英语 热门试卷

—Sorry, mom. I didn’t make it to the top 5 in this test.

—______ dear. I know you’ve tried your best.

When interviewed, the family members of the victims said that they didn’t know what ______ without their loved ones.

As a green hand, he doesn’t know______ it takes to start a business here.

第一节  单项填空（共10小题；每小题1分，满分10分）

    从A, B, C, D四个选项中，选出可以填入空白处的最佳选项。

—Oh, must you leave? Having dinner with you was such ______ fun.

—Thanks all the same, but I have to make ______ early start tomorrow morning.

It’s really difficult to ______ what he is trying to express.

This camera is of good quality. If it ______ break down within the first year, we would replace it with a new one.

He is looking for a job, ______ where he can make the most of his talent.

—What a mistake!

—Yes. I ______ he do it in another way, but without success.

With a special train ticket, you can travel______ you’d like to go in England for just over 100 pounds.

To his surprise, Jack found his son ______ as Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.

                                A

        Mattel Inc. isrecalling 4.4 million Polly Pocket toys with magnets（磁铁）after someof them caused serious injuries to children who swallowed magnets that felloff.

        Tiny magnets insidethe toys may fall off without being noticed by parents and babysitters. Themagnets can be swallowed or placed in children’s noses or ears. When more than onemagnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestineperforation（肠内穿孔）which can be deadly.

        The Consumer ProductSafety Commission（CPSC）received 170reports of the small magnets coming out of these recalled toys. There werethree reports of serious injuries to children who swallowed more than onemagnet. All three suffered intestinal perforations that required operation. A2-year-old child stayed in hospital for seven days and a 7-year-old child washospitalized for 12 days. An 8-yeal-old child was also hospitalized.

        The recalled PollyPocket toys contain plastic dolls and accessories（附件）that havesmall magnets. The magnets measure one-eighth inch in diameter and are fixed inthe hands and feet of some dolls, and even in the plastic clothing, hairpiecesand other accessories to help the pieces stay on the doll or the doll’s house.

        The model number is printed on the bottom of the largestpieces on some of the toys. Contact Mattel if you cannot find a model number onyour product to determine if it is part of the recall. Polly Pocket magnetictoys currently sold in stores are not included in this recall. The modelnumbers included in the recall are: B2632, B3158, B3201, B7118, G8605, H1537,H1538 and H3211. The toys were on sales in department stores and toy storesfrom May 2006 through September 2009 for between $15 and $30.

        Consumers should immediately take these recalled toys awayfrom children and contact Mattel for the return of the toys. For moreinformation contact Mattel at 888 597-6597 anytime or visit the company’s Web site.

All of the following points are covered in the story EXCEPT       .

                                B

        For many parents,raising a teenager is like fighting a long war, but years go by without anyclear winner. Like a border conflict between neighboring countries, theparent-teen war is about boundaries: Where is the line between what I controland what you do?

        Both sides want peace, but neither feels it has any powerto stop the conflict. In part, this is because neither is willing to admit anyresponsibility for starting it. From the parents’ point of view, the only cause of theirfight is their adolescents’ complete unreasonableness.And of course, the teens see it in exactly the same way, except oppositely.Both feel trapped.

        In this article, I’ll describe three no-win situations thatcommonly arise between teens and parents and then suggest some ways out of thetrap. The first no-win situation is quarrels over unimportant things. Examples includethe color of the teen’s hair, the cleanliness of thebedroom, the preferred style of clothing, the child’sfailure to eat a good breakfast before school or his tendency to sleep until noonon the weekends. Second, blaming. The goal of a blaming battle is to make theother admit that his bad attitude is the reason why everything goes wrong.Third, needing to be right. It doesn’t matter what thetopic is—politics, the laws of physics, or the properway to break an egg—he point of these arguments is to prove that you are right and the otherperson is wrong, for both wish to be considered an authority—someone who actually knows something—andtherefore to command respect. Unfortunately, as long as parents and teenscontinue to assume that they know more than the other, they’ll continue to fight these battles forever and never make any realprogress.

