（) 1. Making decisions is an easy process and we are very good at it.

Science has long since had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. Think of Galileo's 17th-century trial for his rebelling belief the Catholic Church or poet William Black's harsh remarks against the mechanistic worldview of Isaac Newton. The schism between science and the humanities has, if anything, deepened in this century.

Until recently, the scientific community was so powerful that it could afford to ignore its critics-but no longer. As funding for science has declined, scientists have attacked 'antiscience' in several books, notably Higher Superstition, by Paul R. Gross, a biologist at the University of Virginia, and Norman Levitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University; and The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan of Cornell University.

Defenders of science have also voiced their concerns at meetings such as "The Flight from Science and Reason", held in New York City in 1995, and "Science in the Age of (Miss) information", which assembled last June near Buffalo.

Antiscience clearly means different things to different people; Gross and Levitt find fault primarily with sociologists, philosophers and other academics who have questioned sciences objectivity. Sagan is more concerned with those who believe in ghosts, creationism and other phenomena that contradict the scientific worldview.

A survey of news stories in 1996 reveals that the antiscience tag has been attached to many other groups as well, from authorities who advocated the elimination of the last remaining stocks of smallpox virus to Republicans who advocated decreased funding for basic research.

Few would dispute that the term applies to the Unabomber, those manifesto, published in 1995, scorns science and longs for return to a pretechnological utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are antiscience, as an essay in US News & World Report last May seemed to suggest.

The environmentalists, inevitably, respond to such critics. The true enemies of science, argues Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a pioneer of environmental studies, are those who question the evidence supporting global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer and other consequences of industrial growth.

Indeed, some observers fear that the antiscience epithet is in danger of becoming meaningless. "The term 'antiscience' can lump together too many, quite different things", notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his 1993 work Science and Anti-Science. "They have in common only one thing that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened."

The word "schism" (Para. 1) in the context probably means______

A．confrontation

B．dissatisfaction

C．separation

D．contempt

Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. Think of Gallileo's 17th century trial for his rebelling belief before the Catholic Church or poet William Blake's harsh remarks against the mechanistic worldview of Isaac Newton. The schism between science and the humanities has, if anything, deepened in this century.

Until recently, the scientific community was so powerful that it could afford to ignore its critics-but no longer. As funding for science has declined, scientists have attacked "antiscience" in several books, notably Higher Superstition, by Paul R. Gross, a biologist at the University of Virginia, and Norman Levitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University; and The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan of Cornell University.

Defenders of science have also voiced their concerns at meetings sucas "The Flight from Science and Reason", held in New York City in 1995, and "Science in the Age of Misinformation", which assembled last June near Buffalo.

Anti-science clearly means different things to different people. Gross and Levitt find fault primarily with sociologists, philosophers and other academics who have questioned science's objectivity. Sagan is more concerned with those who believe in ghosts, creationism and other phenomena that contradict the scientific worldview.

A survey of news stories in 1996 reveals that the anti-science tag has been attached to many other groups as well, from authorities who advocated the elimination of the last remaining stocks of smallpox virus to Republicans who advocated decreased funding for basic research.

Few would dispute that the term applies to the unabomber, whose manifesto, published in 1995, scorns science and longs for return to a pre-technological utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are anti-science, as an essay in US News & World Report last May seemed to suggest.

The environmentalists, inevitably, respond to such critics. The true enemies of science, argues Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a pioneer of environmental studies, are those who question the evidence supporting global warming, the depletion of the zone layer and other consequences of industrial growth.

Indeed, some observers fear that be anti-science epithet is in danger of becoming meaning less. "The term 'anti-science' can lump together too many, quite different things," notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his 1993 work Science and Anti-science. "They have in common only one thing that the tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened."

The word "schism" (Line 3, Paragraph 1) in the context probably means ______.

A．confrontation

B．dissatisfaction

C．separation

D．contempt

Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. Think of Gallileo's 17th-century trial for his rebelling brief before the Catholic Church or poet William Blake's harsh remarks against the mechanistic worldview of Isaac Newton The schism between science and the humanities has, if anything, deepened in this century.

