, while raw human intelligence is changing slowly, if as all. Computer power has increased ten times every eight years since 1946. In the 1990, when the sixth generation appears, the reasoning power of an intelligence built out of silicon will begin to match that of the human brain.That does not mean the evolution of intelligence has ended on the earth. Judging by the past, we can expect that a new species will arise out of man, surpassing his achievements as he has surpassed those of his predecessor. Only a carbon chemistry enthusiast would assume that the new species must be man’s flesh-and-blood descendants. The new kind of intelligent life is more likely to be made of silicon.1.What do you suppose was the attitude of Dr. Samuel Johnson towards ladies preaching?2.Today, computers are still inferior to man in terms of （）.3.In terms of making quick decisions, the human brain cannot be compared with thecomputer because（） .4.Though he thinks highly of the development of computer science, the author doesn’t mean that（） .5.According to the passage, which of the following statements in TRUE?

It is a curious paradox that we think of the physical sciences as “hard”，the social sciences as “soft”, and the biological sciences as somewhere in between. This is interpreted to mean that our knowledge of physical system is more certain than our knowledge of biological systems, and these in turn are more certain than our knowledge of social systems. In terms of our capacity of sample the relevant universes, however, and the probability that our images of these universes are at least approximately correct, one suspects that a reverse order is more reasonable.We are able to sample earth’s social systems with some degree of confidence that we have a reasonable sample of the total universe being investigated. Our knowledge of social systems, therefore, while it is in many ways extremely inaccurate, is not likely to be seriously overturned by new discoveries. Even the folk knowledge in social systems on which ordinary life is based in earning, spending, organizing, marrying, taking part in political activities, fighting and so on, is not very dissimilar from the more sophisticated images of the social system derived from the social sciences, even though it is built upon the very imperfect samples of personal experience. In contrast, our image of the astronomical universe, or even if earth’s geological history, can easily be subject to revolutionary changes as new data come in and new theories are worked out. If we define the “security” of our image of various parts of the total system as the probability of their suffering significant changes, then we would reverse the order for hardness and as the most secure, the physical sciences as the least secure, and again the biological sciences as somewhere in between. Our image of the astronomical universe is the least secure of all simply because we observe such a fantastically small sample of it and its record-keeping is trivial records of biological systems. Records of the astronomical universe, despite the fact that we learnt things as they were long age, are limited in the extreme.Even in regard to such a close neighbor as the moon, which we have actually visited, theories about its origin and history are extremely different, contradictory, and hard to choose among. Our knowledge of physical evolution is incomplete and insecure.1.The word “paradox” (Line 1, Para. 1) means “ （）”2.According to the author, we should reverse our classification of the physical sciences as “hard” and the social sciences as “soft” because（）.3.The author believes that our knowledge of social systems is more secure than that of physical systems because（） 4.The chances of the physical sciences being subject to great changes are the biggestbecause（） .5.We know less about the astronomical universe than we do about any social systembecause（） .

The word conservation has a thrifty （节俭）meaning. To conserve is to save and protect, to leave what we ourselves enjoy in such good condition that others may also share the enjoyment. Our forefathers had no idea that human population would increase faster than the supplies of raw materials; most of them, even until very recently, had the foolish idea that the treasures were “limitless” and “inexhaustible”. Most of the citizens of earlier generations knew little or nothing about the complicated and delicate system that runs all through nature, and which means that, as in a living body, an unhealthy condition of one part will sooner or later be harmful to all the others.Fifty years ago nature study was not part of the school work; scientific forestry was a new idea; timber was still cheap because it could be brought in any quantity from distant woodlands, soil destruction and river floods were not national problems; nobody had yet studied long-terms climatic cycles in relation to proper land use; even the word “conservation” had nothing of the meaning that it has for us today.For the sake of ourselves and those who will come after us, we must now set about repairing the mistakes of our forefathers. Conservation should, therefore, be made a part of everyone’s daily life. To know about the water table （水位）in the ground is just as important to us as a knowledge of the basic arithmetic formulas. We need to know why all watersheds （上游源头森林地带集水区）need to the protection of plant life and why the running current of streams and rivers must be made to yield their full benefit to the soil before they finally escape to the sea. We need to be taught the duty of planting trees as well as of cutting them. We need to know the importance of big, mature trees, because living space for most of man’s fellow creatures on this planet is figured out only in square measure of surface but also in cubit volume above the earth. In brief, it should be our goal to restore as much of the original beauty of nature as we can.1.The author’s attitude towards the current situation in the exploitation of natural resources is（） .2.According to the author, the greatest mistake of our forefathers was that（） .3.It can be inferred from the third paragraph that earlier generations didn’t realize（） .4.To avoid correcting the mistake of our forefathers, the author suggests that （）.5.What’s the best title for the passage?