Why does the author compare the parent-teen war to a border conflict?

                                B

        For many parents,raising a teenager is like fighting a long war, but years go by without anyclear winner. Like a border conflict between neighboring countries, theparent-teen war is about boundaries: Where is the line between what I controland what you do?

        Both sides want peace, but neither feels it has any powerto stop the conflict. In part, this is because neither is willing to admit anyresponsibility for starting it. From the parents’ point of view, the only cause of theirfight is their adolescents’ complete unreasonableness.And of course, the teens see it in exactly the same way, except oppositely.Both feel trapped.

        In this article, I’ll describe three no-win situations thatcommonly arise between teens and parents and then suggest some ways out of thetrap. The first no-win situation is quarrels over unimportant things. Examples includethe color of the teen’s hair, the cleanliness of thebedroom, the preferred style of clothing, the child’sfailure to eat a good breakfast before school or his tendency to sleep until noonon the weekends. Second, blaming. The goal of a blaming battle is to make theother admit that his bad attitude is the reason why everything goes wrong.Third, needing to be right. It doesn’t matter what thetopic is—politics, the laws of physics, or the properway to break an egg—he point of these arguments is to prove that you are right and the otherperson is wrong, for both wish to be considered an authority—someone who actually knows something—andtherefore to command respect. Unfortunately, as long as parents and teenscontinue to assume that they know more than the other, they’ll continue to fight these battles forever and never make any realprogress.

Parents and teens want to be right because they want to ______.

                                B

        For many parents,raising a teenager is like fighting a long war, but years go by without anyclear winner. Like a border conflict between neighboring countries, theparent-teen war is about boundaries: Where is the line between what I controland what you do?

        Both sides want peace, but neither feels it has any powerto stop the conflict. In part, this is because neither is willing to admit anyresponsibility for starting it. From the parents’ point of view, the only cause of theirfight is their adolescents’ complete unreasonableness.And of course, the teens see it in exactly the same way, except oppositely.Both feel trapped.

        In this article, I’ll describe three no-win situations thatcommonly arise between teens and parents and then suggest some ways out of thetrap. The first no-win situation is quarrels over unimportant things. Examples includethe color of the teen’s hair, the cleanliness of thebedroom, the preferred style of clothing, the child’sfailure to eat a good breakfast before school or his tendency to sleep until noonon the weekends. Second, blaming. The goal of a blaming battle is to make theother admit that his bad attitude is the reason why everything goes wrong.Third, needing to be right. It doesn’t matter what thetopic is—politics, the laws of physics, or the properway to break an egg—he point of these arguments is to prove that you are right and the otherperson is wrong, for both wish to be considered an authority—someone who actually knows something—andtherefore to command respect. Unfortunately, as long as parents and teenscontinue to assume that they know more than the other, they’ll continue to fight these battles forever and never make any realprogress.

What will the author most probably discuss in the paragraph that follows?

                                C

        A new study has foundno evidence that sunscreen, commonly used to reduce the risk of skin cancer,actually increases the risk.

        Researchers from theUniversity of Iowa based their findings on a review of 18 earlier studies thatlooked at the association between sunscreen use and melanoma(黑素瘤). They said that theyfound flaws in studies that had reported associations between sunscreenuse and higher risk of melanoma.

        Most health expertsbelieve that by protecting the skin from the harmful effects of the sun,sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer, which is increasing in incidence(发生率)faster than any othercancer in the United States.

        But questions havebeen raised about sunscreen and whether it may have the opposite effect,perhaps by allowing people to remain exposed to the sun longer without burning.

        The researchers saidthat among the problems with some earlier studies is that they often failed totake into account that those people most at risk for skin cancer—people withfair skin and freckles(雀斑), for example—are more likely to use sunscreen. As a result,it may appear that sunscreen users get cancer more often.

        The studies, whichgenerally relied on volunteers to recall their sunscreen use, were also unableto prove how well the products had been applied, said the new study.

The underlined word “flaws” in the 2nd paragraph most probably means      .

第一节  阅读下面短文, 从每题所给的四个选项(A, B, C 和D)中, 选出最佳选项。 （共20小题；每小题2分，满分40分）

                                A

        Mattel Inc. isrecalling 4.4 million Polly Pocket toys with magnets（磁铁）after someof them caused serious injuries to children who swallowed magnets that felloff.

        Tiny magnets insidethe toys may fall off without being noticed by parents and babysitters. Themagnets can be swallowed or placed in children’s noses or ears. When more than onemagnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestineperforation（肠内穿孔）which can be deadly.

        The Consumer ProductSafety Commission（CPSC）received 170reports of the small magnets coming out of these recalled toys. There werethree reports of serious injuries to children who swallowed more than onemagnet. All three suffered intestinal perforations that required operation. A2-year-old child stayed in hospital for seven days and a 7-year-old child washospitalized for 12 days. An 8-yeal-old child was also hospitalized.

        The recalled PollyPocket toys contain plastic dolls and accessories（附件）that havesmall magnets. The magnets measure one-eighth inch in diameter and are fixed inthe hands and feet of some dolls, and even in the plastic clothing, hairpiecesand other accessories to help the pieces stay on the doll or the doll’s house.

        The model number is printed on the bottom of the largestpieces on some of the toys. Contact Mattel if you cannot find a model number onyour product to determine if it is part of the recall. Polly Pocket magnetictoys currently sold in stores are not included in this recall. The modelnumbers included in the recall are: B2632, B3158, B3201, B7118, G8605, H1537,H1538 and H3211. The toys were on sales in department stores and toy storesfrom May 2006 through September 2009 for between $15 and $30.

        Consumers should immediately take these recalled toys awayfrom children and contact Mattel for the return of the toys. For moreinformation contact Mattel at 888 597-6597 anytime or visit the company’s Web site.

The main purpose of the passage is      .

                                A

        Mattel Inc. isrecalling 4.4 million Polly Pocket toys with magnets（磁铁）after someof them caused serious injuries to children who swallowed magnets that felloff.

        Tiny magnets insidethe toys may fall off without being noticed by parents and babysitters. Themagnets can be swallowed or placed in children’s noses or ears. When more than onemagnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestineperforation（肠内穿孔）which can be deadly.

        The Consumer ProductSafety Commission（CPSC）received 170reports of the small magnets coming out of these recalled toys. There werethree reports of serious injuries to children who swallowed more than onemagnet. All three suffered intestinal perforations that required operation. A2-year-old child stayed in hospital for seven days and a 7-year-old child washospitalized for 12 days. An 8-yeal-old child was also hospitalized.

        The recalled PollyPocket toys contain plastic dolls and accessories（附件）that havesmall magnets. The magnets measure one-eighth inch in diameter and are fixed inthe hands and feet of some dolls, and even in the plastic clothing, hairpiecesand other accessories to help the pieces stay on the doll or the doll’s house.

        The model number is printed on the bottom of the largestpieces on some of the toys. Contact Mattel if you cannot find a model number onyour product to determine if it is part of the recall. Polly Pocket magnetictoys currently sold in stores are not included in this recall. The modelnumbers included in the recall are: B2632, B3158, B3201, B7118, G8605, H1537,H1538 and H3211. The toys were on sales in department stores and toy storesfrom May 2006 through September 2009 for between $15 and $30.

        Consumers should immediately take these recalled toys awayfrom children and contact Mattel for the return of the toys. For moreinformation contact Mattel at 888 597-6597 anytime or visit the company’s Web site.

What did the writer use to show the danger of the problem toys?

a. figures         

b. quotes（引言）  

c. serious cases  

d. description of possible injuries        

e. description of operation scenes

                                A

        Mattel Inc. isrecalling 4.4 million Polly Pocket toys with magnets（磁铁）after someof them caused serious injuries to children who swallowed magnets that felloff.

