1 . You’ve heard that plastic is polluting the oceans — between 4.8 and 12.7 million tonnes enter ocean ecosystems every year. But does one plastic straw or cup really make a difference? Artist Benjamin Von Wong wants you to know that it does. He builds massive sculptures out of plastic garbage, forcing viewers to re-examine their relationship to single-use plastic products.
At the beginning of the year, the artist built a piece called “Strawpocalypse,” a pair of 10-foot-tall plastic waves, frozen mid-crash. Made of 168,000 plastic straws collected from several volunteer beach cleanups, the sculpture made its first appearance at the Estella Place shopping center in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Just 9% of global plastic waste is recycled. Plastic straws are by no means the biggest source (来源) of plastic pollution, but they’ve recently come under fire because most people don’t need them to drink with and, because of their small size and weight, they cannot be recycled. Every straw that’s part of Von Wong’s artwork likely came from a drink that someone used for only a few minutes. Once the drink is gone, the straw will take centuries to disappear.
In a piece from 2018, Von Wong wanted to illustrate (说明) a specific statistic: Every 60 seconds, a truckload’s worth of plastic enters the ocean. For this work, titled “Truckload of Plastic,” Von Wong and a group of volunteers collected more than 10,000 pieces of plastic, which were then tied together to look like they’d been dumped (倾倒) from a truck all at once.
Von Wong hopes that his work will also help pressure big companies to reduce their plastic footprint.
1. What are Von Wong’s artworks intended for?| A．Beautifying the city he lives in. | B．Introducing eco-friendly products. |
| C．Drawing public attention to plastic waste. | D．Reducing garbage on the beach. |
| A．To show the difficulty of their recycling. |
| B．To explain why they are useful. |
| C．To voice his views on modern art. |
| D．To find a substitute for them. |
| A．Calming. | B．Disturbing. |
| C．Refreshing. | D．Challenging. |
| A．Artists’ Opinions on Plastic Safety |
| B．Media Interest in Contemporary Art |
| C．Responsibility Demanded of Big Companies |
| D．Ocean Plastics Transformed into Sculptures |
2 . Who is a genius? This question has greatly interested humankind for centuries.
Let’s state clearly: Einstein was a genius. His face is almost the international symbol for genius. But we want to go beyond one man and explore the nature of genius itself. Why is it that some people are so much more intelligent or creative than the rest of us? And who are they?
In the sciences and arts, those praised as geniuses were most often white men, of European origin. Perhaps this is not a surprise. It’s said that history is written by the victors, and those victors set the standards for admission to the genius club. When contributions were made by geniuses outside the club—women, or people of a different color or belief—they were unacknowledged and rejected by others.
A study recently published by Science found that as young as age six, girls are less likely than boys to say that members of their gender(性别)are “really, really smart.” Even worse, the study found that girls act on that belief: Around age six they start to avoid activities said to be for children who are “really, really smart.” Can our planet afford to have any great thinkers become discouraged and give up? It doesn’t take a genius to know the answer: absolutely not.
Here’s the good news. In a wired world with constant global communication, we’re all positioned to see flashes of genius wherever they appear. And the more we look, the more we will see that social factors(因素)like gender, race, and class do not determine the appearance of genius. As a writer says, future geniuses come from those with “intelligence, creativity, perseverance(毅力), and simple good fortune, who are able to change the world.”
