Four people in England, back in 1953, stared at photo 51. it wasn’t much a picture showing a black X. But three of these people won the Nobel prize for figuring out what the photo really showed―the shape of DNA. The discovery brought fame and fortune to scientists James Watson, Francis crick, and Maurice Willkins. The fourth, the one who actually made the picture, was left out.

Her name was Rosalind Franklin. “she should have been up there,” says historian Mary Bowden. ”if her photo hadn’t been there, the others couldn’t have come up with the structure.” one reason Franklin was missing was that she had died of cancer four years before the Nobel decision. But now scholar doubt that Franklin was not only robbed of her life by disease but robbed of credit by her competitions.

At Cambridge university in the 1950s, Watson and Crick tried to make models by cutting up shapes of DNA’s parts and then putting them together. In the meantime, at king’s college in London, Franklin and Wilkins shone X-rays at the molecule(分子). The rays produced patterns reflecting the shape.

But Wilkins and Franklin’s erlationship was a lot rockier than the celebrated teamwork of Watson and Crick. Wilkins thought Franklin was hired to be his assistant. But the college actually employed her to take over the DNA project.

What she did was produce X-ray pictures that told Watson and Crick that one of their early models was inside out. And she was not shy about saying so. That angered Watson, who attacked her in return,” Mere inspection suggested that she would not easily bend. Clearly she had to go or be put in her place.

As Franklin’s competitors, Wilkins, Watson and Crick had much to gain by cutting her out of the little group of researchers, says historian Pnina Abir-Am. In 1962 at the Nobel prize awarding ceremony, Wilkins thanked 13 colleagues by name before he mentioned Franklin. Watson wrote his book laughing at her. Crick wrote in 1974 that “Franklins was only two steps away from the solution.”

  No, Franklin was the solution.” She contributed more than any other player to solving the structure of DNA. She must be considered a co-discoverer,” Abir-Am says. This was backed up by Aaron Klug, who worked with Franklin and later won a Nobel Prize himself. Once described as the “Dark Lady of DNA”, Franklin is finally coming into the light.

57. What is the text mainly about?

A. The disagreements among DNA researchers.

B. The unfair treatment of Franklin.

C. The process of discovering DNA.

D The race between two teams of scientists.

58. Watson was angry with Franklin because she ______.

A. took the lead in the competition

B. Kept her results from him

C. proved some of his findings wrong

D. shared her data with other scientists

59. Why is Franklin described as “Dark Lady of DNA”?

A. She developed pictures in dark labs.

B. She discovered the black X------ the shape of DNA.

C. Her name was forgotten after her death.

D. Her contribution was unknown to the public.

60. What is the writer’s attitude toward Wilkins, Watson and Crick?

A. Disapproving

B. Respectful.

C. Admiring

D. Doubtful

Four people in England back in 1953, stared at Photo 51,It wasn’t much—a picture showing a black X. But three of these people won the Nobel Prize for figuring out what the photo really showed –the shape of DNA The discovery brought fame and fortune to scientists James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins. The fourth, the one who actually made the picture, was left out.
Her name was Rosalind Franklin.”She should have been up there,” says historian Mary Bowden.” If her photos hadn’t been there, the others couldn’t have come up with the structure.” One reason Franklin was missing was that she had died of cancer four years before the Nobel decision. But now scholars doubt that Franklin was not only robbed of her life by disease but robbed of credit by her competitors
At Cambridge University in the 1950s, Watson and Click tried to make models by cutting up shapes of DNA’s parts and then putting them together. In the meantime, at King’s College in London, Franklin and Wilkins shone X-rays at the molecule(分子). The rays produced patterns reflection the shape.
But Wilkins and Franklin’s relationship was a lot rockier than the celebrated teamwork of Watson and Crick, Wilkins thought Franklin was hired to be his assistant .But the college actually employed her to take over the DNA project.
What she did was produce X-ray pictures that told Watson and Crick that one of their early models was inside out. And she was not shy about saying so. That angered Watson, who attacked her in return, “Mere inspection suggested that she would not easily bend. Clearly she had to to go or be put in her place.”
As Franklin’s competitors, Wilkins, Watson  and Crick had much to gain by cutting her out of the little group of researchers, says historian Pnina Abir-Am. In 1962 at the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony, Wilkins thanked 13 colleagues by name before he mentioned Franklin, Watson wrote his book laughing at her. Crick wrote in 1974 that  “Franklin was only two steps away  from the solution.”
No, Franklin was the solution. “She contributed more than any other player to solving the structure of  DNA . She must be considered a co-discoverer,” Abir-Am says. This was backed up by Aaron Klug, who worked with Franklin and later won a Nobel Prize himself. Once described as the  “Dark Lady of DNA”, Franklin is finally coming into the light.
【小题1】What is the text mainly about?
A. The disagreements among DNA researchers.
B. The unfair treatment of Franklin.
C. The process of discovering DNA.
D. The race between two teams of scientists.
【小题2】Watson was angry with Franklin because she     .

