Text 1
Rarely has a national security issue of major importance become a subject of distortion and spin like the debate over the intelligence reform bill on Capitol Hill--the outcome of which will determine how US intelligence agencies and their military function for a generation to come. This is particularly true of the heated debate now taking place over how much power should be given to a new director of national intelligence.
Along with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, one of the most respected defense experts on Capitol Hill, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other elements within the Defense Department have raised serious questions about the farreaching authority granted to the intelligence director under the Senate version of the bill. Specifically, Mr. Hunter believes that the Senate bill would interfere with the military’s access to intelligence on the battlefield.
Right now, Mr. Hunter points out, Army units, Marines and US special forces use intelligence gleaned from overhead satellites to target enemy troops. In order to do this, they need to work closely with combat support agencies like the National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office. It is essential that there be a well-functioning chain of command between the American troops on the ground, the Defense Department and the people who operate the satellites. This was particularly critical during the recent fighting in Fallujah, where American troops relied on satellite photos to watch the terrorists they were seeking to kill.
Although President Bush has agreed to the Senate proposal, administration officials acknowledge there is real concern that its version of the bill could undercut a system that is working well. As one official told this newspaper on Monday, the Senate measure could produce the following scenario: Every time the generals want to move a satellite to help a commander quickly obtain overhead images of the enemy or intercepted communications, they would have to get the approval of the new director of national intelligence. Noting the Fallujah experience, Mr. Hunter adds that the Senate bill "translates into ineffectiveness on the battlefield and, at worse, combat casualties".
When asked to give his opinion on the Senate bill and an alternative measure proposed by Mr. Hunter that would preserve the current chain of command, Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the California Republican lawmaker’s version. So, too, have the heads of the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy. The truth is that the very idea of shifting control of defense intelligence agencies away from the Pentagon (as embodied in the Senate bill) is a proposal to "fix" a non-existent problem, When Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairman and vice chairman of the September 11 commission, testified on Capitol Hill, both acknowledged in response to a question from Mr. Hunter their panel had come across no specific instance of a failure or negligence on the part of a Department of Defense agency.
Unfortunately, the response from some senators and some sectors of the press to Mr. Hunter’s substantive concerns has been to portray him as undermining national security in order to preserve his bureaucratic turf. At one level, these charges are slanderous, given that Mr. Hunter’s son, a Marine, just completed a tour of duty in Iraq. Chairman Hunter is trying to protect his son, and all other young heroes--not his turf. If supporters of the Senate bill have substantive arguments to make that would explain why they are right and the Joint Chiefs and Mr. Hunter are wrong, they should make them. If not, they should accede to the House position. If the Senate refuses to budge, then the best course of action would be to re-visit the issue next year.

The best title for this passage might be（）

A:The Effects Fallujah Fight Brings. B:A Debate Between Duncan Hunter and Some Senators. C:A Debate on the Intelligence Reform Bill. D:Duncan Hunter, A Respected Defense Expert.

