2018年5月真题解析sat1805三立答案

21Djuxtapose:并列。文章错出现了Carrie在剧院中的所见和对NewYork感受（line2BLines61-64:Thatnighttheprettylittleflatseemedacommoncething.Itwasnotwhattherestoftheworldwasenjoying.Shesawtheservantworkingatdinneranindifferenteye.Carrie3Astir:4Dknick-knack:小摆设。concoction:5DCarrie对上流社会女性的羡慕（intense6BthosewhoCarrie7Aherday-to-daylifestyle对应herownsolitudethesetwoyearspast；herindifferencetothefactthatshehadneverachievedwhatshehadexpectednotbeenconducivetohelherachieveherambitions8A9Cline36:Carrielongedtobeofit.Shewantedtotakehersufferings,whateverwereinsuchaworld.suchaworldfortunateAline72:TherewerecesinwhichshecouldevenBCAB（ippocapsB61行这句说，在预料之中，amPFCPCC的相关程度成正相关，故而在情境中的人物与受试者关系越亲密，amPFC的CD脑中虚拟人物的网络没有真实人物的那么宽广。B从未遇见过且无法理解的。alienC0.10%0.15%B ctivescenarioC文章主要介绍的是MichaelMontague的团队针对housecats在驯化过程中发生的变化所进行的研究，主要的研究方法是对比housecats和wildcats之间的差异，所以C选项正确，文章主要介绍了cats在驯化过程中所经历的变化；A选项，“domesticcats不同分支间的差异”，与文意不符，B选项，“cats为人类提供的好处”，在文中无体现，D选项，“wildcats和DLine3中“and,well”housecatswildcatswildcatsdomesticcats间有非常明显的相似性，然后在下一句（Line4）butC题目所问的是一些科学家所会同意的关于cats驯化过程的论述，相关内容出现在第三段，Line20，“manyscientists...”，cats主要是通过自己完成了驯化过程，更加友好的性格使得它们更容易得到人类的照顾，C选项中的“notintentionallyundertakenbyhumans”符合这一意思，AD选项在文中都没有相关内容，B选项与文中内容相反，因为Line23中“catsshrankslightlyinsize”A23CMontague的团队是如何得到了第六段的结论，在这一段的开头部分，Line42-45介绍了实验方法，首先是将22只domesticcats（breedsandlocations不同）进行了，然后将结果与四只wildcats（locations不同）进行比较，C选项符合这一方法，A选项中“asaresultofbreeding”D选项中“fromthesamelocations”都明显错误，B选项所介绍的是文中第四段的A题目所问的是Montague关于domesticcats改变的解释是基于那种假设，定位至Line47中“basedonpreviousstudiesofknockoutmice”，说明Montague是参考了其它物种 种（Line46）对于cognition（Line49）有影响，这已经在knockout中得到了证实，A选项符合这一含义，B选项中“missingsequences”C4中“thenumberofgenes”在文中都未涉及，D选项中“cat驯化过程中的改与其它物种社交性相关的改变同时发生”在文中没有体现C26C根据题目中“neuralcrestcells”定位至Line63，根据Line65中“themastercontrolswitchesofdomestication”C选项正确，“fundamentaltotheDLine67在“commontraits”之后就进行了补充说明，“suchassmallerbrainsBcatsdogs及其它驯化动物的目的不同，所以cats是“abitwilder”（Line69），解释了最后一段话所问题，B选项符合这一含义。ALine10recognizedclearlyimplied令的书和法律条款，那就对应A认可的Clegislatorsconsiderationcloudedby定位到line27letallthisquibblingabout...尤其此句话中的quibbling和castbehind可选答案C。DB整个第一段都在重复swindle，表达Summer对NebraskaBill的，不满；尤其有一些负向的词，例如：cheated，meanness和wickedness，即答B。Adistrustskepticaltone错；CK-NActcannotberepealed错；D中Betrayal错D整个第2篇Summer对于K-NBill的态度就是的，从第一段一直强调swindle，再到后面的反驳，Douglas所谓的K-NBill就是公民自权，但其实是削减了可以定位至line47-55，即可得到答案BD根据题干中的national ernment可以定位至line49-51，尤其是破折号之后的也就是在说之前的职位人民是没有权利去直接选择的，是国家派DSumner是K-NBill的，认为是否认了的，定位至line58开始line61-62的前句，所以他K-NBill的实际就是制也就是是坚持了自己看待的重要性。即答案DADouglasK-NBill给到公民自己决定是蓄奴州还是自由州，认为给了也不违宪，是很合理的。第二篇文章Sumner认为K-Bill就是个，还违宪（。