The Girl Who Fell From the Sky
From its opening lines – “ ‘You my lucky piece,’ Grandma says.... Her hand is wrapped around mine” – Heidi W. Durrow pulls us into her first novel, a moving story encircling us as firmly as that protective grandmotherly grip.
When we meet Rachel Morse, the daughter of an African-American GI and a Danish woman, she is just moving into the Portland, Oregon., home of her strong-minded paternal grandmother and her warm, classy Aunt Loretta. We soon learn that Rachel has survived a fall from a nine-story apartment building in which her mother, brother, and baby sister all died. Three months earlier, Rachel’s mother had left her alcoholic husband in Germany, following her “orange-haired” lover to Chicago. But Nella hadn’t been prepared for boyfriend’s drinking and racism, or for the looks and questions she gets as the mother of three brown children.
Rachel’s “new-girl feeling” in her grandmother’s home goes beyond her recent tragedy. Having grown up with a Scandinavian mother in the more colorblind society of an overseas Army base, this is her first time in a mostly black community. Her light-brown skin, “fuzzy” hair, and blue eyes raise questions about her racial identity that are entirely new and puzzling to her.
Starting sixth grade in her new school, Rachel notes, “There are fifteen black people in the class and seven white people. And there’s me. There’s another girl who sits in the back. Her name is Carmen LaGuardia, and she has hair like mine, my same color skin, and she counts as black. I don’t understand how, but she seems to know.” Several years later, in high school, her status remains uncertain. “They call me an Oreo. I don’t want to be white. Sometimes I want to go back to being what I was. I want to be nothing.”
Winner of the Bellwether Prize, created by Barbara Kingsolver to celebrate fiction that addresses issues of social injustice, “The Girl Who Fell From the Sky” comes at a time when bi-racial and multicultural identity – so markedly represented by President Obama – is especially topical.
But set in the 1980s and focusing on one unusually sympathetic girl overcoming family tragedy and feeling her way through racial tensions, Durrow’s novel surpasses topicality.
Like Rachel, Durrow is the light-brown-skinned, blue-eyed daughter of a Danish mother and an African-American father enlisted in the Air Force. With degrees from Stanford, Columbia Journalism School, and Yale Law School, it’s no wonder she gives her heroine discipline and brains.
Rachel’s life, however, is clearly not Durrow’s. No, there’s alcohol and drug addiction; deaths by fire, trauma, and infection. There are mothers who lose their children, and a saintly drug counselor who loses his beloved girl-friend. Through it all, what makes Durrow’s novel soar is her masterful sense of voice, her assured, delicate handling of complex racial issues – and her heart.
After hearing the blues music for the first time, Rachel feels what her mother called hyggeligt – “something like comfort and home and love all rolled into one.” She wonders what might have happened if her mother had known about such soulful music, “that sometimes there’s a way to take the sadness and turn it into a beautiful song.”
This, of course, is precisely what Durrow has done in this powerful book: taken sadness and turned it into a beautiful song.
60. What should be the direct cause of Rachel coming to Portland, Oregon?
A. Her mother left her alcoholic father.
B. A deadly tragedy happened to her family.
C. Her grandmother wants her to come and stay with her.
D. There was too much racism where she used to live with her mother.
61. Durrow’s life is different from Rachel’s in that _____________.
A. Durrow has to struggle through her life, depending on herself.
B. Durrow is troubled in her life by racism, living in a poor neighborhood.
C. Durrow has come through life much easier, with a better family background.
D. There’s alcohol and drug addiction in Durrow’s suffering-laden neighborhood.
62. Why does the writer of the book review mention President Obama in this writing?
A. To show the progress in America’s black community.
B. To highlight the racial harmony in the United States.
C. To indicate Obama’s influence in helping Durrow win the Bellwether Prize.
D. To remind readers of the background when the novel was written and won the Bellwether Prize.
63. The blues music Rachel hears is, deep at the bottom of her heart, most suggestive of ______.
A. bravery          B. hope           C. sadness         D. beauty

Not long ago, people thought babies were not able to learn things until they were five or six months old. Yet doctors in the United States say babies begin learning on their first day of life.

Scientists note that babies are strongly influenced by their environment. They say a baby will smile if her mother does something the baby likes. A baby learns to get the best care possible by smiling to please her mother or other caregiver. This is how babies learn to connect and communicate with other human beings.

One study shows that babies can learn before they are born. The researchers placed a tape recorder on the stomach of a pregnant woman. Then, they played a recording of a short story.  On the day the baby was born, the researchers attempted to find if he knew the sounds of the story repeated while in his mother. They did this by placing a device in the mouth of the newborn baby. The baby would hear the story if he moved his mouth one way. If the baby moved his mouth the other way, he would hear a different story. The researchers say the baby clearly liked the story he heard before he was born. They say the baby would move his mouth so he could hear the story again and again.

