上海高考英語(yǔ)題型訓(xùn)練:閱讀理解C2020高三第一學(xué)期期末質(zhì)量抽查SectionBDirections:Readthefollowingthreepassage.Eachpassageisfollowedbyseveralquestionsorunfinishedstatements.ForeachofthemtherearefourchoicesmarkedA,B,CandD.Choosetheonethatfitsbestaccordingtotheinformationgiveninthepassageyouhavejustread.(C)松江Thenewspapermustprovideforthereaderthefacts,pure,unprejudiced,objectivelyselectedfacts.Butinthesedaysofcomplexnewsitmustprovidemere:itmustsupplyinterpretation,themeaningofthefacts.ThisisaveryimportantassignmentfacingAmericanjournalists一tomakecleartothereadertheproblemsoftheday,tomakeinternationalnewsunderstandableascommunitynews,torecognizethatthereisnolongeranysuchthingas"local”news,becauseanyeventintheinternationalareahasalocalreactioninthefinancialmarket,politicalcircles,interms,indeed,ofourverywayoflife.Thereisinjournalismawidespreadviewthatwhenyoustartaninterpretation,youareenteringdangerouswaters,therushingtidesC??rrii??ofopinion.Thisisnonsense.Theopponentsofinterpretationinsistthatthewriterandtheeditorshalllimitthemselvestothe“facts".Thisinsistenceraisestwoquestions:Whatarethefacts?Arethebarefactsenough?Asforthefirstquestion,considerhowaso-called"factual"storyconicsabout.Thereportercollects,say,fiftyfacts;outofthesefifty,hisspacebeingnecessarilyrestricted,heselectsthetenwhichheconsidersmostimportant.ThisisJudgmentNumberOne.Thenheorhiseditordecideswhichofthesetenfactsshallmakeupthebeginningofthearticle,whichisanimportantdecisionbecausemanyreadersdonotproceedbeyondthefirstparagraph.ThisisJudgmentNumberTwo.Thentherighteditordetermineswhetherthearticleshallbepresentedonpageone,whereithasalargeinfluence,oronpagetwentyfour,whereithaslittle.JudgmentNumberThree.Thusinthepresentationofaso-called“factual”or''objective”,story,atleastthreejudgmentsareinvolved.Andtheyarejudgmentsnotatallunlikethoseinvolvedininterpretation,inwhichreportersandeditors,callingupontheirresearchresources,theirgeneralbackground,andtheir"newsneutralism",arriveataconclusionastothesignificanceofthenews.Thetwoareasofjudgment,presentationofthenewsanditsinterpretation,arcbothobjectiveandsubjectiveprocesses.Ifaneditorisdeterminedtogiveaprejudicedviewofthenews,hecandoitinotherwaysandmoreeffectivelythanbyinterpretation.Hecandoitbytheselectionofthosefactsthatsupporthisparticularviewpoint.Orhecandoitbytheplacehegivesastory一promotingittopageoneordraggingittopagethirty.Accordingtothefirstparagraph,whichofthefollowingstatementsisTRUE?Ifareportermakesclearthefactshewrites,hewillnodoubtgetintotrouble.Journalistsmustselectfactsobjectivelytomakecurrenteventscleartothereaders.ThemostimportanttaskofreportersisIoprovideunprejudicedfactsforthereaders.Forreporters,interpretationoffactsisnolessimportantthanpresentationofthefacts.Thebeginningofthearticleshouldpresentthemostimportantfactbecause.itwillinfluencethereadertocontinuemostreadersreadonlythefirstparagraphitdetailsthegeneralattitudeofthewriterit'sthebestwaytowriteaccordingtotheschoolsofjournalismWhereastoryispresentedinanewspapershows.theeditor'sprejudicethereporter'sbackgroundthestory'sfactualmatterthestory'seffectonthereadersWhichofthefollowingcanbestexpresstheauthor'sattitudetowardobjectiveness?Objectivenessiscontrolledbyeditorsratherthanwriters.Properlychoosingfactspreparesasolidgroundforobjectiveness.Hedoesn'tthinkthereexistscompleteobjectivenessinnewswriting.Tomakeclearthenewsisawaytobeobjectiveandresponsibleforthereaders.黃浦Riskissomethingwefacedaily.However,somepeopleareobviouslymorewillingtotakerisksthanothers.Biologistsappeartohavediscoveredaphysicalreasonthatexplainswhysomepeoplearerisk-takers.Dopamineisaneurotransmitter,achemicalthatspreadssignalsbetweennervecells.Itislinkedtothebrainsrewardsystemandisthechemicalthatmakesusfeelgood,andscientistsbelieveittobeinkedtorisk-taking.Ournervecellshavedopaminereceptors（接收器）whichcontroltheamountofdopaminethateachcellreceives.Butnotallreceptorsmaybeactive.Whenapersonhadfewactivereceptorstocontroltheamountofdopaminethatisreceived,acellcanbecomefloodedresultinginanextremefeelingofhappiness.ResearchersatVanderbiltUniversityandAlbertEinsteinCollegeofMedicineasked34menandwomentocompleteaquestionnaireabouttheirrisktakingtoassesswhethertheyseeknewopportunitiesorarecautiousinlife.Theresultsoftheresearchwereconsistentwithsimilarstudiescarriedoutwithrats,andhadthesameoutcome.Itconcludedthatpeoplewhoarerisk-takershavefewerdopaminereceptorsthanpeoplewhoarenot.Thissuggeststhattherushofpleasurearisktakerreceiveswhenacellbecomesfloodedwithdopaminecanbecomeaddictiveforsomepeople.Theythereforepursuenewandexcitingactivitiesinordertotrytorepeatthisfeeling,andasaresulttheirconcernforriskbecomesconsiderablereduced.Dopaminegivesusabiologicalreasonforrisk-taking,butscientistsbelievetheremaybepsychologicalreasonstoo.Sensation-seekingisapersonalitycharacteristicthatdescribesthedesiretofindactivitiesthatbringuspleasure.In1964,psychologistMarvinZuckermancreatedthesensation-seekingscale.His40-itemquestionnaire,stillusedtoday,wasgiventopeoplewhowereactiveinseekingnewactivities,andtopeoplewhoweremoresatisfiedwithaquietlife.Whilerisk-takingisnotacharacteristicinitself,itisverymuchassociatedwithsensation-seeking,asahighsensation-seekerdoesnotevaluateriskinthesamewaythatalowsensation-seekerdoes.adesiretoachievepleasuremeansthatthereisagreaterwillingnesstotakemorerisks.Therearebothbiologicalandpsychologicalexplanationsastowhysomepeoplemaychoosetotakemorerisksthanothers.However,noneoftheseexplanationsaredefinitive.Ifapersonhasfeweractivedopaminereceptors..heislesslikelytofeelhappyheismorewillingtotakeriskshewilleventuallybecomedopamine-addictiveheispooreratcontrollingtheamountofdopamineTheunderlinedphrase“consistentwith”isclosestto“”inmeaning.contrarytoB.inagreementwithC.atthecostofD.persistentin65.Whatcanbeconcludedfromparagraph4?Thelongingforpleasuremayleadtorisktaking.Awillingnesstotakemoreriskscanbecultivated.Thesensation-seekingscalecanhelptoevaluaterisk.Highsensation-seekersaremorecommonthanlowones.66.Thispassagemainlytalksabout.whenwelearntotakerisksB.howrisk-takingbenefitsusC.whatmakesrisk-takersD.whyweshouldtakerisks虹口Forseveraldecades,therehasbeenanextensiveandorganizedcampaignintendedtogeneratedistrustinscience,fundedbyregulatedindustriesandlibertarianthinktanks（自由主義智囊團(tuán)）whoseinterestsandbeliefsarethreatenedbythefindingsofmodernscience.Inresponse,scientistshavetendedtostressthesuccessofscience.Afterall,scientistshavebeenrightaboutmostthings,fromthestructureoftheuniversetotherelativityoftimeandspace.Quotingsuccessesisn'twrong,butformanypeopleit'snotpersuasive.Whatistypicallydeclaredtobethescientificmethod--developasupposition,thendesignanexperimenttotestit--isn'twhatscientistsactuallydo.Scienceisactivesothatnewmethodsgetinventedandoldonesgetabandoned.Thescientificmethoddoesn'talwayswork.Falsetheoriescanproducetrueresults,soevenifanexperimentworks,itdoesn'tprovethatthetheoryitwasdesignedtotestittrue.Ifthereisnoidentifiablescientificmethod,thenwhatistheguaranteefortrustinscience?Theansweristhemethodsbywhichthoseclaimsareevaluated.Ascientificclaimisneveracceptedastrueuntilithasgonethroughalongprocessofexaminationbyfellowscientists.Untilthispoint,scientificfeedbackistypicallyfairlyfriendly.Butthenextstepisdifferent:oncethepaperisready,itispresentedtoascientificjournal,wherethingsgetawholelottougher.Editorsdeliberatelysendscientificpaperstopeoplewhoarenotfriendsorcolleaguesoftheauthors,andthejoboftherevieweristofinderrorsorotherinadequacies.Wecallthisprocess“peerreview”becausethereviewersarescientificpeersbuttheyactintheroleofasuperiorwhohasboththerightandtheobligationtofindfault.Itisonlyafterthereviewersandtheeditoraresatisfiedthatanyproblemshavebeenfixedthatthepaperisacceptedforpublicationandentersthebodyof“science.”Doesthisprocessevergowrong?Ofcourse.Scientistsarehuman.Butifwelookcarefullyathistoricalcaseswheresciencewentwrong,typicallytherewasnoagreementreachedbyall.Somepeoplearguethatweshouldnottrustsciencebecausescientistsare“alwayschangingtheirminds.”Whileexamplesoftrulysettledsciencebeingoverturnedarefarfewerthanissometimesclaimed,theydoexist.Butthebeautyofthisscientificprocessisthatitexplainswhatmightotherwiseappearparadoxical（矛盾的）