1. What does the author think of victors’ standards for joining the genius club?| A．They’re unfair. | B．They’re conservative. |
| C．They’re objective. | D．They’re strict. |
| A．They think themselves smart. |
| B．They look up to great thinkers. |
| C．They see gender differences earlier than boys. |
| D．They are likely to be influenced by social beliefs |
| A．Improved global communication. |
| B．Less discrimination against women. |
| C．Acceptance of victors’ concepts. |
| D．Changes in people’s social positions. |
| A．Geniuses Think Alike | B．Genius Takes Many Forms |
| C．Genius and Intelligence | D．Genius and Luck |
3 . Early fifth-century philosopher St．Augustine famously wrote that he knew what time was unless someone asked him．Albert Einstein added another wrinkle when he theorized that time varies depending on where you measure it．Today's state-of-the-art atomic（原子的） clocks have proven Einstein right．Even advanced physics can't decisively tell us what time is, because the answer depends on the question you're asking．
Forget about time as an absolute．What if，instead of considering time in terms of astronomy,we related time to ecology？What if we allowed environmental conditions to set the tempo（节奏） of human life？We're increasingly aware of the fact that we can't control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate（调节）our actions if we hope to live in balance．What if our definition of time reflected that？
Recently，I conceptualized a new approach to timekeeping that's connected to circumstances on our planet，conditions that might change as a result of global warming．We're now building a clock at the Anchorage Museum that reflects the total flow of several major Alaskan rivers，which are sensitive to local and global environmental changes．We've programmed it to match an atomic clock if the waterways continue to flow at their present rate．If the rivers run faster in the future on average，the clock will get ahead of standard time．If they run slower，you'll see the opposite effect．
The clock registers both short-term irregularities and long-term trends in river dynamics．It's a sort of observatory that reveals how the rivers are behaving from their own temporal frame（时间框架），and allows us to witness those changes on our smartwatches or phones．Anyone who opts to go on Alaska Mean River Time will live in harmony with the planet．Anyone who considers river time in relation to atomic time will encounter a major imbalance and may be motivated to counteract it by consuming less fuel or supporting greener policies．
Even if this method of timekeeping is novel in its particulars，early agricultural societies also connected time to natural phenomena．In pre-Classical Greece，for instance，people“corrected”official calendars by shifting dates forward or backward to reflect the change of season．Temporal connection to the environment was vital to their survival．Likewise，river time and other timekeeping systems we're developing may encourage environmental awareness．
When St．Augustine admitted his inability to define time， he highlighted one of time 's most noticeable qualities：Time becomes meaningful only in a defined context．Any timekeeping system is valid，and each is as praiseworthy as its purpose．
1. What is the main idea of Paragraph 1？| A．Timekeeping is increasingly related to nature． |
| B．Everyone can define time on their own terms． |
| C．The qualities of time vary with how you measure it． |
| D．Time is a major concern of philosophers and scientists． |
| A．present an assumption | B．evaluate an argument |
| C．highlight an experiment | D．introduce an approach |
| A．Those who do not go on river time will live an imbalanced life． |
| B．New ways of measuring time can help to control Earth systems． |
| C．Atomic time will get ahead of river time if the rivers run slower． |
| D．Modern technology may help to shape the rivers’ temporal frame． |
| A．It is crucial to improve the definition of time． |
| B．A fixed frame will make time meaningless． |
| C．We should live in harmony with nature． |
| D．History is a mirror reflecting reality． |
4 . Slowness has been a sweeping trend in sustainability. Slow food celebrates local produce and traditional cooking methods; slow fashion is made with a focus on people and the planet. You may have even heard of the slow city, a campaign to restore local cultures and turn cities back to their natural environments.
Slow design developed from the larger slow movement. Although the term was only recently introduced, the idea of thoughtful design looks back to a time when buildings and furniture were made with great craftsmanship (手艺) and by hand-before the mass-produced throwaway furniture took over. You can think of the term “slow” as a celebration of timelessness: both the timelessness of a piece and the timelessness of the relationship between that piece and its owner.
One example of slow design today is what’s been dubbed the brown furniture revival (复兴). Brown furniture refers to the heavy wooden furnishings that were popular in your grandparents’ day but suddenly fell out of style at the turn of the century. Brown furniture is often associated with dark woods, such as trees like mahogany, walnut, and teak, that take decades to reach maturity and true craftsmanship to transform into functional pieces.
Today’s furniture industry is dominated by the $13.1 billion-and-growing global ready-to-assemble(RTA) furniture market. RTA furniture is usually constructed from low-quality fiberboard, which lasts a small part of traditional furniture’s lifespan (寿命).The weight of furniture landfilled in 2018 was 9. 7 million tons, 4. 5 times what was landfilled in 1960.
In a less direct way, the idea of timelessness also lends itself to a lower environmental impact. Besides their demonstrated physical durability, slow materials and design are meant to outlive trends and never be thrown out simply because they’re out of style.
As second-hand shopping becomes more appealing to today’s young generation-because of its low environmental impact and affordability-the brown furniture of yesteryear is making a comeback.
