Motion pictures are so much a part of our lives that it's hard to imagine a world without them． We enjoy them in theatres， at home， in offices， in cars and buses， and on airplanes．① For about 100 years， people have been trying to understand why this medium has so attracted us． Films communicate information and ideas， and they show us places and ways of life we might not otherwise know． Important as the benefits are， though， something more is at stake． Films offer us ways of seeing and feeling that we find deeply satisfying． They take us through experiences． The experiences are often driven by stories， with characters we come to care about， but a film might also develop an idea or explore visual qualities or sound textures． A film takes us on a journey， offering a patterned experience that engages our minds and emotions．② Films are designed to have effects on viewers． Late in the 19th century， moving pictures emerged as a public amusement． They succeeded because they spoke to the imaginative needs of a broad-based audience． All the traditions that emerged- telling fictional stories， recording actual events， animating objects or pictures， experimenting with pure form-aimed to give viewers experiences they couldn't get from other media． The men and women who made films discovered that they could control aspects of cinema to give their audience richer， more engaging experiences． Learning from one another， expanding and refining the options available， filmmakers developed skills that became the basis of film as an art form．③The popular origins of cinema suggest that some common ways of talking won't help us much in understanding film． Take the distinction between art and entertainment． Some people would say that blockbusters（大片） playing at the multiplex are merely "entertainment"， whereas films for a narrower public-perhaps independent films for festival fare， or specialized experimental works-are true art． Usually the art / entertainment split carries a not-so-hidden value judgment： art is high-brow， whereas entertainment is superficial． Yet things aren't that simple． As we just indicated， many of the artistic resources of cinema were discovered by filmmakers working for the general public． During the 1910s and 1920s， for instance， many films that aimed only to be entertaining opened up new possibilities for film editing． As for the matter of value， it's clear that popular traditions can promote art of high quality． Cinema is an art because it offers filmmakers ways to design experiences for viewers， and those experiences can be valuable．④ Sometimes， too， people treat film art as opposed to film as a business． This split is related to the issue of entertainment， since entertainment generally is sold to a mass audience． Again， however， in most modern societies， no art floats free of economic ties． Novels good， bad， or indifferent are published because publishers expect to sell them． Painters hope that collectors and museums will acquire their work． True， some artworks are funded through taxes or private donations， but that process， too， involves the artist in a financial transaction（交易）． Films are no different． Others are funded by patronage or public moneys． Even if you decide to make your own digital movie， you face the problem of paying for it-and you may hope to earn a little extra for all your time and effort．The crucial point is that considerations of money don't necessarily make the artist any less creative or the project any less worthwhile． Money can corrupt any line of business （consider politics）， but it doesn't have to． In Renaissance Italy， painters were commissioned by the Catholic church to illustrate events from the Bible． Michaelangelo and Lenonardo da Vinci worked for hire， but it would be hard to argue that it hurt their artistry．Here we won't assume that film art prevents entertainment． We won't take the opposite position either-claiming that only Hollywood mass-market movies are worth attention． Similarly， we don't think that film art rises above commercial demand， but we also won't assume that money rules everything． Any art form offers a vast range of creative possibilities． Our basic assumption is that as an art， film offers experiences that viewers find worthwhile．66． Where should the sentence "It doesn't happen by accident．" be put in the passage？ ____ A． ①B． ②C． ③D． ④67． Which of the following statements about film is TRUE？ ____ A． Hollywood films are usually far more appealing．B． Film offers a wide variety of creative possibilities．C． Films are made in the hope that consumers will pay to see them．D． When watching films， viewers feel controlled by film designers．68． The writer uses the examples of Michaelangelo and Lenonardo da Vinci to ____ ．A． indicate that money is unlikely to corrupt artistryB． show that money doesn't necessarily destroy artistryC． prove that money cannot buy everything in the field of artD． suggest that money is an important concern even for famous artists69． According to the writer， film should ____ A． avoid concentrating on popular traditionsB． focus on artistry rather than entertainmentC． provide the audience with something worthwhileD． earn enough to pay for the developers' time and effort70． Which of the following can be the proper title for the passage？ ____ A． Film： art or businessB． Art or entertainmentC． Film offers us experiencesD． Money doesn't rule everything

How did it ______that he made so many mistakes in his homework?A. come aboutB. occur to himC. bring aboutD. take place