Another study shows how mothers can strongly influence social development and language skills in their children. Researchers studied the children from the age of one month to three years. The researchers attempted to measure the sensitivity of the mothers. The women were considered sensitive if they supported their children’s activities and did not interfere unnecessarily. They tested the children for thinking and language development when they were three years old. Also, the researchers observed the women for signs of depression.

The children of depressed women did not do as well in tests as the children of women who did not suffer from depression. The children of depressed women did poorly in tests of language skills and understanding what they hear.

These children also were less cooperative and had more problems dealing with other people. The researchers noted that the sensitivity of the mothers was important to the intelligence development of their children. Children did better when their mothers were caring, even when they suffered from depression.

1.According to the passage, which of the following is NOT the factor that influences intelligence development in babies?

A. The environment.          B. Mother’s sensitivity.

C. Their peers (同龄人)  D. Education before birth.

2.What is the purpose of the experiment in which newborn babies heard the stories?

A. To prove that babies can learn before they are born.

B. To prove that babies can learn on the first day they are born.

C. To show mothers can strongly influence intelligence development in their babies.

D. To indicate early education has a deep effect on the babies’ language skills.

3.Which group of children did the worst in tests of language skills?

A. The children of depressed mothers who cared little for their children.

B. The children of women who did not suffer from depression.

C. The children of depressed but caring mothers.

D. Children with high communication abilities.

4.What is the main idea of the passage?

A. Scientific findings about how babies develop before birth.

B. Scientific findings about how the environment has an effect on babies’ intelligence.

C. A study shows babies are not able to learn things until they are rice or six months old.

D. Scientific findings about how intelligence develops in babies.

Four people in England back in 1953, stared at Photo 51. It wasn’t much—a picture showing a black X. But three of these people won the Nobel Prize for figuring out what the photo really showed –the shape of DNA. The discovery brought fame and fortune to scientists James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins. The fourth, the one who actually made the picture, was left out

   Her name was Rosalind Franklin. “She should have been up there,” says historian Mary Bowden. “If her photos hadn’t been there, the others couldn’t have come up with the structure.” One reason Franklin was missing was that she had died of cancer four years before the Nobel decision. But now scholars doubt that Franklin was not only robbed of her life by disease but robbed of credit by her competitors

   At Cambridge University in the 1950s, Watson and Click tried to make models by cutting up shapes of DNA’s parts and then putting them together. In the meantime, at King’s College in London, Franklin and Wilkins shone X-rays at the molecule(分子). The rays produced patterns reflection the shape.

   But Wilkins and Franklin’s relationship was a lot rockier than the celebrated teamwork of Watson and Crick. Wilkins thought Franklin was hired to be his assistant .But the college actually employed her to take over the DNA project.

What she did was produce X-ray pictures that told Watson and Crick that one of their early models was inside out. And she was not shy about saying so. That angered Watson, who attacked her in return, “Mere inspection suggested that she would not easily bend. Clearly she had to to go or be put in her place.”

As Franklin’s competitors, Wilkins, Watson  and Crick had much to gain by cutting her out of the little group of researchers, says historian Pnina Abir-Am. In 1962 at the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony, Wilkins thanked 13 colleagues by name before he mentioned Franklin, Watson wrote his book laughing at her. Crick wrote in 1974 that  “Franklin was only two steps away  from the solution.”

 No, Franklin was the solution. “She contributed more than any other player to solving the structure of  DNA . She must be considered a co-discoverer,” Abir-Am says. This was backed up by Aaron Klug, who worked with Franklin and later won a Nobel Prize himself. Once described as the  “Dark Lady of DNA”, Franklin is finally coming into the light.

72. What is the text mainly about?

A. The disagreements among DNA researchers.

B. The process of discovering DNA.

C. The race between two teams of scientists.

D. The unfair treatment of Franklin.

73. Which of the following is NOT true according to the passage?

A. Franklin didn’t feel shy about pointing out the mistake of Watson and Crick.

B. Wilkins and Franklin didn’t get along very well.

C. Franklin didn’t win the Nobel Prize because she was two steps away from the solution.

D. Without Franklin’s X-ray pictures, the other competitors couldn’t have won the Nobel Prize.

74. Why is Franklin described as  “Dark Lady of DNA”?

A. She developed pictures in dark labs.

B. She discovered the black X-the shape of DNA.

C. Her name was forgotten after her death.

D. Her contribution was unknown to the public.

75. What is the writer’s attitude toward Wilkins, Watson and Crick?

A. Respectful.     B. Disapproving.         C.  Admiring.     D. Doubtful.