1. Why is the first paragraph written?| A．To explain a new term. |
| B．To present the topic of the text. |
| C．To provide background information. |
| D．To highlight the importance of slowness. |
| A．Known as. |
| B．Mistaken for. |
| C．Compared to. |
| D．Connected with. |
| A．It is out of date. |
| B．It has a long lifespan. |
| C．It is heavy and expensive. |
| D．It has bad effects on the environment. |
| A．Grandparents are buying new furniture. |
| B．The brown furniture will soon be mass-produced. |
| C．The young generation favors second-hand shopping. |
| D．Materials for slow design furniture are more available. |
5 . Back in 1964, in his book Games People Play, psychiatrist Eric Berne described a pattern of conversation he called “Why Don’t You — Yes But”, which remains one of the most annoying aspects of everyday social life. The person adopting the strategy is usually a chronic complainer. Something is terrible about their relationship, job, or other situation, and they complain about it endlessly, but find some excuse to dismiss any solution that’s proposed. The reason, of course, is that on some level they don’t want a solution; they want to be validated (认可) in their position that the world is out to get them. If they can “win” the game — dismissing every suggestion until interlocutor (对话者) gives up in annoyance — they get to feel pleasurably righteous (正当的) in their anger and excused from any obligation to change.
Part of the trouble here is the so-called responsibility/fault fallacy (谬误). When you’re feeling hard done by — taken for granted by your partner, say, or obliged to work for a stupid boss — it’s easy to become attached to the position that it’s not your job to address the matter, and that doing so would be an admission of fault. But there’s a confusion here. For example, if I were to discover a newborn at my front door, it wouldn’t be my fault, but it most certainly would be my responsibility. There would be choices to make, and no possibility of avoiding them, since trying to ignore the matter would be a choice. The point is that what goes for the baby on the doorstep is true in all cases: even if the other person is 100% in the wrong, there’s nothing to be gained, long-term, from using this as a justification to evade responsibility.
Should you find yourself on the receiving end of this kind of complaining, there’s a clever way to shut it down — which is to agree with it. Psychotherapist Lori Gottlieb describes this as “over-validation”. For one thing, you’ll be spared further complaining, since the other person’s motivation was to confirm her beliefs, and now you’re confirming them. But for another, as Gottlieb notes, people confronted with over-validation often hear their complaints afresh and start arguing back. The concept that they’re utterly powerless suddenly seems unrealistic, not to mention rather annoying — so they’re prompted instead to generate ideas about how they might change things.
“And then, sometimes, something magical might happen, ” Gotlieb writes. The other person “might realize she’s not as trapped as you are saying she is, or as she feels. ” Avoiding responsibility feels comfortable, but turns out to be a prison; whereas assuming responsibility feels unpleasant, but ends up being freeing.
1. What is the characteristic of a chronic complainer, according to Eric Berne?| A．They are angry about their ill treatment and feel bitter towards whoever tries to help. |
| B．They are habitually unhappy and endlessly find fault with people around them. |
| C．They constantly dismiss others’ proposals while taking no responsibility for dealing with the problem. |
| D．They lack the basic skills required for successful conversations with others. |
| A．People tend to think that one should not be held responsible for others’ mistakes. |
| B．It is easy to become attached to the position of overlooking one’s own fault. |
| C．People are often at a loss when confronted with a number of choices. |
| D．A distinction should be drawn between responsibility and fault. |
| A．Stop them from going further by agreeing with them. |
| B．Listen to their complaints attentively and sympathetically. |
| C．Ask them to validate their beliefs with further evidence. |
| D．Persuade them to clarify the confusion they caused. |
| A．What is the responsibility/fault fallacy for chronic complainers? |
| B．How can you avoid dangerous traps in everyday social life? |
| C．Who are chronic complainers and how to deal with them? |
| D．Why should we stop being a chronic complainer and assume responsibility? |
6 . ChatGPT became the hottest issue due to its ability to produce human-sounding essays, poetry, and screenplays on virtually any subject in seconds. Soon after ChatGPT was released, the potential for it to be misused to do things such as spread misinformation and write junk mails became apparent. Schools and educators also have warned of the potential for students to use it to write essays or other work they have been assigned. Last December, the software passed all three parts of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination as part of a research experiment.
So the startup, OpenAI behind the viral chatbot, revealed a tool for detecting text generated by artificial intelligence amid growing concerns the technology will be abused by cheaters, junk mail senders and others. OpenAI said that its so-called AI classifier was designed to help people distinguish between text written by a human versus a range of artificial intelligence programs—not just ChatGPT.