        Tiny magnets insidethe toys may fall off without being noticed by parents and babysitters. Themagnets can be swallowed or placed in children’s noses or ears. When more than onemagnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestineperforation（肠内穿孔）which can be deadly.

        The Consumer ProductSafety Commission（CPSC）received 170reports of the small magnets coming out of these recalled toys. There werethree reports of serious injuries to children who swallowed more than onemagnet. All three suffered intestinal perforations that required operation. A2-year-old child stayed in hospital for seven days and a 7-year-old child washospitalized for 12 days. An 8-yeal-old child was also hospitalized.

        The recalled PollyPocket toys contain plastic dolls and accessories（附件）that havesmall magnets. The magnets measure one-eighth inch in diameter and are fixed inthe hands and feet of some dolls, and even in the plastic clothing, hairpiecesand other accessories to help the pieces stay on the doll or the doll’s house.

        The model number is printed on the bottom of the largestpieces on some of the toys. Contact Mattel if you cannot find a model number onyour product to determine if it is part of the recall. Polly Pocket magnetictoys currently sold in stores are not included in this recall. The modelnumbers included in the recall are: B2632, B3158, B3201, B7118, G8605, H1537,H1538 and H3211. The toys were on sales in department stores and toy storesfrom May 2006 through September 2009 for between $15 and $30.

        Consumers should immediately take these recalled toys awayfrom children and contact Mattel for the return of the toys. For moreinformation contact Mattel at 888 597-6597 anytime or visit the company’s Web site.

The word “recalling” in the first paragraph can be best explained as       .

                                B

        For many parents,raising a teenager is like fighting a long war, but years go by without anyclear winner. Like a border conflict between neighboring countries, theparent-teen war is about boundaries: Where is the line between what I controland what you do?

        Both sides want peace, but neither feels it has any powerto stop the conflict. In part, this is because neither is willing to admit anyresponsibility for starting it. From the parents’ point of view, the only cause of theirfight is their adolescents’ complete unreasonableness.And of course, the teens see it in exactly the same way, except oppositely.Both feel trapped.

        In this article, I’ll describe three no-win situations thatcommonly arise between teens and parents and then suggest some ways out of thetrap. The first no-win situation is quarrels over unimportant things. Examples includethe color of the teen’s hair, the cleanliness of thebedroom, the preferred style of clothing, the child’sfailure to eat a good breakfast before school or his tendency to sleep until noonon the weekends. Second, blaming. The goal of a blaming battle is to make theother admit that his bad attitude is the reason why everything goes wrong.Third, needing to be right. It doesn’t matter what thetopic is—politics, the laws of physics, or the properway to break an egg—he point of these arguments is to prove that you are right and the otherperson is wrong, for both wish to be considered an authority—someone who actually knows something—andtherefore to command respect. Unfortunately, as long as parents and teenscontinue to assume that they know more than the other, they’ll continue to fight these battles forever and never make any realprogress.

What does the underlined part in Paragraph 2 mean?

                                C

        A new study has foundno evidence that sunscreen, commonly used to reduce the risk of skin cancer,actually increases the risk.

        Researchers from theUniversity of Iowa based their findings on a review of 18 earlier studies thatlooked at the association between sunscreen use and melanoma(黑素瘤). They said that theyfound flaws in studies that had reported associations between sunscreenuse and higher risk of melanoma.

        Most health expertsbelieve that by protecting the skin from the harmful effects of the sun,sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer, which is increasing in incidence(发生率)faster than any othercancer in the United States.

        But questions havebeen raised about sunscreen and whether it may have the opposite effect,perhaps by allowing people to remain exposed to the sun longer without burning.

        The researchers saidthat among the problems with some earlier studies is that they often failed totake into account that those people most at risk for skin cancer—people withfair skin and freckles(雀斑), for example—are more likely to use sunscreen. As a result,it may appear that sunscreen users get cancer more often.