I hope that this wonderful time is not over and we will be able to continue to enjoy this warm ______ for many years.A. hospitalityB. fatalityC. moralityD. punctuality

Teresa Garrett was working part-time as a biochemistry postdoc (博士后). She had an infant at home, and she was miserable. She and her husband were considering having a second child. She didn’t like leaving her daughter with a daycare provider, and she wondered if her slim income justified the expense of child-care. She decided to stay home full time. It was a lonely but practical decision, she says. She hadn’t ruled out the possibility but she did not expect to return to science: After all, the conventional wisdom would equate several years of parenting leave with the end of a research career. Garrett eventually had two daughters and spent their early years at home. The challenge of managing a science career and personal and family obligations is not a new issue, particularly for women. In a career where productivity and publications define your value, can you take a couple of years off and then make a successful return When you do, will employers trust your devotion to your job For Garrett, the answer to both questions was "Yes". First, she found a short-term teaching tutor at Duke University, the institution where she had done her Ph. D. And then Christian Raetz, who had been her Ph. D. adviser, offered her a postdoc. The timing was perfect: She was ready to start a more regular work schedule, and her husband was interested in starting a business. Today, she is a chemistry professor at Vassar College. Garrett credits Raetz both for his faith in her abilities and his willingness to judge her contributions on quality and productivity and not the number of hours she spent in the laboratory. "People are always shocked to know that you can take time off and come back," she says.Returning to research after an extended personal leave is possible, but it may not be straightforward. Progress can be slow and there may be some fallout from a break. The path back doesn’t come with a road map or a timeline. Your reentry will have a different rhythm than your initial approach because this time you have to balance your career with the needs of a family. The uncertainty can make you feel isolated and alone. But if you are persistent and take advantage of the resources that are available, you can get it done. After time away from the work force, it’s particularly easy to underestimate your value as a scientist and--hence--to take one or more backward steps. Don’t, says Ruth Ross, who nearly made that mistake after spending 4 years at home with her children. A Ph. D. pharmacologist with industry experience, she applied for a technician job at the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom as she planned her return to science. She would have taken the job if it had been offered, she says, but "that probably would have been a bad career move". As it turned out, the university decided she was over-qualified. Instead of taking a step back, take a step sideways: If you left a postdoc, return to a postdoc, perhaps with a special career reentry fellowship. A faculty member at Aberdeen encouraged Ross to apply for a newly established career reentry fellowship from the Well come Trust. Funding from that organization supported her postdoctoral research until the university hired her into a faculty position in 2002. After 2 years at home with her son and twin daughters followed by 3 years searching for project management jobs in the biotech industry, biochemist Pla Abola got wind of an opening at the Molecular Sciences Institute (MSI). An MSI staff scientist needed skills like hers but lacked money, so the two applied jointly for an NIH career reentry supplement. She’s now a protein biochemist and grant writer at Prosetta Bioconformatics. Instead of stepping backward or sideways, physicist Shireen Adenwalla took a step forward. Instead of taking another postdoc, she set up an independent research program on soft money. Early in her career, Adenwalla took 15 months off, caring for her first child and then looking for another postdoc. When she and her physicist husband decided to move to the University of Nebraska, Lincoln--he had accepted a tenure track position Adenwalla turned down postdoc opportunities. Instead she arranged a visiting faculty position, followed by a post as a research assistant professor. "I think that was a very smart thing," she says today. "Establishing an independent research program is very important." Her starting salary was just 15 000, and she got just 5 000 in start-up assistance. She borrowed equipment, taught courses, took on graduate students, and published her research. She had a lab and an office, but both got moved around-her lab three times, her office twice. Adenwalla missed having real start-up money, her own equipment, and the institutional investment that comes with a tenure-track position. On the other hand, she was her own boss, so she was able to take 6 months off when she had her second child and work part time for a while after her third child was born. Eventually she was hired to a tenure-track post. Flexible or part-time hours can smooth the transition back into tile scientific work force. Some reentry fellowships specify a part-time option and most are accommodating, but even if you don’t have a fellowship you can ask for a work schedule that meets