OpenAI said it had schools in mind when developing its latest classifier tool. “We recognize that identifying AI-written text has been an important point of discussion among educators, and equally important is recognizing the limits and impacts of AI-generated text classifiers in the classroom,” it said.
The classifier isn’t good enough on its own, though it can be used to go with methods that educators, employers and others rely on to determine the source of a piece of text. In evaluations, the new tool correctly identified 26% of AI-written text as “likely AI-written”, while it also had false positives 9% of the time in which it incorrectly labeled human-written text as AI-written. Another problem is that the tool can’t easily tell if a list of facts—U.S. state capitals for example—was written by a person or AI, because the correct answer would be the same. AI-written text can also be edited to escape the classifier.
“While it is impossible to reliably detect all AI-written text, classifiers like ours can be updated and re-trained based on successful attacks,” OpenAI said. “But it is unclear whether detection has an advantage in the long-term.”
1. ChatGPT’s passing the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam is mentioned to __________.| A．account for its operating principles |
| B．illustrate its complex structure |
| C．emphasize its growing popularity |
| D．warn against its potential danger |
| A．Deepening the impact of AI writers. |
| B．Identifying the texts generated by AI. |
| C．Promoting the use of AI in classroom discussion. |
| D．Arousing educators’ awareness of AI-related technology. |
| A．It is a work-in-progress. |
| B．It is good at storing factual information. |
| C．It can help a journalist to edit a text. |
| D．It is a reliable educational tool. |
| A．It will be reliable after continuous self-update and retraining. |
| B．Whether it can help educators in the long-term is out of question. |
| C．Whether it can solve the problems as intended remains a question. |
| D．It will succeed in detecting all human-written texts in the near future. |
7 . The word paradigm comes from the Greek. It was originally a scientific term, and is more commonly used today to mean a model or theory. In the more general sense, it’s the way we “see” the world — not in terms of our visual sense of sight, but in terms of perceiving, understanding, and interpreting.
A simple way to understand paradigms is to see them as maps. We all know that “the map is not the territory.” A map is simply an explanation of certain aspects of the territory. That’s exactly what a paradigm is. It is a theory, an explanation, or model of something else. You can never arrive at a specific location in a new city with a wrong map.
Each of us has many maps in our head, which can be divided into two main categories: maps of the way things are, or realities, and maps of the way things should be, or values. We interpret everything we experience through these mental maps. We seldom question their accuracy; we’re usually even unaware that we have them. We simply assume that the way we see things is the way they really are or the way they should be. And our attitudes and behaviors grow out of those assumptions. The way we see things is the source of the way we think and the way we act.
We see the world, not as it is, but as we are or, as we are conditioned to see it. Clearheaded people see things differently, each looking through the unique lens of experience. But this does not mean that there are no facts. Instead, each person’s interpretation of these facts represents prior experiences.
The more aware we are of our basic paradigms, maps, or assumptions, and the extent to which we have been influenced by our experience, the more we can take responsibility for those paradigms, examine them, test them against reality, listen to others and be open to their perceptions, thereby getting a larger picture and a far more objective view.
1. How does the author illustrate the concept of “paradigm”?| A．By comparing it to an everyday object. | B．By sorting it into different categories. |
| C．By presenting personal examples. | D．By highlighting a sharp contrast. |
| A．They fail to escape our attention. | B．They may be lacking in accuracy. |
| C．They prove wrong and unreliable. | D．They have little influence on behavior. |
| A．Great minds think alike. | B．All men have opinions, but few think. |
| C．Where we stand depends on where we sit. | D．The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinions. |
| A．A better understanding of our paradigms. | B．A stronger sense of responsibility for others. |
| C．A more objective view of others’ perceptions. | D．A more positive attitude toward life experience. |
8 . Given the buzz it’s created, there’s a good chance you’ve heard about ChatGPT. It’s an interactive chatbot powered by machine learning. The technology has basically devoured the entire Internet, reading the collective works of humanity and learning patterns in language that it can recreate. All you have to do is give it a prompt (提示), and ChatGPT can do an endless array of things: write a story in a particular style, answer a question, explain a concept, compose an email—write a college essay-and it will spit out coherent, seemingly human—written text in seconds. The technology is both awesome and terrifying.