        The studies, whichgenerally relied on volunteers to recall their sunscreen use, were also unableto prove how well the products had been applied, said the new study.

People with fair skin and freckles        .

                                C

        A new study has foundno evidence that sunscreen, commonly used to reduce the risk of skin cancer,actually increases the risk.

        Researchers from theUniversity of Iowa based their findings on a review of 18 earlier studies thatlooked at the association between sunscreen use and melanoma(黑素瘤). They said that theyfound flaws in studies that had reported associations between sunscreenuse and higher risk of melanoma.

        Most health expertsbelieve that by protecting the skin from the harmful effects of the sun,sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer, which is increasing in incidence(发生率)faster than any othercancer in the United States.

        But questions havebeen raised about sunscreen and whether it may have the opposite effect,perhaps by allowing people to remain exposed to the sun longer without burning.

        The researchers saidthat among the problems with some earlier studies is that they often failed totake into account that those people most at risk for skin cancer—people withfair skin and freckles(雀斑), for example—are more likely to use sunscreen. As a result,it may appear that sunscreen users get cancer more often.

        The studies, whichgenerally relied on volunteers to recall their sunscreen use, were also unableto prove how well the products had been applied, said the new study.

We can learn from the passage that        .

                                C

        A new study has foundno evidence that sunscreen, commonly used to reduce the risk of skin cancer,actually increases the risk.

        Researchers from theUniversity of Iowa based their findings on a review of 18 earlier studies thatlooked at the association between sunscreen use and melanoma(黑素瘤). They said that theyfound flaws in studies that had reported associations between sunscreenuse and higher risk of melanoma.

        Most health expertsbelieve that by protecting the skin from the harmful effects of the sun,sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer, which is increasing in incidence(发生率)faster than any othercancer in the United States.

        But questions havebeen raised about sunscreen and whether it may have the opposite effect,perhaps by allowing people to remain exposed to the sun longer without burning.

        The researchers saidthat among the problems with some earlier studies is that they often failed totake into account that those people most at risk for skin cancer—people withfair skin and freckles(雀斑), for example—are more likely to use sunscreen. As a result,it may appear that sunscreen users get cancer more often.

        The studies, whichgenerally relied on volunteers to recall their sunscreen use, were also unableto prove how well the products had been applied, said the new study.

Which of the following can be the best title for this passage?

                                D

        Celebrity(名人) has become one of the most important representatives ofpopular culture. Fans used to be crazy about a specific film, but now thepublic tends to base its consumption(消费) on the interest of celebrity attached to any given product.Besides, fashion magazines have almost abandoned the practice of putting modelson the cover because they don’t sell nearly as well as famous faces. As aresult, celebrities have realized their unbelievably powerful market potential,moving from advertising for others’ products todeveloping their own.

        Celebrity clothinglines aren’t a completely new phenomenon, but in the pastthey were typically aimed at the ordinary consumers, and limited to a few TVactresses. Today they’re started by first-class starswhose products enjoy equal fame with some world top brands. The most successfulstart-ups have been those by celebrities with specific personal style. Ascelebrities become more and more experienced at the market, they expand theirproduction scale rapidly, covering almost all the products of daily life.

        However, for everysuccess story, there’s a related warning tale of a celebrity whoovervalued his consumer appeal. No matter how famous the product’s origin is, if it fails to impress consumers with its ownqualities, it begins to resemble an exercise in self-promotional marketing. Andonce the initial(最初的) attention diesdown, consumer interest might fade, loyalty(忠诚) returning to tried-and-true labels.