your needs. Ross, for example, took advantage of the part-time provision of the Well come Trust Fellowship. When Garrett took the position on the Lipid Maps grant, she negotiated a 30-hour-a-week schedule. Two months before physicist Marija Nikolic-Jaric’s scheduled dissertation defense at Simon Fraser University, her husband was diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor. Over the next 17 months, she focused on her husband and his cancer treatments. After his death, she moved with her little son to Winnipeg to be near family. She tried to jump-start her thesis project several times, the first in 1998, but she wasn’t ready yet and became discouraged. Eventually, she found the motivation to return. She started from the beginning, with a new approach. She finished her Ph. D. in 2008. Now a postdoc at the University of Manitoba, she has moved into a new research area-biomicrofluidics. This year, her work is supported by an M. Hildred Blewett Scholarship, a career reentry grant from the American Physical Society. Elizabeth Freeland, too, continues to work toward a permanent research position a decade after her return. When she followed her future husband to his postdoc at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, and subsequently to Chicago, Illinois, she wasn’t able to find a compatible research opportunity. Since then, she has cared for the couple’s two young children, taught part time, and found a few short-term research opportunities, some paid, others not. Like Nikolic-Jaric, Freeland is a physicist, and like that other physicists she switched fields. Freeland moved from condensed matter theory to high-energy physics. She scraped together two one-year postdoctoral grants, the first from the American Association of University Women and the second is a Blewett Scholarship. Unable to find a permanent position locally, in September she started a one-year postdoc at Washington University in St Louis. The location is challenging, she says, but she is encouraged by the support of her mentors (导师). And because her work is theoretical, she can spend alternate weeks at home with her husband and school-age children. It’s a great research opportunity, she says, one she hopes will someday yield a job closer to her family. She also runs a Web site for physicists navigating career breaks. Though students sometimes see her as a role model, Adenwalla cautions that what worked for her might not be the best solution for others. "You have to find what’s right for you," she says, and ignore those with different circumstances and needs. Her own journey was a tradeoff, she says. On the plus side, she was able to pick her children up at school every day. On the minus side, she says, "there was a fear inside me that 1 would never make it." Garrett tells everyone about her journey, even noting it on her Vassar Web site. "Both young women and young men who are coming up through their career path need to know about the different ways that you can have a good and satisfying career in science.Shireen Adenwalla moved her lab and office frequently because ______. A．her house moved to NebraskaB．she kept getting promotedC．the equipment was borrowedD．she couldn’t get abundant funding

A Roadmap for the Planet From the 18th through the mid-19th century, whale oil provided light to much of the Western world. At its peak, whaling employed 70,000 people and was the United States’ fifth-largest industry. The U. S. stood as the world’s foremost whale slayer. Producing millions of gallons of oil each year, the industry was widely seen as unquestionable. Without whale oil, so the thinking from the advocates even went, the world would slide backward toward darkness. By today’s standard, of course, killing whales is considered savage. Two hundred years ago there was no environmental movement to speak of. But one wonders if the whalers, finding that each year they needed to go farther to kill massive sea mammals, ever asked themselves: what will happen when we run out of whales’ Such questions today constitute the base of the ever-louder logic of sustainability. Climate activists and campaigning environmentalists argue that the industrialized countries of the world have made sizable withdrawals on nature’s fixed allowance, and unless we change our ways, and soon, we are doomed to an abrupt end. Take the recent proclamation from the United Nations, Environment Program, which argued that governments should dramatically cut back on the use of resources. The mantra (咒语)has become commonplace, our current way of living is selfish and unsustainable. We are wrecking the world. We are polluting the water and the air. We are killing plants and animals, and leaving a devastated planet for future generations. In other words, humanity is doomed. It is a compelling story, no doubt. It is also fundamentally wrong, and the consequences are severe. Tragically, exaggerated environmental worries―and the willingness of so many to believe them―could ultimately prevent us from finding smarter ways to actually help our planet and ensure the health of the environment for future generations. Because, our fears notwithstanding, we actually get smarter. Although Westerners were once reliant on whale oil for lighting, we never actually ran out of whales. Why High demand and rising prices for whale oil spurred a search for and investment in the 19th-century version of alternative energy. First, kerosene (煤油) from petroleum replaced