1、专业英语八级（科学技术类阅读理解）模拟试卷 1及答案与解析 0 It is not often that biologists have a chance to watch natural selection in action. The best-known casesthe evolution of resistance to antibiotics in bacteria and to pesticides in insectsare responses to deliberate changes people have made in the environment of the cr
2、eatures concerned. But mankind has caused lots of accidental changes as well, and these also offer opportunities to study evolution. Recently, two groups of researchers, one at New York University (NYU) and the other at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts, have taken advantage of
3、 one of these changes to look at how fish evolve in response to environmental stress. The stress in question is pollution by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These chemicalswidely used in the middle decades of the 20th century to manufacture electrical insulation, coolants, sealants and plasticiser
4、soften ended up dumped in lakes, rivers and coastal waters. Eventually, such dumping was banned (in America, this happened in 1977). But PCBs are persistent chemicals, and their effects are felt even today. In particular, they disrupt the immune systems of animals such as fish, cause hormonal imbala
5、nces and promote tumours. As is the way of evolution, however, some fish species have developed resistance to PCB poisoning. Isaac Wirgin, at NYU, and Mark Hahn, at Woods Hole, have been studying PCB-re-sistant fish, to see how they do it. After that, the two researchers will be able to look at how
6、these populations evolve yet again as the environment is cleaned up. The species of interest to Dr Wirgin is the Atlantic tomcod of the Hudson river in upstate New York. Part of the Hudson was polluted with PCBs by two General Electric plants. Dr Hahn is looking at a different animal, the killifish,
7、 in New Bedford harbour, Massachusetts, which was polluted by other producers. Both Hudson tomcod and New Bedford killifish are able to tolerate levels of PCB far higher than those that would kill such fish in cleaner waters. The question is, why? PCBs do their damage by binding to a protein called
8、the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, or AHR, thus stopping it working properly. AHR is a transcription factor, meaning that it controls the process by which messenger molecules are copied from genes. These messenger molecules go on to act as the blueprints for protein production, so preventing a transcrip
9、tion factor from working can cause all sorts of problems. Both Hudson tomcod and New Bedford killifish, however, have unusual AHR molecules. And it is this that seems to explain their immunity. A protein is a chain of chemical units called amino acids. In tomcods, AHR is composed of 1,104 such units
10、. Except that in Hudson tomcod it frequently isnt. These fish generally have 1,102 amino acids in their AHRs. The two missing links in the chain (a phenylalanine and a leucine, for aficionados) are encoded in the gene for ordinary tomcod AHR by six genetic “letters“ that are missing from the DNA fou
11、nd in PCB-resistant Hudson tomcod. The shortened version of AHR does not bind nearly so easily to PCBs. It still, however, seems to work as a transcription factor. The result is fish that are more or less immune to PCB poisoning. In the case of the New Bedford killifish the situation is similar, but
12、 more complicated. There are no missing amino acids. Dr Hahn has, however, found nine places along the amino-acid chain of killifish AHR where the link in the chain varies between individuals. Altogether, he has identified 26 such variations. Two of them seem particularly resistant to the effects of
13、 PCBs. It is not that the pollutants do not bind to the proteinthey do. But the protein does not seem to mind. It appears to work equally well, whether or not it has PCB passengers on board. These fishy cases are reminiscent of the peppered moth in Britain. This, too, evolved in response to industri
14、al pollution. It developed black wings, so that it was invisible when it settled on soot-covered tree trunks. Now, with the clean air brought by anti-pollution legislation, British peppered moths are once again peppered. Both the Hudson river and New Bedford harbour are being cleaned up, too. This y
15、ear, for example, General Electric will dredge 1.8m cubic metres (2.4m cubic yards) of PCB-contaminated sediment out of 60km (35 miles) of the Hudson. Dredging will continue over the next few years, after which the river should be PCB-free. It is possible that the tomcod and the killifish will then
16、evolve again, just as the peppered moth did, if their PCB-resistant proteins are not absolutely as good as the original versionswhich they might not be, given that evolution did not find them before. If that happens, Dr Wirgin and Dr Hahn will be watching. From The Economist, October 29, 2011 1 What
17、s the main idea of the passage? （ A） Human-being has made both deliberate and accidental changes to environment. （ B） How fish evolve in response to environmental stress. （ C） The effects of PCBs pollution on the sea environment. （ D） How the PCB-resistant fish evolve in natural courses. 2 Which of
