题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A
country towhat we were ten，five or even one year earlier.
B C D
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“We are at a critical point in …”相关的问题
We have come to a critical moment. You must take immediate_____.
A. action
B. act
C. activity
D. do
However, encouragement of critical thinking in students is one of the goals of most colleges and universities. Few professors require students to share the professors' own beliefs. In general, professors are more concerned that students learn to question and critically examine the arguments of others, including some of their own beliefs or values. This does not mean that professors insist that you change your beliefs, either. It does mean , however, that professors will usually ask you to support the views you express in class or in your writing.
If your premises (前提) are shaky, or if your arguments are not logical, professors personally point out the false reasoning in your arguments. Most professors want you to learn to recognize the premises of your arguments, to examine whether you really accept these premises, and to understand whether or not you draw logical conclusions. Put it this way. Professors don't tell you what to think; they try to teach you how to think.
On the other hand, if you intend to disagree with your professors in class, you should be prepared to offer a strong argument in support of your ideas. Arguing just for the sake of arguing usually does not promote a critical examination of ideas. Many professors interpret it as rudeness.
In the first paragraph, the writer tries to tell us that people______.
A．easily accept certain things without a second thought
B．grow up through learning certain things in life
C．are forming their views during their growth
D．have strong beliefs in authorities while getting old
.
［A］ Thus a joke is laughed at for its own sake, even though there is an independent value in laughter, which lightens our lives by taking us momentarily outside ourselves. Why should not something similar be said of works of art, many of which aspire to be amusing in just the way that good jokes are？
［B］ All discussion of the value of art tends, therefore, to turn from the outset in the direction of criticism: Can there be genuine critical evaluation of art, a genuine distinction between that which deserves our attention and that which does not？ (And, once again, the question may be extended to objects of natural beauty.)
［C］ Art is held to be a form. of education, perhaps an education of the emotions. In this case, it becomes an open question whether there might not be some more effective means to the same result. Alternatively, one may attribute a negative value to art, as Plato did in his Republic, arguing that art has a corrupting or diseducative effect on those exposed to it.
［D］ Artistic appreciation, a purely personal matter, calls for appropriate means of expression. Yet, it is before anything a process of “cultivation”, during which a certain part of one’s “inner self” is “dug out” and some knowledeg of the outside world becomes its match.
［E］ If I am amused it is for a reason, and this reason lies in the object of my amusement. We thus begin to think in terms of a distinction between good and bad reasons for laughter. Amusement at the wrong things may seem to us to show corruption of mind, cruelty, or bad taste; and when it does so, we speak of the object as not truly amusing, and feel that we have reason on our side.
［F］ Such thinkers and writers believe that art is not only an end in itself but also a sufficient justification of itself. They also hold that in order to understand art as it should be understood, it is necessary to put aside all interests other than an interest in the work itself.
A scientist is apt to think that all the problems of philosophy will ultimately be solved by science. I think this is true for a great many of the questions on which philosophers still argue. For example, Plato thought that when we saw something, one ray of light came to it from the sun, and another from our eyes and that seeing was something like feeling with a stick. We now know that the light comes from the sun, and is reflected into our eyes. We don't know in much detail how the changes in our eyes give rise to sensation. But there is every reason to think that as we learn more about the physiology of the brain, we shall do so, and that the great philosophical problems about knowledge are going to be pretty fully cleared up.
But if our descendants know the answers to these questions and others that perplex us today, there will still be one field of which they do not know, namely the future. However exact our science; we cannot know it as we know the past. Philosophy may be described as argument about things of which we are ignorant. And where science gives us a hope of knowledge it is often reasonable to suspend judgment. That is one reason why Marx and Engels quite rightly wrote to many philosophical problems that interested their contemporaries.
But we have got to prepare for the future, and we cannot do so rationally without some philosophy. Some people say we have only got to do the duties revealed in the past and laid down by religion, and god will look after the future. Others say that the world is a machine and the course of future events is certain, whatever efforts we may make. Marxists say that the future depends on ourselves, even though we are part of the historical process. This philosophical view certainly does inspire people to very great achievements. Whether it is true or not, it is powerful guide to action.