：thatscienceproducesbothnovelty（新穎性）andstability.Newobservations,ideas,interpretationsintroducenovelty:trans-formativequestioningleadstocollectivedecisionsandthestabilityofscientificknowledge.Scientistsdochangetheirmindsinthefaceofnewevidence,butthisisastrengthofscience,notaweakness.Distrustinsciencehasbeenfoundbecause.A.scientists'citingsuccessesisn'tpersuasiveformanypeopletosomeextentmostscientistshavetendedtolaytoomuchemphasisonthesuccessofscienceawide-rangingandorganizedcampaignhasbeenfoundedinsomeindustriesandthinktankssomeone'sbenefitsandbeliefsareendangeredbythefindingsofmodernscienceWhichofthefollowingstatementswilltheauthoragreewithaboutascientificmethod?Ascientificmethoddoesn'tnecessarilytakeeffectbecausescienceischanging.Ascientificmethodisnotrightbecauseitisn'twhatscientistsactuallydo.Asuccessfulexperimentcanguaranteethetruthfulnessofaclaimbyascientificmethod.Truetheoriescanproducefalseresultsbecausethescientificmethoddoesn'twork.Whatpurposedoes“peerreview”inevaluatingascientificclaimmainlyserve?Thescientificclaimcanbecompletelyacceptedbythereviewersinthesamefield.Thescientificpeerscandrawrightconclusionsbyfindingitsfaultsorotherinadequacies.Thescientificclaimcanbepublishedandrecognizedastrueinscience.Thescientificpapercanbesuccessfullysubmittedtoascientificjournal.66.Itcanbeinferredfromthelastparagraphthat.Notalltheclaimsaboutthefalsehoodofwell-establishedscienceleadtoitsbeingoverturnedItisinevitablethatsciencesometimesgoeswrongbecauseitappearsparadoxicalThebeautyofscienceliesintheparadoxofbeingbothnovelandstableScienceisnottrustfulbecausescientistsalwayschangetheirminds.寶山5G,thefifthgenerationofwireless,promiseslightning-fastdownloadspeedsandcouldlayfoundationforhigh-techadvancementslikeself-drivingcars.Butlikemanynewtechnologies,it'scausingconcernaboutpotentialhealthissues.Thefirstgenerationofwirelessintroducedmobilephones,and2Gbroughttexting.3Glaidthegroundworkforsmart-phones,and4Gallowedvideostreamingandmore.5Gisexpectedtodownloaddata20timesfasterthanitspredessor（前任），andsomeexpertsargueitcouldbemuchfaster.Toomuchofagoodthing?It'snotjustaboutstreamingdatafaster,it'saboutstreamingmoreofit.Ona5Gnetwork,ausercandownloadamovieinstantly,anddatawillflowbetweenconnectedobjectswithoutdelay.Theamountofdatapeopleuseonmobiledeviceshasgoneup40timessince2010andisonlyexpectedtoincrease.5Gnetworksarewirelesscompaniesattemptstosatisfythatdemand.UncertaineffectsTheuntestednatureof5G,andtheextensivenessofitsinfrastructure（基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施）hassomeworriedthattheincreasedexposurecouldhaveserioushealtheffects.Wirelesssafetyadvocates（倡議人士）havecalledformorestudiesontheeffectsoftheexposure,andonegroupistryingtostoptheinstallmentof5GnetworksinChicago'sneighborhoods.Thefederalgovernmenthassafetyrulesthatwirelesscompaniesmustobeythatlimithumanexposuretoradiowaves,includingfrequenciesuseswith5G.WirelessindustryassociationCTIAsaystypicalexposureto5GinfrastructureiscomparabletoBluetoothdevicesandbabymonitors,andthereisnoscientificevidenceofnegativehealtheffects.Still,assurancesfromgovernmentagenciesandindustryoperatorsarenotenoughforChicagoresidentJudyBlake.Additionalstudieson5G'shealthimpactslikelywouldn'tsoothehereither.Shesaid,“Peoplecan'tchoosewhetherornottobeexposedtothisradiation.”“Idon'tneedanothertest.Theonlytestthat'sgoingtohappennowispeople'slives,”saidBlake.Onlytimewilltell?Thoughlittleisknownaboutthelong-termhealthimpactofthemillimeterwavesthat5Goperateson,someresearchhasshownshort-termexposurecouldbeproblematic,saidJoelMoskowitz,apublichealthexpertattheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley.Theeyesandsweatglands（腺體）areamongseveralbodypartsstudieshaveshowncouldbeatrisk.Moskowitzsaid.Insectsandplantlifecouldalsobeaffected,headded.ThemillimeterwavesusedinSGareabsorbedbytheupperlayersofskin,potentiallycausingthetemperatureoftheskintorise,saidSureshBorkar,seniorlecturerintheDepartmentofElectricalandComputerEngineeringattheIllinoisInstituteofTechnology.Theeffectsofextendedrisesinskintemperature“becomeabigunknown,”hesaid.Thisisn'tthef