When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goings-on for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified. Are we any less bloodthirsty Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting.
It is really incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of "the sporting spirit" is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavy-weight championship match, for instance, is front-page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence.
Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much You may well ask. The answer is simple, they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally—admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight of madmen being cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings.
The author mentions the old Romans ______.

A:to compare the old Romans with today’s people B:to give an example C:to show human beings in the past knew nothing better D:to indicate human beings used to be bloodthirsty

In science fiction there is to be found the recurrent theme of the omniscient computer which ultimately takes over the ordering of human life and affairs. Is this possible I believe is it not: but also believe that the arguments commonly advanced to refute this possibility are the worng ones. First it is often said that computers "do not really think". This I submit is nonsense: if computers do not think, then nor do human beings. For how do I define the process of thinking I present data—say, an examination paper—to a student, which he scans with a photoelectric organ we call an "eye", the computer scans its data with a photoelectric organ we call a "tape-reader". There is then a period when nothing obvious happens, through electroencephalogram—for the student. Lastly, information based on the data is transcribed by means of a mechanical organ called a "hand" by the student and a "teleprinter" by the computer. In other words, the actions of man and machine differ only in the appliances they use.
Secondly, it is said that computers "only do what they are told", that they have to be programmed for every computation they undertake. But I do not believe that I was born with an innate ability to solve quadratic equations or to identify common members of the Britain flora: I, too, had to be programmed for these activities, but I happened to call my programmers by different names, such as "schoolteacher", "lecture" or "professor".
Lastly, we are told that computers, unlike human beings, cannot interpret their own results. But interpretation is always of one set of information in the light of another set of information: it consists simply of finding the joint pattern in two sets of data. The mathematics of doing this is cumbersome but well known; the computer would be perfectly willing to do the job if asked.
What is the author’s best intention in writing this passage

A:To show computer is as intelligent as man. B:To show man is no better than computer. C:To show human life and affairs will be taken over by computers. D:To illustrate what kind of mistake people make in refuting the possibility that computers will control the life of human beings.

Text 2

What is the author’s best intention in writing this passage

A:To show computer is as intelligent as man. B:To show man is no better than computer. C:To show human life and affairs will be taken over by computers. D:To illustrate what kind of mistake people make in refuting the possibility that computers will control the life of human beings.

B 　　When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goingson for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified Are we any less bloodthirsty Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting. 　　It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bullfighting, that we [此资料转贴于ＧＺＵ５２１学习网 ]ｗww.Ｇzu５21.ｃom should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of “the sporting spirit” is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is frontpage news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence. 　　Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally—admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight of madmen being cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings. The author mentions the old Romans .

A:to compare the old Romans with today’s people B:to give an example C:to show human beings in the past knew nothing better D:to indicate human beings used to be bloodthirsty

B 　　When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goingson for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified Are we any less bloodthirsty Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting. 　　It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bullfighting, that we [此资料转贴于ＧＺＵ５２１学习网 ]ｗww.Ｇzu５21.ｃom should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of “the sporting spirit” is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is frontpage news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence. 　　Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally—admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight of madmen being cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings. The author mentions the old Romans .

A:to compare the old Romans with today’s people B:to give an example C:to show human beings in the past knew nothing better D:to indicate human beings used to be bloodthirsty

B 　　When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goingson for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified Are we any less bloodthirsty Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting. 　　It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bullfighting, that we [此资料转贴于ＧＺＵ５２１学习网 ]ｗww.Ｇzu５21.ｃom should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of “the sporting spirit” is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is frontpage news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence. 　　Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally—admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight of madmen being cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings. The author mentions the old Romans .

A:to compare the old Romans with today’s people B:to give an example C:to show human beings in the past knew nothing better D:to indicate human beings used to be bloodthirsty

B 　　When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goingson for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified Are we any less bloodthirsty Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting. 　　It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bullfighting, that we [此资料转贴于ＧＺＵ５２１学习网 ]ｗww.Ｇzu５21.ｃom should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of “the sporting spirit” is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is frontpage news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence. 　　Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally—admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight of madmen being cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings. The author mentions the old Romans .

A:to compare the old Romans with today’s people B:to give an example C:to show human beings in the past knew nothing better D:to indicate human beings used to be bloodthirsty