We need a philosophy, then, to help us to tackle the future. Agnosticism easily becomes an excuse for laziness and conservatism. Whether we adopt Marxism or any other philosophy, we cannot understand it without knowing something of how it developed. That is why knowledge of the history of philosophy is important to Marxists, even during the present critical days.
What is the main idea of this passage？
A．The argument whether philosophy will ultimately be solved by science or not.
B．The importance of learning philosophies, especially the history of philosophy.
C．The difference between philosophy and science.
D．A discuss about how to set a proper attitude towards future.
1.According to the passage, when Anna was a child, she ().
2. It can be inferred from the passage the author thinks looking after little children is ().
3. What does 'take after' mean in the first sentence of Para. 2？
4. My daughter and I have little in common in terms of ().
5. From the passage, we can see the author's description of his daughter is ().
(1).A、got an illness
B、was very queer
C、didn't look like the author
(2).A、his advantage
B、mainly a woman's responsibility
C、really enjoyable
(3).A、look after
B、be different from
C、look like
(4).A、loving walking and talking
B、character
C、loving animals
(5).A、affectionate
B、humorous
C、critical
Questions 21 to 25 are based on the following passage.
There is a difference between science and technology. Science is a method of answering theoretical questions; technology is a method of solving practical problems. Science has to do with discovering the facts and relationships between observable phenomena in nature and with establishing theories that serve to organize these facts and relationships; technology has to do with tools, techniques, and procedures for implementing the finding of science.
Another distinction between science and technology has to do with the progress in each.
Progress in science excludes the human factor. Scientists, who seek to comprehend the universe and know the truth within the highest degree of accuracy and certainty, cannot pay attention to their own or other people's likes or dislikes or to popular ideas about the fitness of things. What scientists discover may shock or anger people-as did Darwin's theory of evolution. But even an unpleasant truth is more than likely to be useful; besides, we have the choice of refusing to believe it! But hardly so with technology; we do not have the choice of refusing to hear the sonic boom produced by a supersonic aircraft flying overhead; we do not have the option of refusing to breathe polluted air; and we do not have the option of living in a non-atomic age. Unlike science progress, technology must be measured in terms of the human factor. The legitimate purpose of technology is to serve people in general, not merely some people; and future generations, not merely those who presently wish to gain advantage for themselves. Technology must be humanistic if it is to lead to a better world.
21. The difference between science and technology lies in that _____.
A) the former provides answers to theoretical questions while the latter to practical problems
B) the former seeks to comprehend the universe while the latter helps change the material world
C) the former aims to discover the inter-connections of facts and the rules that explain them while the latter, to discover new designs and ways of making the things we use in our daily life
D) all of the above
22. Which of the following may be representative of science？
A) The improvement of people's life.
B) The theory of people's life.
C) Farming tools.
D) Mass production.
23. According to the author, scientific theories _____.
A) must be strictly objective
B) usually take into consideration people's likes and dislikes
C) should conform. to popular opinions
D) always appear in perfect and finished forms
24. The author states that technology itself _____.
A) is responsible for widespread pollution and resource exhaustion
B) should serve those who wish to gain advantage for themselves
C) will lead to a better world if put to wise use
D) will inevitably be for bad purpose
25. The tone of the author in this passage is _____.
A) positive
B) negative
C) factual
D) critical
Recent surveys by dozens of organizations also suggest that up to 40% of the American public is functionally illiter- ate. That is, our citizens' reading and writing abilities, if they have any, are impaired so seriously as to render them, in that handy jargon of our times, dysfunctional. The reading is taught - TV teaches people not to read. It renders them incapable of engaging in an activity that now is perceived as strenuous, because it is not a passive hypnotized state.
Passive as it is, television has invaded our culture so completely that the medium's effects are evident in every quarter, even the literary world. It shows up in supermarket paperbacks, from Stephen King (who has a certain clever skill) to pulp fiction. These really are forms of verbal TV-literature that is so superficial that those who read it can revel in the same sensations they experience when watching television:
Even more importantly, the growing influence of television, Keman says, has changed people's habits and values and affected their assumptions about the world. The sort of reflective, critical, and value laden thinking encouraged by books has been rendered obsolete. In this context, we would do well to recall the Cyclops—the race of giants that, according to Greek myth, predated man.
