单选题The author thinks that ______.A packing is actually useless and could be ignoredB people will soon stop using packaging altogetherC enough research has been done into recyclingD it is better to produce new materials than to re-use old ones

Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.
The author argues in Paragraph 6 that journalists

A.are mainly to blame for spreading bad science.
B.can help the audience recognize faulty research.
C.should be given more time to evaluate research.
D.have to respect the uncertainty inherent in science.

Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.
The author suggests in the last paragraph that preprints

A.are incompatible with good journalism.
B.should be forbidden for quality concerns.
C.are usually misinterpreted by journalists.
D.could promote confusion and distortion.

Many people use wood stoves and fireplaces to heat their homes．Scientists have become worried about the smoke that they give off．Harmful chemicals are in the smoke．The smoke is causing air pollution．The pieces of pollution,called soot,are floating in the air．They are too tiny to see．Scientists must use a microscope to see them.
Small amounts of soot are safe,but large amounts can be dangerous．The govenment wants to limit this kind of pollution．It may stop people from using their fireplaces.
The air is tested every day．When soot levels are high,more than 65 micrograms of soot per cubic meter,factories must stop making smoke．The government thinks that limit should be much lower.
Factories produce the most smoke and soot．But the government thinks that all types of burning should be limited．The soot levels from factories and homes could be limited．Home owners may have to install new wood stoves that they comply with the new law．Or,they may not be able to bum on days when the air quality is bad.
Residents of some towns are fined if they violate the burning ban．Scientists hope these new regulations will make the air cleaner and less harmful to breathe.

What could home owners do to comply with the new regulation?

A.Write a lette
B.Ask for permissio
C.Use more electricit
D.Install new low-soot fireplace

Many people use wood stoves and fireplaces to heat their homes．Scientists have become worried about the smoke that they give off．Harmful chemicals are in the smoke．The smoke is causing air pollution．The pieces of pollution,called soot,are floating in the air．They are too tiny to see．Scientists must use a microscope to see them.
Small amounts of soot are safe,but large amounts can be dangerous．The govenment wants to limit this kind of pollution．It may stop people from using their fireplaces.
The air is tested every day．When soot levels are high,more than 65 micrograms of soot per cubic meter,factories must stop making smoke．The government thinks that limit should be much lower.
Factories produce the most smoke and soot．But the government thinks that all types of burning should be limited．The soot levels from factories and homes could be limited．Home owners may have to install new wood stoves that they comply with the new law．Or,they may not be able to bum on days when the air quality is bad.
Residents of some towns are fined if they violate the burning ban．Scientists hope these new regulations will make the air cleaner and less harmful to breathe.

Why is it dangerous to burn too much wood?

A.The fire could burn yo
B.It's not healthy to be too war
C.Harmful chemicals are released in the so
D.The smoke is filled with un see able tiny piece

Another important factor is the technical efficiency of a country’s people.Old countries that have numerous（ ）craftsmen are better placed to produce wealth than countries whose workers are largely unskilleD.Furthermore,wealth also produces wealth.

A.skillful
B.skilled
C.capable
D.shrewd

共用题干
New Understanding of Natural Silk's Mysteries

Natural silk,as we all know,has a strength that man-made materials have long struggled to match.In a
discovery that sounds more like an ancient Chinese proverb than a materials science breakthrough,MIT re-
searchers have discovered that silk gets its strength from its weakness.Or,more specifically,its many weak-
nesses. Silk gets its extraordinary durability and ductility（柔韧性）from an unusual arrangement of hydrogen
bonds that are intrinsically very weak but that work together to create a strong,flexible structure.
Most materials一especially the ones we engineer for strength一get their toughness from brittleness.As
such,natural silks like those produced by spiders have long fascinated both biologists and engineers because of
their light weight,ductility and high strength(pound for pound,silk is stronger than steel and far less brittle).
But on its face,it doesn't seem that silks should be as strong as they are;molecularly,they are held together by
hydrogen bonds , which are far weaker than the covalent（共价的）bonds found in other molecules.
To get a better understanding of how silk manages to produce such strength through such weak bonds,
the MIT team created a set of computer models that allowed them to observe the way silk behaves at the
atomic level. They found that the arrangement of the tiny silk nanocrystals（纳米晶体）is such that the hydro-
gen bonds are able to work cooperatively,reinforcing one another against external forces and failing slowly
when they do fail,so as not to allow a sudden fracture to spread across a silk structure.
The result is natural silks that can stretch and bend while retaining a high degree of strength.But while
that's all well and good for spiders,bees and the like,this understanding of silk geometry could lead to new
materials that are stronger and more ductile than those we can currently manufacture.Our best and strongest
materials are generally expensive and difficult to produce(requiring high temperature treatments or
energy-intensive processes).
By looking to silk as a model,researchers could potentially devise new manufacturing methods that rely
on inexpensive materials and weak bonds to create less rigid,more forgiving materials that are nonetheless
stronger than anything currently on offer. And if you thought you were going to get out of this materials
science story without hearing about carbon nanotubes（纳米碳管）, think again. The MIT team is already in
the lab looking into ways of synthesizing silk-like structures out of materials that are stronger than natural
silk-like carbon nanotubes. Super-silks are on the horizon.

The MIT team had tried different materials before they studied natural silk in their research.
A:Right
B:Wrong
C:Not mentioned

Many people use wood stoves and fireplaces to heat their homes．Scientists have become worried about the smoke that they give off．Harmful chemicals are in the smoke．The smoke is causing air pollution．The pieces of pollution,called soot,are floating in the air．They are too tiny to see．Scientists must use a microscope to see them.
Small amounts of soot are safe,but large amounts can be dangerous．The govenment wants to limit this kind of pollution．It may stop people from using their fireplaces.
The air is tested every day．When soot levels are high,more than 65 micrograms of soot per cubic meter,factories must stop making smoke．The government thinks that limit should be much lower.
Factories produce the most smoke and soot．But the government thinks that all types of burning should be limited．The soot levels from factories and homes could be limited．Home owners may have to install new wood stoves that they comply with the new law．Or,they may not be able to bum on days when the air quality is bad.
Residents of some towns are fined if they violate the burning ban．Scientists hope these new regulations will make the air cleaner and less harmful to breathe.

What happens to some residents who bum too much wood?

A.They could lose their home
B.They pay for the punishmen
C.They get sick from the smok
D.The fire could get out of contro

Construction on a new wing at the Markunas Museum ____as soon as additional funding has been arranged.

A.has been resumed
B.to be resuming
C.was resumed
D.will resume