题目内容
This _________seems natural, (feel)
feelings
Grown-ups know that people and objects are solid. At the movies, we know that if we reach out to touch Tom Cruise, all we will feel is air. But does a baby have this understanding?
To see whether babies know objects are solid, T. Bower designed a method for projecting an optical illusion(视觉影像) of a hanging ball. His plan was to first give babies a real ball, one they could reach out and touch, and then to show them the illusion. If they knew that objects are solid and they reached out for the illusion and found empty air, they could be expected to show surprise in their faces and movements. All the 16-to 24- week -old babies tested were surprised when they reached for the illusion and found that the ball was not there.
Grown-ups also have a sense of object permanence. We know that if we put a box in a room and lock the door, the box will still be there when we come back. But does a baby realize that a ball that rolls under a chair does not disappear and go to never-never land?
Experiments done by Bower suggest that babies develop a sense of object permanence when they are about 18 weeks old. In his experiments, Bower used a toy train that went behind a screen. When 16-week-old and 22-week-old babies watched the toy train disappear behind the left side of the screen, they looked to the right, expecting it to reappear. If the experimenter took the train off the table and lifted the screen, all the babies seemed surprised not to see the train. This seems to show that all the babies had a sense of object permanence. But the second part of the experiment showed that this was not really the case. The researcher substituted a ball for the train when it went behind the screen. The 22-week-old babies seemed surprised and looked back to the left side for the train. But the 16-week -old babies did not seem to notice the switch. Thus, the 16-week-old babies seemed to have a sense of “something permanence,” while the 22-week-old babies had a sense of object permanence related to a particular object.
【小题1】The passage is mainly about _____.
A.babies' sense of sight | B.effects of experiments on babies |
C.babies' understanding of objects | D.different tests on babies' feelings |
A.still exists | B.keeps its shape | C.still stays solid | D.is beyond reach |
A.A chair. | B.A screen. | C.A film. | D.A box. |
A.The babies didn't have a sense of direction. |
B.The older babies preferred toy trains to balls. |
C.The younger babies liked looking for missing objects. |
D.The babies couldn't tell a ball from its optical illusion. |
Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research—the mapping of all DNA in a human gene(基因)is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish. All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been a topic of argument,in terms of morality or religion.
Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning. If the clone was free of genetic limitations. Then the other clone would be as well. The latter could foe inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term. Moreover,cloning would enable women, who can’t get pregnant, to have children of their own.
Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs. This, surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single(or more) organ(s).It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.
Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle”of life. There would be a large number of same genes., which reduce the chances of improvement,and, in turn, development-the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance. Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappea. Thus, leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes and, chances are, that those individuals would be regarded as “objects” rather than people in the society.
Scientists haven’t 100 percent. guaranteed that the first cloned will be normal. Thus this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.
Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally. We should rather try to look at all “shades: of it. I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs, not humans. Then we could regard this as for “saving life” instead of “creating life”. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.
【小题1】Which of the following is true according to the passage?
A.Genetic limitation will be beneficial for some women |
B.A large number of genes will prevent us from developing |
C.Prohibition of cloning might limit the freedom of scientists |
D.First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists |
A.Cloning should be entirely banned |
B.Cloning should be used in creating life |
C.Cloning will take away the right to reproduce |
D.Cloning is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs |
A.In a story book. | B.In a magazine. | C.In a science fiction | D.In a brochure |