Section Ⅱ Reading Comprehension Part A Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET1. Text 1 Rarely has a national security issue of major importance become a subject of distortion and spin like the debate over the intelligence reform bill on Capitol Hill--the outcome of which will determine how US intelligence agencies and their military function for a generation to come. This is particularly true of the heated debate now taking place over how much power should be given to a new director of national intelligence. Along with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, one of the most respected defense experts on Capitol Hill, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other elements within the Defense Department have raised serious questions about the farreaching authority granted to the intelligence director under the Senate version of the bill. Specifically, Mr. Hunter believes that the Senate bill would interfere with the military’s access to intelligence on the battlefield. Right now, Mr. Hunter points out, Army units, Marines and US special forces use intelligence gleaned from overhead satellites to target enemy troops. In order to do this, they need to work closely with combat support agencies like the National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office. It is essential that there be a well-functioning chain of command between the American troops on the ground, the Defense Department and the people who operate the satellites. This was particularly critical during the recent fighting in Fallujah, where American troops relied on satellite photos to watch the terrorists they were seeking to kill. Although President Bush has agreed to the Senate proposal, administration officials acknowledge there is real concern that its version of the bill could undercut a system that is working well. As one official told this newspaper on Monday, the Senate measure could produce the following scenario: Every time the generals want to move a satellite to help a commander quickly obtain overhead images of the enemy or intercepted communications, they would have to get the approval of the new director of national intelligence. Noting the Fallujah experience, Mr. Hunter adds that the Senate bill "translates into ineffectiveness on the battlefield and, at worse, combat casualties". When asked to give his opinion on the Senate bill and an alternative measure proposed by Mr. Hunter that would preserve the current chain of command, Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the California Republican lawmaker’s version. So, too, have the heads of the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy. The truth is that the very idea of shifting control of defense intelligence agencies away from the Pentagon (as embodied in the Senate bill) is a proposal to "fix" a non-existent problem, When Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairman and vice chairman of the September 11 commission, testified on Capitol Hill, both acknowledged in response to a question from Mr. Hunter their panel had come across no specific instance of a failure or negligence on the part of a Department of Defense agency. Unfortunately, the response from some senators and some sectors of the press to Mr. Hunter’s substantive concerns has been to portray him as undermining national security in order to preserve his bureaucratic turf. At one level, these charges are slanderous, given that Mr. Hunter’s son, a Marine, just completed a tour of duty in Iraq. Chairman Hunter is trying to protect his son, and all other young heroes--not his turf. If supporters of the Senate bill have substantive arguments to make that would explain why they are right and the Joint Chiefs and Mr. Hunter are wrong, they should make them. If not, they should accede to the House position. If the Senate refuses to budge, then the best course of action would be to re-visit the issue next year.

The best title for this passage might be（）

A:The Effects Fallujah Fight Brings. B:A Debate Between Duncan Hunter and Some Senators. C:A Debate on the Intelligence Reform Bill. D:Duncan Hunter, A Respected Defense Expert.

There is much discussion today about whether economic growth is desirable. At an earlier period, our desire for material wealth may have been justified. Now, however, this desire for more than we need is causing serious problems. Even though we have good intentions, we may be producing too much, too fast.
Those who criticize economic growth argue that we must slow down. They believe that society is approaching certain limits on growth. These include the fixed supply of natural resources, the possible negative effects of industry on the natural environment, and the continuing increase in the world’s population. As society reaches these limits, economic growth can no longer continue, and th9 quality of life will decrease.
People who want more economic growth, on the other hand, argue that even at the present growth rate there are still many poor people in the world. These proponents of economic growth believe that only more growth can create the capital needed to improve the quality of life in the world. Furthermore, they argue that only continued growth can provide the financial resources required to protect our natural surroudings from industrialization.
This debate over the desirability of continued economic growth is of vital importance to business and industry. If those who argue against economic growth are correct, the problems they mention cannot be ignored. To find a solution, economists and the business community must pay attention to these problems and continue discussing them with one another.

The passage is mainly about （　）

A:the contradiction between economists and the business community B:the present debate on economic growth C:the advantages and disadvantages of economic growth D:the importance of the debate on economic growth

Passage Three
There is much discussion today about whether economic growth is desirable. At an earlier period, our desire for material wealth may have been justified. Now, however, this desire for more than we need is causing serious problems. Even though we have good intentions, we may be producing too much, too fast.
Those who criticize economic growth argue that we must slow down. They believe that society is approaching certain limits on growth. These include the fixed supply of natural resources, the possible negative effects of industry on the natural environment, and the continuing inertease in the world’s population. As society reaches these limits, economic growth can no longer continue, and the quality of life will decrease.
People who want more economic growth, on the other hand, argue that even at the present growth rate there are still many poor people in the world. These proponents of economic growth believe that only more growth can create the capital needed to improve the quality of life in the world. Furthermore, they argue that only continued growth can provide the financial resources required to protect our natural surroudings from industrialization.
This debate over the desirability of continued economic growth is of vital importance to business and industry. If those who argue against economic growth are correct, the problems they mention cannot be ignored. To find a solution, economists and the business community must pay attention to these problems and continue discussing them with one another.