        Today, celebritiesface even more severe embarrassment. The pop-cultural circle might be biggerthan ever, but its rate of turnover has speeded up as well. Each misstepthreatens to reduce a celebrity’s shelf life, and the samenewspaper or magazine that once brought him fame has no problem picking him topieces when the opportunity appears. Still, the ego’s(自我的) potential for expansion is limitless. Having alreadyachieved great wealth and public recognition, many celebrities see fashion asthe next frontier to be conquered. As the saying goes, success and failurealways go hand in hand. Their success as designers might last only a shorttime, but fashion—like celebrity—hasalways been temporary.

Fashion magazines today       .

                                D

        Celebrity(名人) has become one of the most important representatives ofpopular culture. Fans used to be crazy about a specific film, but now thepublic tends to base its consumption(消费) on the interest of celebrity attached to any given product.Besides, fashion magazines have almost abandoned the practice of putting modelson the cover because they don’t sell nearly as well as famous faces. As aresult, celebrities have realized their unbelievably powerful market potential,moving from advertising for others’ products todeveloping their own.

        Celebrity clothinglines aren’t a completely new phenomenon, but in the pastthey were typically aimed at the ordinary consumers, and limited to a few TVactresses. Today they’re started by first-class starswhose products enjoy equal fame with some world top brands. The most successfulstart-ups have been those by celebrities with specific personal style. Ascelebrities become more and more experienced at the market, they expand theirproduction scale rapidly, covering almost all the products of daily life.

        However, for everysuccess story, there’s a related warning tale of a celebrity whoovervalued his consumer appeal. No matter how famous the product’s origin is, if it fails to impress consumers with its ownqualities, it begins to resemble an exercise in self-promotional marketing. Andonce the initial(最初的) attention diesdown, consumer interest might fade, loyalty(忠诚) returning to tried-and-true labels.

        Today, celebritiesface even more severe embarrassment. The pop-cultural circle might be biggerthan ever, but its rate of turnover has speeded up as well. Each misstepthreatens to reduce a celebrity’s shelf life, and the samenewspaper or magazine that once brought him fame has no problem picking him topieces when the opportunity appears. Still, the ego’s(自我的) potential for expansion is limitless. Having alreadyachieved great wealth and public recognition, many celebrities see fashion asthe next frontier to be conquered. As the saying goes, success and failurealways go hand in hand. Their success as designers might last only a shorttime, but fashion—like celebrity—hasalways been temporary.

A change in the consumer market can be found today that       .

                                D

        Celebrity(名人) has become one of the most important representatives ofpopular culture. Fans used to be crazy about a specific film, but now thepublic tends to base its consumption(消费) on the interest of celebrity attached to any given product.Besides, fashion magazines have almost abandoned the practice of putting modelson the cover because they don’t sell nearly as well as famous faces. As aresult, celebrities have realized their unbelievably powerful market potential,moving from advertising for others’ products todeveloping their own.

        Celebrity clothinglines aren’t a completely new phenomenon, but in the pastthey were typically aimed at the ordinary consumers, and limited to a few TVactresses. Today they’re started by first-class starswhose products enjoy equal fame with some world top brands. The most successfulstart-ups have been those by celebrities with specific personal style. Ascelebrities become more and more experienced at the market, they expand theirproduction scale rapidly, covering almost all the products of daily life.

        However, for everysuccess story, there’s a related warning tale of a celebrity whoovervalued his consumer appeal. No matter how famous the product’s origin is, if it fails to impress consumers with its ownqualities, it begins to resemble an exercise in self-promotional marketing. Andonce the initial(最初的) attention diesdown, consumer interest might fade, loyalty(忠诚) returning to tried-and-true labels.

        Today, celebritiesface even more severe embarrassment. The pop-cultural circle might be biggerthan ever, but its rate of turnover has speeded up as well. Each misstepthreatens to reduce a celebrity’s shelf life, and the samenewspaper or magazine that once brought him fame has no problem picking him topieces when the opportunity appears. Still, the ego’s(自我的) potential for expansion is limitless. Having alreadyachieved great wealth and public recognition, many celebrities see fashion asthe next frontier to be conquered. As the saying goes, success and failurealways go hand in hand. Their success as designers might last only a shorttime, but fashion—like celebrity—hasalways been temporary.

