It is not our intention to rush you into a decision, ,but as this article is in great

Passage Three

Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.

The physicist investigating the relationship between time and space, the chemist exploring the properties of a new substance, the biologist probing the mysteries of the continuity of life. and the anthropologist(人类学家)searching for human origins share a common trait(特征), curiosity. Not that nonscientist are not curious；most people possess this characteristic. The scientist, however, uses a specific method to make researches into these enigmatic(难以理解的)problems-the scientific method.

Unfortunately, science and its method are misunderstood, the multiplication of our knowledge in medicine and technology has led to the idea that science can cure all and explain all and that only enough time, money and intelligence are needed. In truth. science cannot provide all answers. In fact, many phenomena are not even subject to scientific explanations.

On the other side of the coin, science has been attacked as a cause of most contemporary problems. It is said to be responsible for the depersonalization(使失去个性)of the individual, for stripping(夺去)creativity from human behavior, and for creating massive threats to the species through the development of nuclear power, insecticides, and polluting machinery. If we analyze the situation, we can see that it was not the original intent of the people who developed computers to debase humankind, nor was mass production proposed as a method to crush creativity. It is what society, policymakers especially, does with scientific achievements that makes them social or antisocial. There is nothing inherently good or bad about science.

Which of the following is the main topic of the passage？

A. Scientists and their curiosity.

B. Science and scientific method.

C. Understandings of science.

D. Misunderstandings of science.

r the construction of what we call modern civilization. Every dispensable item of contemporary technology, from canal locks to dial telephones to penicillin, was pieced together from the analysis of data provided by one or another series of scientific experiments. Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human interaction, long enough to settle back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go on with it or not. There is an argument.

Voices have been raised in protest since the beginning, rising in pitch and violence in the nineteenth century during the early stages of the industrial revolution, summoning urgent crowds into the streets any day on the issue of nuclear energy. The principal discoveries in this century, all in all, are the glimpses of the depth of our ignorance about nature. Things that used to seem clear and rational, matters of absolute certainty—Newtonian mechanics, for example—have slipped through our fingers, and we are left with a new set of gigantic puzzles, cosmic uncertainties, ambiguities; some of the laws of physics are amended every few years, some are canceled outright, some undergo revised versions of legislative intent as if they were acts of Congress.

Just thirty years ago we call it a biological revolution when the fantastic geometry of the DNA molecule was exposed to public view and the linear language of genetics was decoded. For a while, things seemed simple and clear, the cell was a neat little machine, a mechanical device ready for taking to pieces and reassembling, like a tiny watch. But just in the last few years it has become almost unbelievably complex, filled with strange parts whose functions are beyond today's imagining.

It is not just that there is more to do; there is everything to do. What lies ahead, or what can lie ahead if the efforts in basic research are continued, is much more than the conquest of human disease or the improvement of agricultural technology or the cultivation of nutrients in the sea. As we learn more about fundamental processes of living things in general we will learn more about ourselves.

What CAN'T be inferred from the 1st paragraph？

A．Scientific experiments in the past three hundred years have produced many valuable items.

B．For three hundred years there have been people holding hostile attitude toward science.

C．For centuries scientific discoveries have been hailed by the human world unanimously.

D．Three hundred years is not long enough to settle back for critical appraisal of the scientific method.

A.潜藏式Intent

B.默认式Intent

C.隐式Intent

D.间接式Intent

A.直接Intent

B.明确式Intent

C.声明式Intent

D.显式Intent

A.Activity(Intent)

B. startActivityForResult(Intent，string)

C. startActivity(Intent )

D. startActivityForResult(Intent，int)

A.显式Intent

B.隐式Intent

C.ActionIntent

D.DataIntent

A.不指定目标名称的Intent

B.不指定Action属性的Intent

C.不指定Category的Intent

D.不指定Extra的Intent