The passage is mainly about （）

A:the contradiction between economists and the business community B:the present debate on economic growth C:the advantages and disadvantages of economic growth D:the importance of the debate on economic growth

There is much discussion today about whether economic growth is desirable. At an earlier period, our desire for material wealth may have been justified. Now, however, this desire for more than we need is causing serious problems. Even though we have good intentions, we may be producing too much, too fast.
Those who criticize economic growth argue that we must slow down. They believe that society is approaching certain limits on growth. These include the fixed supply of natural resources, the possible negative effects of industry on the natural environment, and the continuing increase in the world’s population. As society reaches these limits, economic growth can no longer continue, and th9 quality of life will decrease.
People who want more economic growth, on the other hand, argue that even at the present growth rate there are still many poor people in the world. These proponents of economic growth believe that only more growth can create the capital needed to improve the quality of life in the world. Furthermore, they argue that only continued growth can provide the financial resources required to protect our natural surroudings from industrialization.
This debate over the desirability of continued economic growth is of vital importance to business and industry. If those who argue against economic growth are correct, the problems they mention cannot be ignored. To find a solution, economists and the business community must pay attention to these problems and continue discussing them with one another.

The passage is mainly about （）

A:the contradiction between economists and the business community B:the present debate on economic growth C:the advantages and disadvantages of economic growth D:the importance of the debate on economic growth

There is much discussion today about whether economic growth is desirable. At an earlier period, our desire for material wealth may have been justified. Now, however, this desire for more than we need is causing serious problems. Even though we have good intentions, we may be producing too much, too fast.
Those who criticize economic growth argue that we must slow down. They believe that society is approaching certain limits on growth. These include the fixed supply of natural resources, the possible negative effects of industry on the natural environment, and the continuing increase in the world’s population. As society reaches these limits, economic growth can no longer continue, and th9 quality of life will decrease.
People who want more economic growth, on the other hand, argue that even at the present growth rate there are still many poor people in the world. These proponents of economic growth believe that only more growth can create the capital needed to improve the quality of life in the world. Furthermore, they argue that only continued growth can provide the financial resources required to protect our natural surroudings from industrialization.
This debate over the desirability of continued economic growth is of vital importance to business and industry. If those who argue against economic growth are correct, the problems they mention cannot be ignored. To find a solution, economists and the business community must pay attention to these problems and continue discussing them with one another.
The passage is mainly about ______.

A:the contradiction between economists and the business community B:the present debate on economic growth C:the advantages and disadvantages of economic growth D:the importance of the debate on economic growth

Passage Three

The passage is mainly about ______.

A:the contradiction between economists and the business community B:the present debate on economic growth C:the advantages and disadvantages of economic growth D:the importance of the debate on economic growth

? ?下面有3篇短文，每篇短文后有5道题，每道题后面有4个选项。请仔细阅读短文并根据短文内容回答其后面的问题，从4个选项中选择1个最佳答案。
{{B}}第一篇{{/B}}

People in the past held that the difference between life and death______.

A:was easy to tell B:did not exist C:lay in the brain D:was open to debate

第一篇： What Is Death? People in the past did not question the difference between life and death. They could see that a person died when his heart stopped beating. People have learned, however, that the body does not die immediately when the heart stops beating. They discovered that we remain alive as long as our brain remains active. Today the difference between life and death is not as easy to see as in the past. Modern medical devices can keep the heart beating and the lungs breathing long after the brain stops. But is this life? This question has caused much debate among citizens in the United States. Many of them want a law that says a person is dead when the brain dies. A person should be considered dead when brain waves stop even if machines can keep the body alive. Such a law would permit doctors to speed removal(切除) of undiseased（没病的）organs for transplant（移植） operations. The brain is made of thousands of millions of nerve cells. These cells send and receive millions of chemical and electrical messages every day. In this way the brain controls the other body activities. Nerve-cell experts say it usually is easy to tell when the brain has died. They put small electrodes(电极) on a person’s skull (头骨) to measure the electrical signals that pass in and out of the brain. These brain waves are recorded on a television screen or on paper. The waves move up and down every time the brain receives messages from the nerve cells. The brain is dead when the waves stop moving. Although there are people who oppose the idea of a law on brain block for variouis reasons, the idea of brain wave activity as a test of death is slowly being accepted. .People in the past held that the difference between life and death

A:was easy to tell. B:did not exist. C:lay in the brain. D:was open to debate.