内容发布更新时间 : 2024/11/14 11:09:47星期一 下面是文章的全部内容请认真阅读。

. .

[A] make a few decisions for themselves

[B] deal with some errors with human intervention [C] improve factory environments [D] cultivate human creativity

50. The author uses the example of a monkey to argue that robots are ________.

[A] expected to copy human brain in internal structure [B] able to perceive abnormalities immediately

[C] far less able than human brain in focusing on relevant information [D] best used in a controlled environment

Text 3

Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return? Since OPEC agreed to supply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near-tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock, when prices quadrupled, and 1979-80, when they also almost tripled. Both previous shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time?

The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short term.

Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a

word版本

. .

smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.

Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25-0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies -- to which heavy industry has shifted -- have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed.

One more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

51. The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is ________.

[A] global inflation [B] reduction in supply

word版本

. .

[C] fast growth in economy [D] Iraq’s suspension of exports

52. It can be inferred from the text that the retail price of petrol will go up dramatically if

________.

[A] price of crude rises [B] commodity prices rise [C] consumption rises [D] oil taxes rise

53. The estimates in Economic Outlook show that in rich countries ________.

[A] heavy industry becomes more energy-intensive

[B] income loss mainly results from fluctuating crude oil prices [C] manufacturing industry has been seriously squeezed [D] oil price changes have no significant impact on GDP

54. We can draw a conclusion from the text that ________.

[A] oil-price shocks are less shocking now [B] inflation seems irrelevant to oil-price shocks [C] energy conservation can keep down the oil prices

[D] the price rise of crude leads to the shrinking of heavy industry

55. From the text we can see that the writer seems ________.

word版本

. .

[A] optimistic [B] sensitive [C] gloomy [D] scared

Text 4

The Supreme Court’s decisions on physician-assisted suicide carry important implications for how medicine seeks to relieve dying patients of pain and suffering.

Although it ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, the Court in effect supported the medical principle of “double effect,” a centuries-old moral principle holding that an action having two effects -- a good one that is intended and a harmful one that is foreseen -- is permissible if the actor intends only the good effect.

Doctors have used that principle in recent years to justify using high doses of morphine to control terminally ill patients’ pain, even though increasing dosages will eventually kill the patient.

Nancy Dubler, director of Montefiore Medical Center, contends that the principle will shield doctors who “until now have very, very strongly insisted that they could not give patients sufficient mediation to control their pain if that might hasten death.”

George Annas, chair of the health law department at Boston University, maintains that, as long as a doctor prescribes a drug for a legitimate medical purpose, the doctor has done nothing illegal even if the patient uses the drug to hasten death. “It’s like

word版本