内容发布更新时间 : 2024/9/24 13:25:11星期一 下面是文章的全部内容请认真阅读。

。

Passage One Questions 56 to 60 are based on the following passage. Texting has long been bemoaned (哀叹）as the downfall of the written word,””penmanship for illiter,”as one critic called it. To which the proper response is LOL.

Texting properly isn′t writing at all. It′s a “spoken” language that is getting richer and more complex by the year.

First,some historical perspective. Writing was only invented 5,500 years ago. whereas Ianguage probably traces back at least 80.000 years. Thus talking came first; writing is just a craft that came along later. As such, the first writing was based on the way people talk，with short sentences.

However, while talking is largely subconscious and rapid, writing is deliberate and slow, Over time,writers took advantage of this and started cratting long-winded sentences such as this one:The whole engagement lasted above 12 hours, till the gradual retreat of the Per trsians was changed into a disorderly flight, of which the shameful example was given by the principal leaders and……”

No one talks like that casually — or should. But it is natural to desire to do so for special occasions. In the old days, we didn’t much write like talking because there was no mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. But texting and instant messaging do — and a revolution has begun. It involves the crude mechanics of writing, but in its economy, spontaneity and even vulgaritv. texting is actually a new kind of talking, with its own kind of grammar and conventions.

Take LOL. It doesn’t actually mean “laughing out loud” in a literal sense anymore. LOL has evolved into something much subtler and sophisticated and is used even when nothing is remotely amusing. Jocelyn texts “Where have you been?” and Annabelle texts back ，LOL at the library studying for two hours.” LOL signals basic empath)’（同感)between tcxters. easing tension and creating a sense of equality. Instead of having a literal meaning, it docs something - conveying an attitude — just like the -cd ending conveys past tense rather than “meaning.，anything. LOL. of all things, is grammar.

Of course no one thinks about that consciously. But then most of communication operates without being noticed. Over time, the meaning of

。

a word or an expression drifts meat used to mean any kind of food, silly used to mean, believe it or not，blessed.

Civilization, then，is fine 一 people banging away on their smartphones are fluently using a code separate from the one they use in actual writing, and there is no evidence that texting is ruining composition skills. Worldwide people speak differently from the w ay they write, and texting -quick, casual and only intended to be read once — is actually a way of talking with your fingers. 56. What do critics say about texting? A) It is mainly confined to youngsters B) It competes with traditional writing. C) It will ruin the wnttcn language. D) It is often hard to understand.

57. In what way does the author say writing is different from talking? A) It is crafted with specific skills. C) It does not have as long a history. B) It expresses ideas more accuratcly. D) It is not as easy to comprehend. 58. Why is LOL much used in tcxting? A) It brings textcrs closer to each other. B) It shows the tcxtcr's sophistication. C) It is a trendy way to communicate D) It adds to the humor of the text

59. Examples like meat and silly are cited to show A) the difTerencc between writing and talking B) how difTercntly words are used in tcxting C) why people use the words the way they do D) the gradual change of word meaning 60.what does the author think of texting? A)It facilitates exchange of ideas among people. B)It is a new form of verbal communication. C)It deteriorates pelple's composition skills. D)It hastens the decline of the written word.

。

Passage Two Questions 61to 65are based on the following passage. it's possible to admire oprah winfrey and still wish Harvard hadn't awarded her an honorary doctor of law degree and the commencement(毕业典礼)speaker spot at yesterday's graduation.There's no question Oprah's achievements place her in the temple of American success stories. Talent,charm,and an exceptional work ethic have rarely hurled anyone of world's most successful entertainment icons and the first African-American female billionaire.

Honorary degrees are often conferred on non-academic leaders in the arts,business,and politics.Harvard's list in recent years has included Kofi fi Annan,Bill Gates,Meryl Streep,and David Souter.But Oprah's list in recent years has included Kofi Annan,Bill Gates,Mery1 Streep,and david souter.But Oprah's particular brand of celebrity is not a good fit for the values of a university whose motto（座右铭）,Veritas,means truth.Oprah's passionate advocacy extends,unfortunately,to a hearty embrace of fake science.Most notoriously,Oprah's validation of jenny McCarthy's claim that vaccines cause autism(自闭症)has no doubt contributed to much harm through the foolish avoidance of vaccines. Famous people arc entitled to a few failings, like the rest of us. and the choice of commencement speakers often reflects a balance of insututional pnonties and aspirations. Judging from our conversations with many students. Oprah was a widely popular choice.

But this vote of confidence in Oprah sends a troubling message at precisely the time when American univereities need to do more to advance the cause of reason. As former Dean of Harvard College. Harry Lewis, noted in a blog post about his objections. “It seems vcrv odd for Harvard to honor such a high profile popularizer of the irrational…… at a time when political and religious nonsense so jeopardize the rule of reason in this allegedly enlightened democracy and around the world.”

As America′s oldest and most visible university. Harvard has a spccial opportunity to convey its respcct for science not only through its research and teaching programs but also in its public affirmation of evidence-based inquiry.

Unfortunately，many American universities seem awfully busy protecting their brand name and not nearly busy enough protecting the pursuit of knowledge. A recent article in The Harvard Crimson noted the shocking growth of Harvard′s public relations arm in the last five years