Why is Aldous Huxley regarded as modern Swift？

From the text, we learn that Aldous Huxley is of the opinion that ______

A．DNA technology should be placed in the charge of individuals.

B．government should assume less control over individuals.

C．people need government to protect their DNA information.

D．old moral precepts should be abolished on human cloning.

Aldous Huxley's remark (Para. 5) implies that ______.

A．there is a subtle difference between right and wrong

B．we cannot tell who is right and what is wrong

C．what is right is more important than who is right

D．what is right accounts for the question who is right

Aldous Huxley's remark implies that

A．there is a subtle difference between right and wrong.

B．we cannot tell who is right and what is wrong.

C．what is right is more important than who is right.

D．what is right accounts for the question who is right.

Aldous Huxley's remark (paragraph 3) implies that______.

A．there is a subtle difference between right and wrong

B．we cannot tell who is right and what is wrong

C．what is right is more important than who is right

D．what is right accounts for the question who is right

Aldous Huxley's remark (Para. 3 ) implies that______.

A．there is a subtle difference between right and wrong

B．we cannot tell who is right and what is wrong

C．what is right is more important than who is right

D．what is right accounts for the question who is right

A．D. H. Lawrence

B．Joseph Conrad

C．George Bernard Shaw

D．E. M. Foster

Section B

Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. You should decide on the best choice.

Between the two world wars, serious novelists and playwrights(剧作家) were read and appreciated mainly by people from middle and upperclass backgrounds, for these people had money and this gave them opportunities for education and leisure which were beyond the reach of the poorer classes. For the same reason, the writers tended to come from the same kind of background, although there were many exceptions. The novelist, D. H. Lawrence, for example, was the son of a miner. But Lawrence's books were bought and read by middle-class readers, and the language which he used was literary, rather than popular.

Lawrence, like other writers of the 1920s and 1930s—Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, and the older men, George Bernard Shaw and John Galsworthy—was presenting his public with his own view of life. He was hoping to persuade his readers. to think like himself. Many of the serious writers of the period were concerned with social and political problems. Their plays and novels were full of arguments in favor of social reforms. They made amusing and often bitter comments on the injustices and absurdities (荒唐) of life—especially middle-class life. Some novelists gave horrible warnings about the kind of future that mankind might have to face. Huxley's amusing Brave New World and Orwell's frightening Nineteen Eight- y-four (written in the 1940s) are still taken very seriously by many young people today.

Other writers, like Virginia Woolf and the Irishman, James Joyce, were more interested in thoughts and feelings than in social life, and they expressed their thoughts in a language which was sometimes extremely difficult to understand. At the same time there were plenty of novelists and playwrights whose only aim was to excite, to amuse and to move to tears! Not surprisingly, people tended to divide writers into two kinds—serious, or intellectual, and light, or non-intellectual.

Most of the rich people used to appreciate ______.

A．realistic literature

B．romantic literature

C．funny circus

D．savage fighting

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 SHEET 1.

If the various advocates of the conflicting options are all smart, experienced, and well-informed, why do they disagree so completely？ Wouldn't they all have thought the issue through carefully and come to approximately the same "best" conclusion？

The answer to that crucial question lies in the structure of the human brain and the way it processes information.

Most human beings actually decide before they think. When any human being —executive, specialized expert, or person in the street — encounters a complex issue and forms an opinion, often within a matter of seconds, how thoroughly has he or she explored the implications of the various courses of action？ Answer: not very thoroughly. Very few people, no matter how intelligent or experienced, can take inventory of the many branching possibilities, possible outcomes, side effects, and undesired consequences of a policy or a course of action in a matter of seconds. Yet, those who pride themselves on being decisive often try to do just that. And once their brains lock onto an opinion, most of their thinking thereafter consists of finding support for it.

A very serious side effect of argumentative decision making can be a lack of support for the chosen course of action on the part of the "losing" faction. When one faction wins the meeting and the others see themselves as losing, the battle often doesn't end when the meeting ends. Anger, resentment, and jealousy may lead them to sabotage the decision later, or to reopen the debate at later meetings.

There is a better way. As philosopher Aldous Huxley said, "It isn't who is right, but what is right, that counts. "

The structured-inquiry method offers a better alternative to argumentative decision making by debate. With the help of the Internet and wireless computer technology, the gap between experts and executives is now being dramatically closed. By actually putting the brakes on the thinking process, slowing it down, and organizing the flow of logic, it's possible to create a level of clarity that sheer argumentation can never match.

The structured-inquiry process introduces a level of conceptual clarity by organizing the contributions of the experts, then brings the experts and the decision makers closer together. Although it isn't possible or necessary for a president or prime minister to listen in on every intelligence analysis meeting, it's possible to organize the experts' information to give the decision maker much greater insight as to its meaning. This process may somewhat resemble a marketing focus group; it's a simple, remarkably clever way to bring decision makers closer to the source of the expert information and opinions on which they must base their decisions.

From the first 3 paragraphs we can learn that ______.

A．executive, specialized expert, are no more clever than person in the street.

B．very few people decide before they think.

C．those who pride themselves on being decisive often fail to do so

D．people tend to consider carefully before making decisions

Part A

Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. (40 points)

If the various advocates of the conflicting options are all smart, experienced, and well informed, why do they disagree so completely？ Wouldn't they all have thought the issue through carefully and come to approximately the same "best"—conclusion？

The answer to that crucial question lies in the structure of the human brain and the way it processes information.

Most human beings actually decide before they think. When any human being—executive, specialized expert, or person in the street—encounters a complex issue and forms an opinion, often within a matter of seconds, how thoroughly has he or she explored the implications of the various courses of action？ Answer: not very thoroughly. Very few people, no matter how intelligent or experienced, can take inventory of the many branching possibilities, possible outcomes, side effects, and undesired consequences of a policy or a course of action in a matter of seconds. Yet, those who pride themselves on being decisive often try to do just that. And once their brains lock onto an opinion, most of their thinking thereafter consists of finding support for it.

A very serious side effect of argumentative decision making can be a lack of support for the chosen course of action on the part of the "losing" faction. When one faction wins the meeting and the others see themselves as losing, the battle often doesn't end when the meeting ends. Anger, resentment, and jealousy may lead them to sabotage the decision later, or to reopen the debate at later meetings.

There is a better way. As philosopher Aldous Huxley said, "It isn't who is right, but what is right, that counts." The structured-inquiry method offers a better alternative to argumentative decision making by debate. With the help of the Internet and wireless computer technology, the gap between experts and executives is now being dramatically closed. By actually putting the brakes on the thinking process, slowing it down, and organizing the flow of logic, it's possible to create a level of clarity that sheer argumentation can never match.

The structured-inquiry process introduces a level of conceptual clarity by organizing the contributions of the experts, then brings the experts and the decision makers closer together. Although it isn't possible or necessary for a president or prime minister to listen in on every intelligence analysis meeting, it's possible to organize the experts' information to give the decision maker much greater insight as to its meaning. This process may somewhat resemble a marketing focus group; it's a simple, remarkably clever way to bring decision makers closer to the source of the expert information and opinions on which they must base their decisions.

From the first three paragraphs we can learn that

A．executive and specialized expert are no more clever than person in the street.

B．very few people decide before they think.

C．those who pride themselves on being decisive often fail to do so.

D．people tend to consider carefully before making decisions.