18、the following statements is TRUE? （ A） The killifish are able to resist any other pollutant than PCBs. （ B） The tomcods genes are somewhat abnormal. （ C） The Hudson tomcod misses six genetic letters. （ D） The fish would probably evolve again if the water is cleaned up. 3 According to paragraph 5, wh
19、ich of the following words best describes the function of a “transcription factor“? （ A） preventer （ B） regulator （ C） mediator （ D） repellant 4 Whats the authors intention by bringing the “peppered moth“ up? （ A） To bring back the old memories of environmental protection. （ B） To serve as a contras
20、t to the Hudson river tomcod and New Bedford killifish. （ C） To provide a prospect for the future evolution of the tomcod and the killifish. （ D） To give a very good example of similar cases. 4 Five years ago, Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry, was one of the most acclaimed technology comp
21、anies in the world. The BlackBerry dominated the smartphone market, was a staple of the business world, and had helped make texting a mainstream practice. Terrifically profitable, the phone became a cultural touchstonein 2006, a Websters dictionary made “CrackBerry“ its word of the year. These days,
22、 it seems more like the SlackBerry. Thanks to the iPhone and Android devices, R.I.M.s smartphone market share has plummeted; in the U.S., according to one estimate, it fell from forty-four percent in 2009 to just ten percent last year. The BlackBerrys reputed addictive-ness now looks like a myth; a
23、recent study found that only a third of users planned to stick with it the next time they upgraded. R.I.M.s stock price is down seventy-five percent in the past year, and two weeks ago the company was forced to bring in a new C.E.O. The Times wondered recently whether the BlackBerry will go the way
24、of technological dodoes like the pager. The easy explanation for what happened to R.I.M. is that, like so many other companies, it got run over by Apple. But the real problem is that the technology world changed, and R.I.M. didnt. The BlackBerry was designed for businesses. Its true customers werent
25、 its users but the people who run corporate information-technology departments. The BlackBerry gave them what they wanted most: reliability and security. It was a closed system, running on its own network. The phones settings couldnt easily be tinkered with by ordinary users. So businesses loved it,
26、 and R.I.M.s assumption was that, once companies embraced the technology, consumers would, too. This patternof winning over business and government markets and then reaching consumersis a time-honored one. The telegraph was initially taken up mainly by railroads, financial institutions, and big comp
27、anies. The telephone, though it became popular with consumers relatively quickly, was first used principally as a business tool. The typewriters biggest users were offices. The Internet originated in the military-industrial complex, and first found an audience among academics and scientists. The per
28、sonal computer, though popular with hobbyists early on, came to market dominance only once I.B.M. introduced models targeted squarely at businesses. Historically, new technologies have been very expensivewhen phone service was introduced in New York, it cost the equivalent of two thousand dollars a
29、monthand so early adopters have generally been companies that could make money by using them. In 2006, it looked to R.I.M. as if the story of the smartphone market would echo the story of the telegraph. It didnt. In fact, even as the BlackBerry was at the height of its popularity, we were entering t
30、he age of whats inelegantly called the consumerization of I.T., or simply Bring Your Own Device. In this new era, technological diffusion started to flow the other wayfrom consumers to businesses. Social media went from being an annoying fad to an unavoidable part of the way many businesses work. Ta
31、blets, which many initially thought were just underpowered laptops, soon became common among salesmen, hospital staffs, and retailers. So, too, with the iPhone and Androids. Theyve always been targeted at consumers, and tend to come with stuff that I.T. departments hate, like all those extraneous ap
32、ps. Yet, because employees love them, businesses have adapted. As a result, the iPhone and Androids now control more than half the corporate mobile market. Consumerization has been disastrous for R.I.M., because the company has seemed clueless about what consumers want. R.I.M. didnt bring out a touc
33、h-screen phone until long after Apple, and the device that it eventually launched was a pale imitation of the iPhone. Although the BlackBerry brand name was once seen as a revolutionary success, over time R.I.M.s product line became bewilderingly large, with inscrutable model names. If youre a consu