22-year-old Edward Tian is working feverishly on a new app to combat misuse of ChatGPT.
Over the last couple years, Tian has been studying an AI system called GPT-3, a predecessor to ChatGPT that was less user-friendly and largely inaccessible to the general public because it was behind a paywall. As part of his studies this fall semester, Tian researched how to detect text written by the AI system while working at Princeton’s Natural Language Processing Lab.
Then, as the semester was coming to a close, OpenAI, the company behind GPT-3 and other AI tools, released ChatGPT to the public for free. For the millions of people around the world who have used it since, interacting with the technology has been like getting a peek into the future; a future that not too long ago would have seemed like science fiction.
For many users of the new technology, wonderment quickly turned to alarm. How-many jobs will this kill? Will this empower nefarious (恶意的) actors and further corrupt our public discourse (公共话语)? How will this disrupt our education system? What is the point of learning to write essays at school when AI-which is expected to get exponentially better in the near future-can do that for us?
Tian had an idea. What if he applied what he had learned at school over the last couple years to help the public identify whether something has been written by a machine?
Tian already had the know-how and even the software on his laptop to create such a program. Ironically, this software, called GitHub Co-Pilot, is powered by GPT-3. With its assistance, Tian was able to create a new app within three days. It’s a testament to the power of this technology to make us more productive.
On January 2nd, Tian released his app GPTZero. It basically uses ChatGPT against itself, checking whether “there’s zero involvement or a lot of involvement” of the AI system in creating a given text.
When Tian went to bed that night, he didn’t expect much for his app. When he woke up, his phone had blown up. He saw countless texts and DMs from journalists, principals, teachers, you name it, from places as far away as France and Switzerland. His app, which is hosted by a free platform, became so popular it crashed. Excited by the popularity and purpose of his app, the hosting platform has since granted Tian the resources needed to scale the app’s services to a mass audience.
1. Which of the following statements is TRUE about GPT-3?| A．It’s designed and researched by Edward Tian in Princeton University |
| B．Not many ordinary people have used it because it is not free. |
| C．It is in the same AI system series as ChatGPT and GPTZero. |
| D．It used to be less user-friendly than ChatGPT but has outdone it now. |
| A．AI may replace human beings in the future when it comes to writing essays. |
| B．Actors may turn bad or even evil if the new technology is adopted in acting. |
| C．The education system may be badly impacted by the misuse of the new technology. |
| D．Many people may be out of employment because of the new technology. |
| A．the app is hosted by a free platform which is very popular. |
| B．they know many journalists are also very interested in it. |
| C．they are eager to share the resources Edward Tian is granted. |
| D．they are worried about the possibility of students cheating in writing. |
| A．Harm set, harm get. | B．Birds of a feather flock together. |
| C．Fight a man with his own weapon. | D．Great minds think alike. |
9 . A few years ago, the City Council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved fishbowls. The sponsors of the measure explained that it is cruel to keep a fish in such a bowl because the curved sides give the fish a distorted view of reality. Aside from the measure’s significance to the poor goldfish, the story raises an interesting philosophical question: How do we know that the reality we perceive is true?
Physicists are finding themselves in a similar trouble to the goldfish’s. For decades they have been pursuing an ultimate theory of everything—one complete and consistent set of fundamental laws of nature that explain every aspect of reality. It now appears that this pursuit may generate not a single theory but a family of interconnected theories, each describing its own version of reality, as if it viewed the universe through its own fishbowl. This concept may be difficult for many people to accept. Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey (传达) information about the material world. In philosophy, that belief is called realism.
In physics, realism is becoming difficult to defend. Instead, the idea of alternative realities is a mainstay of today’s popular culture. For example, in the science-fiction film The Matrix the human race is unknowingly living in a simulated (模拟的) virtual reality created by intelligent computers. How do we know we are not just computer-generated characters living in a Matrix-like world? If—like us—the beings in the simulated world could not observe their universe from the outside, they would have no reason to doubt their own pictures of reality.
Similarly, the goldfish’s view is not the same as ours from outside their curved bowl. For instance, because light bends as it travels from air to water, a freely moving object that we would observe to move in a straight line would be observed by the goldfish to move along a curved path. The goldfish could form scientific laws from their frame (框架) of reference that would always hold true and that would enable them to make predictions about the future motion of objects outside the bowl. If the goldfish formed such a theory, we would have to admit the goldfish’s view as a reasonable picture of reality.