The underlined sentence in Paragraph 4 indicates that any wrong step will possibly      .

                                E

        Humanremains of ancient settlements will be reburied and lost to science under a lawthat threatens research into the history of humans in Britain, a group ofleading archaeologists(考古学家) says. In a letter addressed to the justicesecretary, Ken Clarke, 40 archaeologists write of their “deep and widespread concern” about theissue. It centers on the law introduced by the Ministry of Justice in 2008which requires all human remains unearthed in England and Wales to be reburiedwithin two years, regardless of their age. The decision means scientists havetoo little time to study bones and other human remains of national and culturalsignificance.

        “Your current requirement that all archaeologically unearthed humanremains should be reburied, whether after a standard period of two years orfurther special extension, is contrary to basic principles of archaeologicaland scientific research and of museum practice,” theywrite.

        Thelaw applies to any pieces of bone uncovered at around 400 dig sites, includingthe remains of 60 or so bodies found at Stonehenge in 2008 that date back to3,000 BC. Archaeologists have been granted a temporary extension to give themmore time, but eventually the bones will have to be returned to the ground.

        Thearrangements may result in the waste of future discoveries at sites such asHappisburgh in Norfolk, where digging is continuing after the discovery ofstone tools made by early humans 950,000 years ago. If human remains were foundat Happisburgh, they would be the oldest in northern Europe and the firstindication of what this species was. Under the current practice of the lawthose remains would have to be reburied and effectively destroyed.

        Before2008, guidelines allowed for the proper preservation and study of bones ofsufficient age and historical interest, while the Burial Act 1857 applied tomore recent remains. The Ministry of Justice assured archaeologists two yearsago that the law was temporary, but has so far failed to revise it.

        MikeParker Pearson, an archaeologist at Sheffield University, said: “Archaeologists have been extremely patient because we were led tobelieve the ministry was sorting out this problem, but we feel that we cannotwait any longer.”

        Theministry has no guidelines on where or how remains should be reburied, or onwhat records should be kept.

Which of the following statements is true according to the passage?

                                D

        Celebrity(名人) has become one of the most important representatives ofpopular culture. Fans used to be crazy about a specific film, but now thepublic tends to base its consumption(消费) on the interest of celebrity attached to any given product.Besides, fashion magazines have almost abandoned the practice of putting modelson the cover because they don’t sell nearly as well as famous faces. As aresult, celebrities have realized their unbelievably powerful market potential,moving from advertising for others’ products todeveloping their own.

        Celebrity clothinglines aren’t a completely new phenomenon, but in the pastthey were typically aimed at the ordinary consumers, and limited to a few TVactresses. Today they’re started by first-class starswhose products enjoy equal fame with some world top brands. The most successfulstart-ups have been those by celebrities with specific personal style. Ascelebrities become more and more experienced at the market, they expand theirproduction scale rapidly, covering almost all the products of daily life.

        However, for everysuccess story, there’s a related warning tale of a celebrity whoovervalued his consumer appeal. No matter how famous the product’s origin is, if it fails to impress consumers with its ownqualities, it begins to resemble an exercise in self-promotional marketing. Andonce the initial(最初的) attention diesdown, consumer interest might fade, loyalty(忠诚) returning to tried-and-true labels.

        Today, celebritiesface even more severe embarrassment. The pop-cultural circle might be biggerthan ever, but its rate of turnover has speeded up as well. Each misstepthreatens to reduce a celebrity’s shelf life, and the samenewspaper or magazine that once brought him fame has no problem picking him topieces when the opportunity appears. Still, the ego’s(自我的) potential for expansion is limitless. Having alreadyachieved great wealth and public recognition, many celebrities see fashion asthe next frontier to be conquered. As the saying goes, success and failurealways go hand in hand. Their success as designers might last only a shorttime, but fashion—like celebrity—hasalways been temporary.

The passage is mainly about       .