34、mer, do you want the 8300 or the seemingly identical 8330? And the BlackBerrys closed system has left R.I.M. ill equipped for a world in which phones and tablets are platforms for the whole app ecosystem. The consumerization of I.T. has deep economic and social roots and is unlikely to go away. Tech
35、nological innovation has dramatically lowered the cost of computing, making it possible for large numbers of consumers to own powerful new technologies at reasonably low prices. The workplace is changing, too. The barrier between work and home has been eroded, and if people are going to have to be c
36、onstantly connected they want at least to use their own phones. Companies have quickly come to love consumerization, too: a recent study by the consulting firm Avanade found that executives like the way it keeps workers plugged in all day long. And since workers often end up paying for their own dev
37、ices, it can also help businesses cut costs. One way or another, consumers are going to have more and more say over what technologies businesses adopt. Its a brave new world. Its just not the one that the BlackBerry was built for. From The New Yorker, February 13, 2012 5 Which is the implicit meanin
38、g of the author by elaborating on Blackberry in this article? （ A） The pattern how new technologies take the market place has changed. （ B） We are now living in a consumer-oriented world. （ C） Blackberry is no longer cutting-edge. （ D） Blackberry has been working hard to keep abreast of the latest t
39、rends. 6 Which statement of the following is CORRECT according to the article above? （ A） Technologies, at its starting stage , are always unaffordable for ordinary people. （ B） Tablets were held in contempt at the very beginning. （ C） Business accepted iPhone for the sake of efficiency. （ D） Blackb
40、erry has been taken as a replica of an old-fashioned antique. 7 Whats the authors attitude towards consumerization? （ A） positive （ B） neutral （ C） negative （ D） supportive 8 Among all the following changes the workplace undergoes, which one is NOT true? （ A） raising the possibility of becoming SOHO
41、 （ B） cutting business costs （ C） making employees more conscientious （ D） contacting with the employees more conveniently 8 Since 1992 the Innocence Project, an American legal charity, has used DNA evidence to help exonerate 271 people who were wrongly convicted of crimes, sometimes after they had
42、served dozens of years in prison. But a mystery has emerged from the case reports. Despite being innocent, around a quarter of these people had confessed or pleaded guilty to the offences of which they were accused. It seems hard to imagine that anyone of sound mind would take the blame for somethin
43、g he did not do. But several researchers have found it surprisingly easy to make people fess up to invented misdemeanours. Admittedly these confessions are taking place in a laboratory rather than an interrogation room, so the stakes might not appear that high to the confessor. On the other hand, th
44、e pressures that can be brought to bear in a police station are much stronger than those in a lab. The upshot is that it seems worryingly simple to extract a false confession from someone which he might find hard subsequently to retract. One of the most recent papers on the subject, published in Law
45、 and Human Behavior by Saul Kassin and Jennifer Perillo of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, used a group of 71 university students who were told they were taking part in a test of their reaction times. Participants were asked to press keys on a keyboard as they were read aloud b
46、y another person, who was secretly in cahoots with the experimenter. The volunteers were informed that the ALT key was faulty, and that if it was pressed the computer would crash and all the experimental data would be lost. The experimenter watched the proceedings from across the table. In fact, the
47、 computer was set up to crash regardless, about a minute into the test. When this happened the experimenter asked each participant if he had pressed the illicit key, acted as if he was upset when it was “discovered“ that the data had disappeared, and requested that the participant sign a confession.
48、 Only one person actually did hit the ALT key by mistake, but a quarter of the innocent participants were so disarmed by the shock of the accusation that they confessed to something they had not done. Robert Horselenberg and his colleagues at Maastricht University, in the Netherlands, have come up w
49、ith similar results. In an as-yet-unpublished study, members of Dr. Horselenbergs group told 83 people that they were taking part in a taste test for a supermarket chain. The top taster would win a prize such as an iPad or a set of DVDs. The volunteers were asked to try ten cans of fizzy drink and guess which was which. The labels were obscured by socks pulled up to the rim of each can, so to cheat a volunteer had only to lower the sock. During the test, which was filmed by a hidden camera, ten participants actually did cheat. Bafflingly, though, a