Until recently, the scientific community was so powerful that it could afford to ignore its critics—but no longer. As funding for science has declined, scientists have attacked "antiscience" in several books, notably Higher Superstition, by Paul R. Gross, a biologist at the University of Virginia, and Norman Levitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University; and The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan of Cornell University.

Defenders of science have also voiced their concerns at meetings such as "The Flight from Science and Reason, "held in New York City in 1995, and "Science in the Age of (Mis)information", which assembled last June near Buffalo.

Antiscience clearly means different things to different people. Gross and Levitt find fault primarily with sociologists, philosophers and other academies who have questioned science's objectivity, Sagan is more concerned with those who believe in ghosts, creationism and other phenomena that contradict the scientific worldview,

A survey of news stories in 1996 reveals that the antiscience tag has been attached to many other groups as well, from authorities who advocated the elimination of the last remaining stocks of smallpox virus to Republicans who advocated the creased funding for basic research.

Few would dispute that the term applies to the Unabomber, whose manifesto, published in 1995, scorns science and longs for return to a pre-technological utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are anti-science, as an essay in U.S. News & World Report last May seemed to suggest.

The environmentalists, inevitably, respond to such critics. The true enemies of science, argues Paul Ehrtich of Stan ford University, a pioneer of environmental studies, are those who question the evidence supporting global warning, the depletion of the ozone layer and other consequences of industrial growth.

Indeed, some observers fear that the antiscience epithet is in danger of becoming meaningless. "The term 'antiscience' can lump together too many, quite different things, "notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his 1993 work Science and Anti-Science". They have in common only one thing that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard them-selves as more enlightened".

The word "schism" (Line 3, Paragraph 1) in the context probably means ______.

A．confrontation

B．dissatisfaction

C．separation

D．contempt

听力原文：W: Good morning.

M: Morning, can I help you?

W: Yes, I'd like to join the library. We're new to the district you see.

M: Certainly. Well all we need is some sort of identification with your name and address on it.

W: Oh . We just moved, you see, and everything has my old address.

M: A driving license, perhaps?

W: No, I don't drive.

M: Your husband's would do.

W: Yes, but on his license is still the old address.

M: Perhaps you have a letter addressed to you at your new house?

W: No, I'm afraid not. We've only been there a few days you see and no one's written to us yet.

M: What about your bank book?

W: That's just the same. Oh dear, and 1 did want to get some books out this weekend. We're going on holiday to relax after the move, you see, and I want to take something with me to read.

M: Well, I'm sorry, but we can't possibly issue tickets without some form. of identification. What about your passport?

W: What? Oh yes, how silly of me. I've just got a new one and it does have our new address. I've just been to book our tickets so I have it on me. Just a minute. Here you are.

M: Thank you. Well, that's all right. Now if you'd like to go and choose your books your tickets will be ready for you when you come back to the desk to have them stamped out.

W: Oh, thank you.

(23)

A．Lost his bank book.

B．Missed her home way.

C．Failed to borrow books.

D．Puzzled by regulations.

1. Judas betrays Jesus When Jesus finished speaking all these words, he said to his disciples, “You know that the Passover is two days from now. And the Human One will be handed over to be crucified.” Then the chief priests and elders of the people gathered in the courtyard of Caiaphas the high priest. They were plotting to arrest Jesus by cunning tricks and to kill him. But they agreed that it shouldn’t happen during the feast so there wouldn’t be an uproar among the people. When Jesus was at Bethany visiting the house of Simon, who had a skin disease, a woman came to him with a vase made of alabaster containing very expensive perfume. She poured it on Jesus’ head while he was sitting at dinner. Now when the disciples saw it they were angry. But Jesus knew what they were thinking. He said, “Why do you make trouble for the woman? She’s done a good thing for me. You always have the poor with you, but you won’t always have me. By pouring this perfume over my body she’s prepared me to be buried. I tell you the truth that wherever in the whole world this good news is announced, what she’s done will also be told in memory of her.” Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I turn Jesus over to you?” They paid him thirty pieces of silver. From that time on he was looking for an opportunity to turn him in. 1.What can be inferred from the passage?

A、Judas was innocent and grateful.

B、The chief priests respected Jesus in a sincere way.

C、Jesus was assassinated in Passover.

D、The chief priests were plotting to arrest Jesus by cunning tricks and to kill him.