即选D根据题干定位line47-49Douglas的公民自觉给到了公民，实际则是否认夺了的，即D选D根据题干2人对待的用法的不同可以定位到line21-26和line58-59即可得到答案D，Douglas认为不，尤其此句line24thatisallthebillDCACArecentexpansionDsizepatchareaB给出了原因“they’rephysicallyrepresentativeoftheuniverseatlarge”,通过研究CADC根据“8.5billionsyearafterthebigbang”starformationrate1D2B3CparkspacelandfillsC4BB，“prolific”5A此题考查三者平行结构，BD符号有误，C“aswellas”6Dparkspace7BB8B本句观点为公园提供了很多其他地方没有的活动，B选项对其进行了举9DparkA“Enoughtodosth”BAD上一段结尾谈到HolmesCB就近指代ConanDD后面是说粉丝不满HolmesB举例说明粉丝希望HomesC插入语解释说明blackDDConanDoyleCBE4世纪，一直因为声音清楚而出名，下一句是DADDAB是“当它发生时”，只有when有这层意思BthanmoreclearlyCspeech后面是一个定语从句，speech在从句里面做主语，lack是谓语动词，划线部分指的是speech明显是单数，故选择itsD Avirtualpitch3句时，才第一次出现virtualpitch，所以只能放在第3句之后D3个动词短语表示并列 e…,diminish…,lower…最后一个动词前加C是overalljob正好对应了表格total这一栏，增加了85.9%B题干问的是“哪一句最能支持句子的前半部分”job增加B递进的关系，用inadditionto连接A故选择AC句子主语是CBeattributableto=attributetoABCA1C2D3B4D5A6A7B8C9CADAABD1D2C3C4A5B6B7C8A9CBABDCABCDADBBCABCCBhasnoDDInitialvalueM(0)=a=120;b=-0.00224f(2)=1/3f(3*2)=1/3f(6)=1/3*sumB/5-sum893000*1.5=>9-137/30=6,AdaptedfromtheLosAngelesTimesEditorialBoard,“Basefoodlabelingonfact,notfear"©2014bytheLosAngelesTimes.OriginallypublishedMay5,2014.【1】Thescientificevidenceongeneticallyengineeredfood,whichhasbeenaroundfortwodecades,indicatesthatitisassafeforhumanconsumptionasanyotherfood.ACaliforniabillthatwouldrequirethelabelingofbioengineeredfood—whoseDNAhasbeenmodifiedinthelaboratorytointroducecertaintraits—caterstoascarenthatisnotbasedonsolidevidence.scientificevidence之后直接进入：加州议案要求食物注明工【2】Ifaconsumerhas alconcernsaboutgeneticallymodifiedfood,thereareotherwaystoavoidit.TraderJoe's,forexample,hasannouncedthatfoodsoldunderitslabelcontainsnogeneticallyengineeredingredients.ThereareappsandInternetsitestoinformconsumersaboutotherfoods.Andcompaniesthatdonotbioengineertheirfoodsarecertainlytosaysoontheirlabels.Butthesciencedoesnotsupportmandatorylabeling.举例说明如何应对消费者对转食品的担忧。例如，Joe's宣布在其产品不含转成分，其他公司也可以效仿Joe’s的做法。论点：强制性没有【3】StateSen.NoreenEvans(D-SantaRosa)hassaidthatherbilldoesn'tmakejudgmentsaboutwhethergeneticallyengineeredfoodisinherentlygoodorbadbutmerelyinformsconsumers.Yetthewordingsaysotherwise.It'sfullofnegativedeclarationsaboutsuchfood,withnomentionofthepositives."UnitedStatesernmentscientistshavestatedthattheartificialinsertionofgeneticmaterialntsviageneticengineeringcanincreasethelevelsofknowntoxicantsorallergensinfoodsandcreatenewtoxicantsorallergenswithconsequenthealthconcerns,"thebillsays.Itdoesn'tnotethathundredsofstudies,manybyindependentscientistswhotooknoindustrymoney,havefoundnocredibleevidencethatbioengineeredfoodhasactuallydoneanyofthosethings,orisdangerousinanywaytohumanhealth.ReviewsbytheAmericanMedicalAssn.,theFoodandDrugAdministration,theWorldHealthOrganizationandtheNationalAcademyofScienceshaveallconcludedthatgeneticallyengineeredfoodappearstobeassafeasanyother.Concessionandrebuttal:州议员Evans曾经辩护说法案并没有指明转食品是好是坏，而只是告知消费者。