                                E

        Humanremains of ancient settlements will be reburied and lost to science under a lawthat threatens research into the history of humans in Britain, a group ofleading archaeologists(考古学家) says. In a letter addressed to the justicesecretary, Ken Clarke, 40 archaeologists write of their “deep and widespread concern” about theissue. It centers on the law introduced by the Ministry of Justice in 2008which requires all human remains unearthed in England and Wales to be reburiedwithin two years, regardless of their age. The decision means scientists havetoo little time to study bones and other human remains of national and culturalsignificance.

        “Your current requirement that all archaeologically unearthed humanremains should be reburied, whether after a standard period of two years orfurther special extension, is contrary to basic principles of archaeologicaland scientific research and of museum practice,” theywrite.

        Thelaw applies to any pieces of bone uncovered at around 400 dig sites, includingthe remains of 60 or so bodies found at Stonehenge in 2008 that date back to3,000 BC. Archaeologists have been granted a temporary extension to give themmore time, but eventually the bones will have to be returned to the ground.

        Thearrangements may result in the waste of future discoveries at sites such asHappisburgh in Norfolk, where digging is continuing after the discovery ofstone tools made by early humans 950,000 years ago. If human remains were foundat Happisburgh, they would be the oldest in northern Europe and the firstindication of what this species was. Under the current practice of the lawthose remains would have to be reburied and effectively destroyed.

        Before2008, guidelines allowed for the proper preservation and study of bones ofsufficient age and historical interest, while the Burial Act 1857 applied tomore recent remains. The Ministry of Justice assured archaeologists two yearsago that the law was temporary, but has so far failed to revise it.

        MikeParker Pearson, an archaeologist at Sheffield University, said: “Archaeologists have been extremely patient because we were led tobelieve the ministry was sorting out this problem, but we feel that we cannotwait any longer.”

        Theministry has no guidelines on where or how remains should be reburied, or onwhat records should be kept.

According to the passage, scientists are unhappy with the law mainly because _______.

                                E

        Humanremains of ancient settlements will be reburied and lost to science under a lawthat threatens research into the history of humans in Britain, a group ofleading archaeologists(考古学家) says. In a letter addressed to the justicesecretary, Ken Clarke, 40 archaeologists write of their “deep and widespread concern” about theissue. It centers on the law introduced by the Ministry of Justice in 2008which requires all human remains unearthed in England and Wales to be reburiedwithin two years, regardless of their age. The decision means scientists havetoo little time to study bones and other human remains of national and culturalsignificance.

        “Your current requirement that all archaeologically unearthed humanremains should be reburied, whether after a standard period of two years orfurther special extension, is contrary to basic principles of archaeologicaland scientific research and of museum practice,” theywrite.

        Thelaw applies to any pieces of bone uncovered at around 400 dig sites, includingthe remains of 60 or so bodies found at Stonehenge in 2008 that date back to3,000 BC. Archaeologists have been granted a temporary extension to give themmore time, but eventually the bones will have to be returned to the ground.

        Thearrangements may result in the waste of future discoveries at sites such asHappisburgh in Norfolk, where digging is continuing after the discovery ofstone tools made by early humans 950,000 years ago. If human remains were foundat Happisburgh, they would be the oldest in northern Europe and the firstindication of what this species was. Under the current practice of the lawthose remains would have to be reburied and effectively destroyed.

        Before2008, guidelines allowed for the proper preservation and study of bones ofsufficient age and historical interest, while the Burial Act 1857 applied tomore recent remains. The Ministry of Justice assured archaeologists two yearsago that the law was temporary, but has so far failed to revise it.

        MikeParker Pearson, an archaeologist at Sheffield University, said: “Archaeologists have been extremely patient because we were led tobelieve the ministry was sorting out this problem, but we feel that we cannotwait any longer.”

        Theministry has no guidelines on where or how remains should be reburied, or onwhat records should be kept.

What can be inferred about the British law governing human remains?