Question

【题目】Like most of you, I’ve grown up with science putting it into my head that eating Cholesterol (胆固醇) 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 (颠倒) 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】本文通过科学界对胆固醇摄入的态度转变指出了多年来观察发现的一个严重问题-科学和它的记录者在没有得到证实的情况下，往往给人一种确定的印象。提出了科学要坚持严谨的态度。

【1】C词义推断题，根据前边的内容Like most of you, I’ve grown up with science putting it into my head that eating Cholesterol (胆固醇) is bad for us. My doctor has scolded me repeatedly for liking high-cholesterol snacks.可知多年以来高胆固醇的食物一直被认为对我们身体不好，我们要控制胆固醇的摄入，故选C。

【2】A推理判断题，根据文章第二段中作者提到“一个现代社会越来越注重科学，而不仅仅是吃什么，还有如何表现和思考什么？我们怎么能相信一个经常以极端方式改变自己想法的权威呢？”可以推测出作者对于这种转变是担忧的，故选A。

【3】B细节理解题，根据文章第三段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.可知科学文章经常使用一些弱词或者短语，故选B。

【4】A推理判断题，根据文章科学和它的记录者在没有得到证实的情况下，往往给人一种确定的印象，可以推测出科学让我们盲目，故选A。