1 . It was the 50th anniversary (周年) of the moon landing last year. Astronomy lovers are not the only ones who are excited about it; publishers(出版商) are also offering a number of books to mark the event.
Shoot for the Moon James Donovan
Little, Brown and Co. $30
This retelling of the space race begins with the Soviet Union’s Sputnik satellite in 1957 to the historic Apollo 11 program twelve years later. The book offers details about the characters of the spacemen, engineers and others who made the U. S. space program a success.
One Giant Leap
Charles Fishman
Simon & Schuster, $29.99
Getting to the moon required a million hours of work, this book says. Accordingly, the story centers on the engineers, project managers and others who worked long and hard to get the Apollo program off the ground.
Picturing Apollo 11
J. L. Pickering and John Bisney
Univ of Florida, $45
Packed with hundreds of photos (some are published for the first time), this book reads like a photo book of the Apollo 11 program. The photos are moments from spaceman training, as well as the excitement of liftoff, the historic landing and the return home of the three men.
Apollo’s Legacy Roger D.
Launius Smithsonian Books,
$27.95
A space historian examines the Apollo program in different ways: as a political (政治的) machine in the Cold War and an important cultural moment. The book explores different views on the U. S. moonshot project from scientists, politicians, the media and the public during the space race and beyond.
1. What is Shoot for the Moon mainly about?| A．History of the space race. | B．The shoot of two satellites. |
| C．Cooperation of different countries. | D．Humans’ understanding of the moon. |
| A．James Donovan’s | B．Charles Fishman’s |
| C．J. L. Pickering and John Bisney’s | D．Roger D. Launius’s |
| A．Shoot for the Moon | B．One Giant Leap |
| C．Picturing Apollo 11 | D．Apollo’s Legacy |
2 . The past few years found me working long hours at my marketing job while my husband, Steven,put in equally fall days as a physics tutor.The weekends were spent photographing weddings and portraits.While we were able to save some money,we were both burned out from the constant tiring work.
We felt the need for both renewal and vacation experiences.So,in January,we set out on a seven-month,cross-country road trip to visit all 61 National Parks in the United States.
Steven was ready to dive headlong into the unknown,while I,someone who enjoys more planned fun,had to adapt.I was amazed at how easily I turned to be a more relaxed version who wasn't worried where to park or sleep.We both became so accustomed to sleeping in the van,despite the foreign sound outside,which we eventually let fade into white noise.
Over the course of our seven-month trip,several interruptions changed our route, including the government shutdown,which left the first 10 parks inaccessible. Another time,I fell ill and lost my voice right as we were heading to the Virgin Islands National Park.
Positively,while we've done photography professionally for years.this trip really helped us grow in our craft.From rapidly trying to shoot dolphins to lining up panoramic(全景的））shots,this trip was a photographer's dream.I never dared out into complete darkness to photograph nights capes,but the views of the Milky Way we managed to shoot were well worth it.
One of our big goals on this trip was to come away from each park with one spectacular image,something that pushed us both to become better artists in the process.That shared goal placed us on the same team:It brought us together,gave us more to talk about,and encouraged us to motivate each other along the way.
1. Why did the couple take such a trip?| A．They were both out of work. |
| B．They needed some photos of parks. |
| C．They wanted a getaway from exhausting work. |
| D．They wanted to make money by photographing. |
| A．The trip was full of unexpected difficulties. |
| B．The trip was nothing like her planned fun. |
| C．She enjoyed his husband's way of travel. |
| D．She had several fights with her husband. |
| A．Bad sleep in the van. |
| B．The author's illness. |
| C．The change of route. |
| D．The government shutdown. |
| A．They've caught some dolphins. |
| B．They've became famous artists. |
| C．They've bettered their relationship. |
| D．They've got their professional photographer certificates. |
3 . For several decades, there has been an organized campaign intended to produce distrust in science, funded by those whose interests are threatened by the findings of modern science. In response, scientists have tended to stress the success of science. After all, scientists have been right about most things, from the structure of the universe to the relativity of time and space.
Stressing successes isn’t wrong, but for many people it’s not persuasive. An alternative answer to the question “Why trust science?” is that scientists use the so-called scientific method. But what is called the scientific method isn’t what scientists actually do. Science is dynamic: new methods get invented; old ones get abandoned; and at any particular point, scientists can be found doing many different things. False theories sometimes lead to true results, so even if an experiment works, it doesn’t prove that the theory it was designed to test is true.
If there is no specific scientific method, then what is the basis for trust in science? The answer is the methods by which those claims are evaluated. A scientific claim is never accepted as true until it has gone through a long process of examination by fellow scientists. Scientists draft the initial version of a paper and then send it to colleagues for suggestions. Until this point, scientific feedback is typically fairly friendly. But the next step is different: the revised paper is submitted to a scientific journal, where things get a whole lot tougher. Editors deliberately send scientific papers to people who are not friends or colleagues of the authors, and the job of the reviewer is to find errors or other faults. We call this process “peer review” because the reviewers are scientific peers—experts in the same field—but they act in the role of a superior who has both the right and the responsibility to find fault. It is only after the reviewers and the editor are satisfied that any problems have been fixed that the paper will be printed in the journal and enters the body of “science.”
Some people argue that we should not trust science because scientists are “always changing their minds.” While examples of truly settled science being overturned are far fewer than is sometimes claimed, they do exist. But the beauty of this scientific process is that science produces both creativity and stability. New observations, ideas, explanations and attempts to combine competing claims introduce creativity; transformative questioning leads to collective decisions and the stability of scientific knowledge. Scientists do change their minds in the face of new evidence, but this is a strength of science, not a weakness.
1. Scientists stress the success of science in order to ________.| A．promote basic knowledge of science |
| B．remind people of scientific achievements |
| C．remove possible doubts about science |
| D．show their attitude towards the campaign |
| A．It’s an easy job to prove its existence. |
| B．It usually agrees with scientists’ ideas. |
| C．It hardly gets mixed with false theories. |
| D．It constantly changes and progresses. |
| A．It seldom gives negative evaluation of a paper. |
| B．It is usually conducted by unfriendly experts. |
| C．It aims to perfect the paper to be published. |
| D．It happens at the beginning of the evaluation process. |
| A．it is not uncommon for science to be overturned |
| B．scientists are very strong in changing their minds |
| C．people lose faith in those changeable scientists |
| D．changes bring creativity and stability to science |