It is hard to predict how science is going to turn out, and if it is really good science it is impossible to predict. If the things to be found are actually new, they are by definition unknown in advance. You cannot make choices in this matter. You either have science or you don’t, and if you have it you are obliged to accept the surprising and disturbing pieces of information, along with the neat and promptly useful bits.The only solid piece of scientific truth about which I feel totally confident is that we are profoundly ignorant about nature. Indeed, I regard this as the major discovery of the past hundred years of biology. It is, in its way, an illumination piece of news. It would have amazed the brightest minds of the 18th century Enlightenment （启蒙运动）to be told by any of us how little we know and how bewildering seems the way ahead. It is this sudden confrontation with the depth and scope of ignorance that represents the most significant contribution of the 20th century science to the human intellect. In earlier times, we either pretended to understand how things worked or ignored the problem, or simply made up stories to fill the gaps. Now that we have begun exploring in earnest, we are getting glimpses of how huge the questions are, and how far from being answered. Because of this, we are depressed. It is not so bad being ignorant if you are totally ignorant, the hard thing is knowing in some detail the reality of ignorance, the worst spots and here and there the not-so-bad spots, but no true light at the end of the tunnel nor even any tunnels that can yet be trusted.But we are making a beginning, and there ought to be some satisfaction. There are probably no questions we can think up that can’t be answered, sooner or later, including even the matter of consciousness. To be sure, there may well be questions we can’t think up, ever, and therefore limits to the reach of human intellect, but that is another matter. Within our limits, we should be able to work our way through to all our answers, if we keep at it long enough, and pay attention.1.According to the author, really good science（） .2.It can be inferred from the passage that scientists of the 18th century（） .3.Which of the following statements is NOT true of scientists in earlier times?4.What is the author’s attitude towards science?5.The author believes that（） .

The long years of food shortage in this country have suddenly given way to apparent abundance. Stores and shops are choked with food. Rationing (定量供应)is virtually suspended, and overseas suppliers have been asked to hold back deliveries. Yet, instead of joy, there is widespread uneasiness and confusion. Why do food prices keep on rising, when there seems to be so much more food about? Is the abundance only temporary, or has it come to stay? Does it mean that we need to think less now about producing more food at home? No one knows what to expect.The recent growth of export surpluses on the world food market has certainly been unexpectedly great, partly because a strange sequence of two successful grain harvests. North America is now being followed by a third. Most of Britain’s overseas suppliers of meat, too, are offering more this year and home production has also risen.But the effect of all this on the food situation in this country has been made worse by a simultaneous rise in food prices, due chiefly to the gradual cutting down of government support for food. The shops are overstocked with food not only because there is more food available, but also because people, frightened by high prices, are buying less of it.Moreover, the rise in domestic prices has come at a time when world prices have begun to fall, with the result that imported food, with the exception of grain, is often cheaper than the home-produced variety. And now grain prices, too, are falling. Consumers are beginning to ask why they should not be enabled to benefit from this trend.The significance of these developments is not lost on farmers. The older generation has seen it all happen before. Despite the present price and market guarantees, farmers fear they are about to be squeezed between cheap food imports and a shrinking home market. Present production is running at 51 percent above pre-war levels, and the government has called for an expansion to 60 percent by 1956; but repeated Ministerial advice is carrying little weight and the expansion program is not working very well.1.Why is there “wide-spread uneasiness and confusion about the food situation in Britain?”2.The main reason for the rise in food prices is that（） .3. Why didn’t the government’s expansion program work very well?4.The decrease in world food price was a result of （）.5.What did the future look like for Britain’s food production at the time this article was written?

2 / 31