Quite literally, TV affects the way people think. In Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, Jerry Mander quotes from the Emery Report, prepared by the Center for Continuing Education at the Australian National University, Canberra, that, when we watch television, "our usual processes of thinking and discernment are semi-functional at best. "The study also argues that, "while television appears to have the potential to provide useful information to viewers-and is celebrated for its educational function—the technology of television and the inherent nature of the viewing experience actually inhibit learning as we usually think of it. "
The first paragraph implies_____.
A．10 or 15 years ago people seldom wrote
B．the English grammar and rhetoric can be taught on TV
C．thousands of teachers are reluctant to admit their students' inability to write
D．TV ruins students' ability to write
“Schools have always been in a society where practical is more important than intellectual,” says education writer Diane Ravitch. “Schools could be a counterbalance.” Razitch’s latest bock, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, traces the roots of anti-intellectualism in our schools, concluding they are anything but a counterbalance to the American distaste for intellectual pursuits.
But they could and should be. Encouraging kids to reject the life of the mind leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and control. Without the ability to think critically, to defend their ideas and understand the ideas of others, they cannot fully participate in our democracy. Continuing along this path, says writer Earl Shorris, “We will become a second-rate country. We will have a less civil society.”
“Intellect is resented as a form. of power or privilege,” writes historian and professor Richard Hofstadter in Anti-Intellectualism in American life, a Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of anti-intellectualism in US politics, religion, and education. From the beginning of our history, says Hofstadter, our democratic and populist urges have driven us to reject anything that smells of elitism. Practicality, common sense, and native intelligence have been considered more noble qualities than anything you could learn from a book.
Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children:“We are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for 10 or 15 years and come out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing.”Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn exemplified American anti-intellectualism. Its hero avoids being civilized —— going to school and learning to read —— so he can preserve his innate goodness.
Intellect, according to Hofstadter, is different from native intelligence, a quality we reluctantly admire. Intellect is the critical, creative, and contemplative side of the mind. Intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate, re-order, and adjust, while intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes and imagines.
School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted. Hofstadter says our country’s educational system is in the grips of people who “joyfully and militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify with children who show the least intellectual promise.”
第56题：What do American parents expect their children to acquire in school？
A The habit of thinking independently.
B Profound knowledge of the world.
C Practical abilities for future career.
D The confidence in intellectual pursuits.
Yet one saw, even before the 100th anniversary of the death of Queen Victoria this year, that there were signs these sneering attitudes were beginning to change. Programmes on radio and television about Victoria and the age that was named after her managed to humble themselves only about half the time. People were beginning to realize that there was something heroic about that epoch and, perhaps, to fear that the Victorian age was the last age of greatness for this country.
Now a new book, What The Victorians Did For Us, aims further to redress the balance and remind us that, in most essentials, our own age is really an extension of what the Victorians created. You can start with the list of Victorian inventions. They were great lovers of gadgets from the smallest domestic ones to new ways of propelling ships throughout the far-flung Empire. In medicine, anaesthesia (developed both here and in America) allowed surgeons much greater time in which to operate—and hence to work on the inner organs of the body—not to mention reducing the level of pain and fear of patients.
To the Victorians we also owe lawn tennis, a nationwide football association under the modern rules, powered funfair rides, and theatres offering mass entertainment. And, of course, the modern seaside is almost entirely a Victorian invention. There is, of course, a darker side to the Victorian period. Everyone knows about it mostly because the Victorians catalogued it themselves. Henry Mayhew’s wonderful set of volumes on the lives of the London poor, and official reports on prostitution, on the workhouses and on child labour—reports and their statistics that were used by Marx when he wrote Das Kapital—testify to the social conscience that was at the center of “Victorian values”.
But now, surely, we can appreciate the Victorian achievement for what it was—the creation of the modern world. And when we compare the age of Tennyson and Darwin, of John Henry Newman and Carlyle, with our own, the only sensible reaction is one of humility: “We are our father’s shadows cast at noon”.
第16题：According to the author, Lytton Strachey’s book Eminent Victorians _____.
[A] accurately described the qualities of the people of the age
[B] superficially praised the heroic deeds of the Victorians
[C] was highly critical of the contemporary people and institutions
[D] was guilty of spreading prejudices against the Victorians