“doesn’tmakejudgements”,“merelyinformsconsumers”和”Yetthewordingsaysotherwise”形成鲜明的对比，立即Evans的说辞并进一步法案：”Itdoesn'tnotethathundredsofstudies,manybyindependentscientistswhotooknoindustrymoney”暗指法案不全面。同时引【4】That'snottosaytherearenodownsides.Studieshaveraisedlegitimateconcerns,forinstance,thatbioengineeredcropsdesignedtowithstandtheherbicideglyphosate,morecommonlyknownbytheMonsantobrandnameRoundup,encouragefarmerstooveruseit,fosteringthegrowthofresistantweeds.TheAMA,thoughithassaidthatgeneticallyengineeredfoodshouldnotbelabeled,hasalsocalledonthefederal ernmenttorequiremoresafetytestingbeforenewbioengineeredproductscanbemarketed.举例说明过度使用转并不是没有缺点：MonsantobrandnameRoundup对强制性的法案，也呼吁在新的转产品上市前要求的安【5】Theseissuesareworthconsideration,butlabelingwouldnotresolveeitherone.Mostfarmsusepesticidesincludingsomemoredangerousthanglyphosate,buttheirproductsdon'thavetobelabeledaccordingly.Labelingrequirementsshouldhavelogicalconsistency;thentolabelgeneticallyengineeredfoodsdoesn't.对比：杀虫剂没有强制性与转食品强制性的对比，appealtoemotions:justice,requestofconsistency.【6】SB1381wouldrequireconspicuousyetimpreciselabelsnotifyingconsumersthatthefoodcontainssomegeneticallyengineeredingredients,withoutmakingitclearwhattheengineeringwasmeant plish.Foodcompaniesareproductsforreasonsotherthantomakepesticideuseeasy,suchasbuildingintocrops,likeoranges,thatarethreatenedbydisease,orcreatingnon-allergenicformsofsomegrains.Butthelabelswouldn'tgivethesedetails.Theywouldservemainlytofrightengroceryshoppersbyimplyingthatthereissomethingwrongwiththefood,withoutmakingthembetterinformed.Andthelabelswouldbesoubiquitousastobealmostmeaningless;it'swidelyestimatedthat70%to80%ofthepackagedfoodinconventionalsupermarketscontainsgeneticallyengineeredingredients.胁。未能提供这些信息，主要是为了吓唬消费者，暗示食物有问题。”withoutmakingthembetterinformed”appealtoemotionsrighttobefully数据说传统超市中70％至80％的包装食品含有转食品，无处不在的标【7】Therearemoreworrisomeagriculturalpracticesthatdoaffecthumanhealth,especiallytheoveruseofantibioticsinlivestock."Thereisstrongevidencethatsomeantibioticinbacteriaiscausedbyantibioticuseinfoodanimals,"theCentersforDiseaseControlandPreventionreports.Yetnoonehasbeenforlabelsonmeatthatcomesfromantibiotic-treatedlivestock.Aswithbioengineeredfood,thisisbestdealtwithbyappropriatesafetyregulations,notlabels.对比：食品工程与农场对牲畜过度使用抗生素的行为对比，进一步说明强制性的不合理性，并且疾病控制和预防中心的说明抗生素的危害。从而解决方法：合理的食品安全规范，而不是强制性【8】There'salimittowhatmanufacturerscan