题目内容
If human beings had been a bit less greedy and cruel, more birds and animals _____dying out.
A. ought to avoid B. could have been avoided
C. should have avoided D. might have avoided
D
解析:
本题涉及虚拟语气的使用，从if引导的从句分析可以知道与过去相反，should have done表示本来不应该但实际上干了，不符合题意。
Human remains of ancient settlements will be reburied and lost to science under a law that threatens research into the history of humans in Britain, a group of leading archeologists (考古学家) says. In a letter addressed to the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, 40 archaeologists write of their “deep and widespread concern” about the issue. It centers on the law introduced by the Ministry of Justice in 2008 which requires all human remains unearthed in England and Wales to be reburied within two years, regardless of their age. The decision means scientists have too little time to study bones and other human remains of national and cultural significance.
“Your current requirement that all archaeologically unearthed human remains should be reburied, whether after a standard period of two years or a further special extension, is contrary to basic principles of archaeological and scientific research and of museum practice,” they write.
The law applies to any pieces of bone uncovered at around 400 dig sites, including the remains of 60 or so bodies found at Stonehenge in 2008 that date back to 3,000 BC. Archaeologists have been granted a temporary extension to give them more time, but eventuallly the bones will have to be returned to the ground.
The arrangements may result in the waste of future discoveries at sites such as Happisburgh in Norfolk, where digging is continuing after the discovery of stone tools made by early humans 950,000 years ago. If human remains were found at Happisburgh, they would be the oldest in northern Europe and the first indication of what this species was. Under the current practice of the law those remains would have to be reburied and effectively destroyed.
Before 2008, guidelines allowed for the proper preservation and study of bones of sufficient age and historical interest, while the Burial Act 1857 applied to more recent remains. The Ministry of Justice assured archaeologists two years ago that the law was temporary, but has so far failed to revise it.
Mike Parker Pearson, an archaeologist at Sheffield University, said: “Archaeologists have been extremely patient because we were led to believe the ministry was sorting out this problem, but we feel that we cannot wait any longer.”
The ministry has no guidelines on where or how remains should be reburied, or on what records should be kept.
【小题1】According to the passage, scientists are unhappy with the law mainly because ______.
| A．it is only a temporary measure on the human remains |
| B．it is unreasonable and thus destructive to scientific research |
| C．it was introduced by the government without their knowledge |
| D．it is vague about where and how to rebury human remains |
| A．Temporary extension of two years will guarantee scientists enough time. |
| B．Human remains of the oldest species were dug out at Happisburgh. |
| C．Human remains will have to be reburied despite the extension of time. |
| D．Scientists have been warned that the law can hardly be changed. |
| A．The Ministry of Justice did not intend it to protect human remains. |
| B．The Burial Act 1857 only applied to remains uncovered before 1857. |
| C．The law on human remains hasn’t changed in recent decades. |
| D．The Ministry of Justice has not done enough about the law. |
| A．New discoveries should be reburied, the government demands. |
| B．Research time should be extended, scientists require. |
| C．Law on human remains needs thorough discussion, authorities say. |
| D．Law could bury ancient secrets for ever, archeologists warn. |
He held the blazing(点燃) matches to a piece of wood. After a while, he became aware that he could smell his hands burning. Then he began to feel the pain. He opened his hands, and the blazing matches fell on to the snow. The flame went out in a puff of gray smoke.
The man looked up. The dog was still watching him. The man got an idea. He would kill the dog and bury his hands inside its warm body. When the feeling came back to his fingers, he could build another fire. He called to the dog. The dog heard danger in the man's voice. It backed away.
The man called again. This time the dog came closer. The man reached for his knife. But he had forgotten that he could not bend his fingers. He could not kill the dog, because he could not hold his knife.
The fear of death came over the man. He jumped up and began to run. The running began to make him feel better. Maybe running would make his feet warm. If he ran far enough, he would reach his friends at Henderson Creek. They would take care of him.
It felt strange to run and not feel his feet when they hit the ground. He fell several times. He decided to rest a while. As he lay in the snow, he noticed that he was not shaking. He could not feel his nose or fingers or feet. Yet, he was feeling quite warm and comfortable. He realized he was going to die. Well, he decided, he might as well take it like a man. There were worse ways to die. The man closed his eyes and floated into the most comfortable sleep he had ever known.
The dog sat facing him, waiting. Finally, the dog moved closer to the man and caught the smell of death. The animal threw back its head. It let out a long, soft cry to the cold stars in the black sky.
And then it tuned and ran toward Henderson Creek... where it knew there was food and a fire.
1.Put the following statements in the correct order.
① The thought to kill the dog occurred to the man.
② The man failed to build a fire.
③ The dog headed for Henderson Creek.
④ The man’s life came to an end.
⑤ The man tried to warm by running on his frozen feet.
A. ②①⑤④③ B. ①②⑤③④
C. ①②③④⑤ D. ②①⑤③④
2.Why did the dog back away from the man?
A. It never trusted human. B. It smelt food somewhere.
C. It sensed murderous atmosphere. D. It caught sight of the knife..
3.What does the underlined word “it” mean in the 5th paragraph?
A. The dog. B. The weather.
C. The death. D. The cry.
4.It can be concluded from the passage that________.
A. Man can conquer nature. B. the man tried hard to survive
C. the dog obeyed human beings . D. the man met death without dignity.
As I understand, if scientists produced a human clone, there would be a great risk of it having a disease. Nobody seems to understand the ageing process of a clone. It would be terrible if a baby was the age of its parent at 31 . Its cells would grow old fast and it would die young. 32 until the technique is perfectly safe, it should be 33 .
I'd love to have a clone of 34 . I often wish I had a twin sister, someone who 35 me in everything. So why not a clone? Well, the idea 36 be fun but I'm not sure if it would be 37 . I think we would be playing with fire if we let scientists go ahead with 38 cloning. There are so many 39
involved that all research in this area should be strictly controlled.
There are so many arguments 40 cloning that it is difficult to get anyone to consider the possible benefits. I am 41 that it is a technique which could be beneficial. The most obvious use would be for childless 42 . They would be able to have babies with their own genetic material. I don't see what's wrong with that.
Imagine a child 43 up knowing that his or her mother is really a sister or a brother. The emotional 44 on the child would be 45 . Or a child who was cloned from a dead brother or sister. What kind of emotional pressure would they feel, knowing they were made as a replacement for another? The whole idea
46 me!
It's all very good to ban human cloning but scientists should be allowed to 47
research. If they don't, we may 48 important benefits for our society, such as producing body organs. A clone is an 49 copy of a person with the same gene. Therefore, it is the 50 donor for an organ(器官) transplant.
|
1. |
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
|
|
8. |
|
|
9. |
|
|
10. |
|
|
11. |
|
|
12. |
|
|
13. |
|
|
14. |
|
|
15. |
|
|
16. |
|
|
17. |
|
|
18. |
|
|
19. |
|
|
20. |
|