评论
打印
Passage Three
Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.
It is a curious paradox that we think of the physical sciences as “hard”, the social sciences as “soft”, and the biological sciences as somewhere in between. This is interpreted to mean that our knowledge of physical systems is more certain than our knowledge of biological systems, and these in turn are more certain than our knowledge of social systems. In terms of our capacity to sample the relevant universes, however, and the probability that our images of these universes are at least approximately correct, one suspects that a reverse order is more reasonable. We are able to sample earth’s social systems with some degree of confidence that we have a reasonable sample of the total universe being investigated. Our knowledge of social systems, therefore, while it is in many ways extremely inaccurate, is not likely to be seriously overturned by new discoveries. Even the folk knowledge in social systems on which ordinary life is based in earning, spending, organizing, marrying, taking part in political activities, fighting and so on, is not very dissimilar from the more sophisticated images of the social system derived from the social sciences, even though it is built upon the very imperfect samples of personal experience.
In contrast, our image of the astronomical universe, of even of earth’s geological history, can easily be subject to revolutionary changes as new data comes in and new theories are worked out. If we define the “security” our image of various parts of the total system as the probability of their suffering significant changes, then we would reverse the order of hardness and see the social sciences as the most secure, the physical sciences as the least secure, and again the biological sciences as somewhere in between. Our image of the astronomical universe is the least secure of all simply because we observe such a fantastically small sample of it and its record-keeping is trivial as compared with the rich records of the social systems, or even the limited records of biological systems. Records of the astronomical universe, despite the fact that we see distant things as they were long ago, are limited in the extreme.
Even in regard to such a close neighbour as the moon, which we have actually visited, theories about its origin and history are extremely different, contradictory, and hard to choose among. Our knowledge of physical evolution is incomplete and highly insecure.
31. The word “paradox” (Para. 1, Line 1) means “________”.
A) implication
B) contradiction
C) interpretation
D) confusion
32. According to the author, we should reverse our classification of the physical sciences as “hard” and the social sciences as “soft” because ________.
A) a reverse ordering will help promote the development of the physical sciences
B) our knowledge of physical systems is more reliable than that of social systems
C) our understanding of the social systems is approximately correct
D) we are better able to investigate social phenomena than physical phenomena
33. The author believes that our knowledge of social systems is more secure than that of physical systems because ________.
A) it is not based on personal experience
B) new discoveries are less likely to occur in social sciences
C) it is based on a fairly representative quantity of data
D) the records of social systems are more reliable
34. The chances of the physical sciences being subject to great changes are the biggest because ________.
A) contradictory theories keep emerging all the time
B) new information is constantly coming in
C) the direction of their development is difficult to predict
D) our knowledge of the physical world is inaccurate
35. We know less about the astronomical universe than we do about any social system because ________.
A) theories of its origin and history are varied
B) our knowledge of it is highly insecure
C) only a very small sample of it has been observed
D) few scientists are involved in the study of astronomy
Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following.
In the early days of nuclear power, the United States made money on it. But today opponents have so complicated its development that no nuclear plants have been ordered or built here in 12 years.
The greatest fear of nuclear power opponents has always been a reactor “meltdown” (堆内熔化). Today, the chances of a meltdown that would threaten U.S. public health are very little. But to even further reduce the possibility, engineers are testing new reactors that rely not on human judgement to shut them down but on the laws of nature. Now General Electric is already building two advanced reactors in Japan. But don’t expect them ever on U.S. shores unless things change in Washington.
The procedure for licensing nuclear power plants is a bad dream. Any time during, or even after, construction, an objection by any group or individual can bring everything to a halt while the matter is investigated or taken to court. Meanwhile, the builder must add nice-but-not-necessary improvements, some of which force him to knock down walls and start over. In every case where a plant has been opposed, the Nuclear Regulation Commission has ultimately granted a license to construct or operate. But the victory often costs so much that the utility ends up abandoning the plant anyway.
A case in point is the Shoreham plant on New York’s Long Island. Shoreham was a virtual twin to the Millstone plant in Connecticut, both ordered in the mid-’60s. Millstone, completed for $101 million, has been generating electricity for two decades. Shoreham, however, was singled out by anti-nuclear activists who, by sending in endless protests, drove the cost over $5 billion and delayed its use for many years.
Shoreham finally won its operation license. But the plant has never produced a watt of power. Governor Mario Cuomo, an opponent of a Shoreham start-up, used his power to force New York’s public-utilities commission to accept the following settlement; the power company could pass the cost of Shoreham along to its consumers only if it agreed not to operate the plant! Today, a perfectly good facility, capable of servicing hundreds of homes, sits rusting.
36. What has made the procedure for licensing nuclear power plants a bad dream?
A) The inefficiency of the Nuclear Regulation commission.
B) The enormous cost of construction and operation.
C) The length of time it takes to make investigations.
D) The objection of the opponents of nuclear power.
37. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that ________.
A) it is not technical difficulties that prevent the building of nuclear power plants in the U.S.
B) there are not enough safety measures in the U.S. for running new nuclear power plants
C) there are already more nuclear power plants than necessary in the U.S.
D) the American government will not allow Japanese nuclear reactors to be installed in the U.S.
38. Any objection, however trivial it may be, can ________.
A) force the power companies to cancel the project
B) delay the construction or operation of a nuclear plant
C) cause a serious debate within the Nuclear Regulation Commission
D) take the builders to court
39. Governor Mario’s chief intention in proposing the settlement was to ________.
A) stop the Shoreham plant from going into operation
B) help the power company to solve its financial problems
C) urge the power company to further increase its power supply
D) permit the Shoreham plant to operate under certain conditions
40. The author’s attitude towards the development of nuclear power is ________.
A) negative
B) neutral
C) positive
D) questioning