lconsumersabouttheirfood—labelscan'tenumerateeverypossibleorperceivedconcern.Labelinglawsshouldsetapriorityonprovidinginformationthatsignificantlyaffectsconsumerhealth.Theyshouldbebasedonfacts,notfear.Evidence主要是appealto，ReasoningcompareandAppealtoemotions:justice,consistency,customersshouldbefullyInthearticle“Basefoodlabelingonfact,notfear,”theauthorbuildsanargumentthatgeneticallyengineeredfoodisunnecessarilylabeledsinceitisassafeforhumanconsumptionasanyotherfood.Theauthor,likeanygoodwriter,hasdevelopedvalidclaimsthatarebackedupwithcrucialevidenceandhasbeenabletoproperlypersuadethereadersbytacticalreasoningandotherrhetoricaldevices.Evidenceisakeycomponentofthispassageandtheauthorissuretoincludethiswhenpresentingtheaudiencewithcrucialfacts.Hereferencestosomedetaileddatathat“it'swidelyestimatedthat70%to80%ofthepackagedfoodinconventionalsupermarketscontainsgeneticallyengineeredingredients”.Theinclusionofdata,althoughreliablesourcesarenotprovidedandtheyareestimated,helpsleaveadirectimageofhowwidelyspreadthebioengineeredfoodisandthushowmeaninglessthelabelingis.Inthisway,theaudiencecanhaveabetterunderstandingofthefactthatlabelswouldnotprovideenoughinformationaboutwhetherthetechnologyappliedhaspositiveornegativeeffectsbutonlyfrightencustomers,andthuseasilyaccepttheauthor’sidea.Besides,thewriteralsointroducesfactsthatunlikethebillmentions,“nocredibleevidencethatbioengineeredfoodhasactuallydoneanyofthosethings”whichmay“createnewtoxicantsorallergenswithconsequenthealthconcerns”.Byemployingsimplelistingtofurtherenhancehisclaim,theauthordemonstratesthatresultsfrom“theAmericanMedicalAssn.,theFoodandDrugAdministration,theWorldHealthOrganizationandtheNationalAcademyofSciences”allrefutetheconclusionintheabovebill.Thesecoldhardfactsareundeniable,andthereforemaketheauthor’spositionauthentic,andthelonglistof alsolendsstrongsupporttotheclaimbecausetheconclusionisnotaspecialcasebutacommonphenomenon.Throughtheutilizationofthesepersuasiveelements,theauthoreasilyspreadhisopinionthatbioengineeringfoodissafeandneednotlabeling.Additionally,theauthoruseshiswordsandresearchtoreasonwiththeaudienceandexintothemwhyitisnotnecessarytolabelthesafegeneticallyengineeredfood.Hefirstopenshisarticlebyastrongstatementthatbioengineeringfood“isassafeforhumanconsumptionasanyotherfood”followedbymentioningthefactthatacontroversialbillthat“requirethelabelingofbioengineeredfood”isnotnecessary,whichservesasahooktointroducethetopic.Next,theuseofexamplesonalternativemethodsfurtherquestionsthenecessityoflabeling.Thefurtheremploymentofdeepensthedoubt–througharefutationaboutthecontentofthebill–thatwhetherthebillindicatesanegativeimpressionoflabeledfood.Tomakehisargumentmoresolid,byutilizingaconcession,theauthoradmitstherearebioengineeringproducts“requiremoresafetytesting”andmaycauseotherconsiderations;however,“labelingwouldnotsolve”theseproblems.Theemploymentofconcessionlendsstrongcomprehensivenessoftheauthor,indicatingthatheisnotbiasedinonlyarguingthenegativesideofthisbill;ontheotherhand,healsonoticesthepotentialsideeffectsofabusingbioengineeringtechnology.Tofurtherillustratehisargument,theauthorraisesanotherproblemabou