whale oil. We didn’t run out of kerosene, either: electricity supplanted it because it was a superior way to light our planet. For generations, we have consistently underestimated our capacity for innovation. There was a time when we worried that all of London would be covered with horse manure because of the increasing use of horse-drawn carriages. Thanks to the invention of the car, London has 7 million inhabitants today. Manure disaster averted. In fact, would-be catastrophes have regularly been pushed aside throughout human history, and so often became of innovation and technological development. We never just continue to do the same old thing. We innovate and avoid the anticipated problems. Think of the whales, and then think of the debate over cutting emissions today. Instead of single-mindedly trying to force people to do without carbon-emitting fuels, we must recognize that we won’t make any real progress in cutting CO2 emissions until we can create affordable, efficient alternatives. We are far from that point today., much- hyped technologies such as wind and solar energy remain very expensive and inefficient compared with cheap fossil fuels. Globally, wind provides just 0.3 percent of our energy, and solar a minuscule 0.1 percent. Current technology is so inefficient that, to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don’t know what to do when the wind doesn’t blow. Making the necessary breakthroughs will require mass improvements across many technologies. The sustainable response to global warming, then, is one that sees us get much more serious about investment into alternative-energy research and development. This has a much greater likelihood of leaving future generations at least the same opportunities as we have today. Because what, exactly, is sustainability Fourteen years ago, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development report "Our Common Future", chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, provided the most- quoted definition. Sustainable development "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". The measure of success, then, is whether or not we give future generations the same opportunities that we have had. As humans have become richer and more educated, we have been able to enjoy more leisure time. In most developed countries, yearly working hours have fallen drastically since the end of the 19th century: today we work only about half as much as we did then. Over the last 30 years or so, total free time for men and women has increased, thanks to reductions in workload and housework. We have consistently achieved these remarkable developments by focusing on technological innovation and investment designed to create a richer future. And while major challenges remain, the future appears to hold great promise, too. By the end of the century, the U. N. estimates we will live to be 85 on average, and virtually everyone will read, write, and have access to food, water, and sanitation. That’s not too shabby. Rather than celebrating this amazing progress, many find it distasteful. Instead of acknowledging and learning from it, we bathe ourselves in guilt, fretting about our supposed unsustainable lives. Certainly many argue that while the past may have improved, surely it doesn’t matter for the future, because we are destroying the environment! But not so fast. In recent decades, air quality in wealthy countries has vastly improved. In virtually every developed country, the air is more breathable and the water is more drinkable than they were in 1970. London, renowned for centuries for its infamous smog and severe pollution, today has the cleanest air that it has had since the Middle Ages. Eventually, with increased affluence, developed countries gradually were better able to afford a cleaner environment. That is happening already today in some of the richest developing countries: air-pollution levels in Mexico City have been dropping precisely because of better technology and more wealth. Though air pollution is by far the most menacing for humans, water quality has similarly been getting better. Forests, too, are regrowing in rich countries, though still being lost in poor places where slash-and-burn is preferable to starvation. We know from experience that more prosperous countries are more able to respond to the challenges that climate change will pose. They are much more resilient to natural disasters while more able to invest in measures such as greener cities and flood protection. Yet instead of first making sure that everybody is better off and more resilient, our response to global warming has been to try to cut back carbon emissions too soon. In reality, this means reining in growth and making do with less than we could have otherwise. We forget too easily that innovation and ingenuity have solved most major problems in the past. Living sustainably means learning the lessons from history. And chief among those is that the best legacy we can leave our descendants is to ensure that they are prosperous enough to respond flexibly to the unknown challenges ahead.According to the report "Our Common Future", what does sustainable development mean A．Whether we create enough natural resources for our future generations.B．Whether we let our future generations enjoy the same opportunities as we do.C．Whether we create sufficient wealth for our future generations.D．Whether we leave a better environment to our future generations.