The goldfish example shows that the same physical situation can be modeled in different ways, each employing different fundamental elements and concepts. It might be that to describe the universe we have to employ different theories in different situations. It is not the physicist’s traditional expectation for a theory of nature, nor does it correspond to our everyday idea of reality. But it might be the way of the universe.
1. What does the underlined word “distorted” in Paragraph most probably mean?| A．Original. | B．Accurate. | C．Distant. | D．False. |
| A．The need for a complete theory. | B．The lasting conflict in physics. |
| C．The existence of the material world. | D．The conventional insight of reality. |
| A．Nature’s mysteries are best left undiscovered. |
| B．An external world is independent of the observers. |
| C．People’s theories are influenced by their viewpoints. |
| D．It is essential to figure out which picture of reality is better. |
| A．various interpretations of the universe are welcomed |
| B．physicists have a favorite candidate for the final theory |
| C．multiple realities can be pieced together to show the real world |
| D．there is still possibility to unify different theories into a single one |
10 . Antibiotics, which can destroy or prevent the growth of bacteria and cure infections, are vital to modern medicine. Their ability to kill bacteria without harming the patient has saved billions of lives and made surgical procedures much safer. But after decades of overuse, their powers are fading. Some bacteria have evolved resistance, creating a growing army of superbugs, against which there is little effective treatment. Antimicrobial (抗菌的) resistance, expected to kill 10 million people a year by 2050 up from around 1 million in 2019, has been seen as a crisis by many.
It would be unwise to rely on new antibiotics to solve the problem. The rate at which resistance emerges is increasing. Some new drugs last only two years before bacteria develop resistance. When new antibiotics do arrive, doctors often store them, using them only reluctantly and for short periods when faced with the most persistent infections. That limits sales, making new antibiotics an unappealing idea for most drug firms.
Governments have been trying to fix the problem by channeling cash into research in drug firms. That has produced only limited improvements. But there is a phenomenon worth a look. Microbiologists have known for decades that disease-causing bacteria can suffer from illnesses of their own. They are supersensitive to attacks by phages, specialized viruses that infect bacteria and often kill them. Phages are considered a promising alternative to antibiotics.
Using one disease-causing virus to fight bacteria has several advantages. Like antibiotics, phages only tend to choose particular targets, leaving human cells alone as they infect and destroy bacterial ones. Unlike antibiotics, phages can evolve just as readily as bacteria can, meaning that even if bacteria do develop resistance, phages may be able to evolve around them in turn.
That, at least, is the theory. The trouble with phages is that comparatively little is known about them. After the discovery of penicillin, the first antibiotic, in 1928, they were largely ignored in the West. Given the severity of the antibiotic-resistance problem, it would be a good idea to find out more about them.
The first step is to run more clinical trials. Interest from Western firms is growing. But it is being held back by the fact that phages are an even less appealing investment than antibiotics. Since they are natural living things, there may be trouble patenting them, making it hard to recover any investment.
Governments can help fun d basic research into phage treatment and clarify the law around exactly what is and is not patentable. In time they can set up phage banks so as to make production cheaper. And they can spread awareness of the risks of overusing antibiotics, and the potential benefits of phages.
1. We can learn from paragraphs 1 and 2 that .| A．doctors tend to use new antibiotics when the patients ask for them |
| B．antimicrobial resistance is developing more rapidly than predicted |
| C．new antibiotics fail to attract drug firms due to limited use of them |
| D．previous antibiotics are effective in solving modern health problems |
| A．They can increase human cells when fighting bacteria. |
| B．They are not particular about which cells to infect and kill. |
| C．They can evolve accordingly when bacteria develop resistance. |
| D．They are too sensitive to be infected by disease-causing bacteria. |
| A．there is little chance of patenting phages in the future |
| B．governments provide financial support for other research |
| C．the emergence of superbugs holds back drug firms’ interest |
| D．over-dependence on antibiotics distracts attention from phages |
| A．Governments fail to stop the use of antibiotics. |
| B．Phages could help prevent an antibiotics crisis. |
| C．Development of antibiotics is limited by phages. |
| D．Antimicrobial resistance calls for new antibiotics. |