第二部分 阅读理解(共两节,满分40分)-|||-第一节 (共15小题;每小题2分,满分30分)-|||-阅读下列短文,从每题所给的A、B、C和D四个选项中,选出最佳选项。-|||-A-|||-Skip the Line:Louvre Museum Walking Tour-|||-Experience culture and art through the ages with a small-group tour of Paris`Louvre-|||-Museum.Jump the queue and spend three hours with an English-speaking guide,seeing and-|||-learning about some of the museum`s35,000 artworks across eight themed galleries.Then-|||-enjoy time on your own to explore,viewing paintings sculptures archathite from 450-|||-BC to the 19th century.Numbers are limited to 25 on this small-group tour so that tourists-|||-can appreciate the artworks at close range.-|||-What`s Included-|||-Local guide-|||-Audio headsets-|||-Guaranteed to skip the long lines-|||-Small-group tour or private tour (if option selected)-|||-Please note:Evening tours are limited to Wednesdays and Fridays at 6:30pm.For an-|||-extra unique experience,book an evening session and wind through the quiet corridors at-|||-night,when the crowds are gone and the artworks are basking in soft light.Enjoy the tour-|||-without all the noise,and finish with great views of the Louvre`s glittery outside pyramid lit-|||-up after dusk.-|||-Additional Information-|||-Confirmation will be received at time of booking.-|||-Nowheelchair accessible.-|||-Due to heightened security measures,you may experience delays in clearing security checks-|||-when entering the museum.-|||-Travellers should have a moderate physical fitness level.-|||-Large bags,backpacks,and suitcases are not permitted in the museum.-|||-Please note that parties of 7 or more people may be split in different groups on the day of-|||-the tour at the meeting point.-|||-Cancellation Policy-|||-For a full refund(退款),cancel at least 24 hours in advance of the start date of the-|||-experience.-|||-21.What is the characteristic of the tour? C-|||-A. wheelchair-friindly. B.There are no security checks.-|||-C.Visitors needn`t wait in long lines. D.Tourists can access the most artworks.-|||-22.Why does the tour set a limit to visitor numbers? D-|||-A.To make sure of social distancing. B.To avoid damage to the museum.-|||-C.To protect the museum`s exhibits D.To ensure visitors a closer experience.-|||-23.What are the visitors advised to do? B-|||-A.Carry small bags or backpacks. B.Book evening tours to save money.-|||-C.Wear comfortable shoes and clothes. D.Gather at the meeting point on time.

Police have ______________to the public to come forward with any information which might help them in their inquiries．( )A. urgedB. claimedC. appealedD. called

A . New words and expressions . Fill in the gaps with words given in the box . Change the form where necessary . average diabetes diet extend gene immune lengthen remain 1 . The lady had stomach trouble and had to follow a strict _. 2 . It s safest to _ a good distance behind in case the car in front suddenly stops. 3 . His mental faculties fall somewhat below the _. 4 . Fruit trees _ out over the farm fences。 5 . _ is a medical condition in which someone has too much sugar in their blood. 6 . She began to walk faster but he _ his stride to keep up with her. 7 . A _ is a part of cell in a living thing that controls what it looks like how it grows and how it develops. 8 . Once we ve had the disease,we're＿for life.