题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A、wonder
B、stay
C、roam
D、play
简答题官方参考答案
（由简答题聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
更多“What kind of planet will our children inherit？ Will they have room to （) air to breathe and food to …”相关的问题
What kind of planet might NOT support life？
A．Most of the planets of the stars.
B．Stars similar to our sun.
C．Planets similar to the earth.
D．Planets with proper conditions.
What kind of planet elsewhere in the universe can support life？（）
A．Those double stars' planets
B．Those planets much hotter than our earth.
C．Those planets similar to the earth.
D．Those planets very close to their suns
Air as a gas, has no definite (一定的) shape, hut, because it is matter, it takes up space. It is easy to prove that air is something that takes up space. Stuff a dry handkerchief into the bottom of a glass so that it will not fall out when the glass is turned upside down. Push the upside-down glass, hold straight up and down, into a jar of water till the glass is completely covered. When the glass is taken out of the water, the handkerchief will be dry. The air inside the glass took up space and kept the water from coming in.
What's the article mainly about？
A．Air is a kind of gas.
B．Air is invisible.
C．Air is everywhere.
D．Air takes up space.
Which of the following is NOT true according to the text ______.
A．The existence of life needs a steady supply of heat and light.
B．A smaller planet would hold too much of its atmosphere.
C．Life may arise on the planet where the proper conditions exist.
D．The existence of life needs the right amount and kind of atmosphere.
As far as astronomers can determine, the entire universe is built of the same matter. They have no reason to doubt that matter obeys the same laws in every part of the universe. Therefore, it is reasonable to guess that other stars, with their own planets, were born in the same way as our own solar system. What we know of life on earth suggests that life will arise wherever the proper conditions exist.
Life requires the right amount and kind of atmosphere. This eliminates all those planets in the universe that are not about the same size and weight as the earth. A smaller planet would lose its atmosphere, a larger one would hold too much of it.
Life also required a steady supply of heat and light. This eliminates double stars, or stars that flare up suddenly. Only single stars that are steady sources of heat and light like our sun would qualify.
Finally, life could evolve only if the planet is just the right distance from its sun. With a weaker sun than our own, the planet would have to be closer to it. With a stronger sun, it would have to be farther away.
If we suppose that every star in the universe has a family of planets, then how many planets might support life？ First, eliminate those stars that are not like our sun. Next, eliminate most of their planets, they are either too far from or too close to their suns. Then eliminate all those planets which are not the same size and weight as the earth. Finally, remember that the proper conditions do not necessarily mean that life actually does exist on a planet. It may not have begun yet, or it may have already died out.
This process of elimination seems to leave very few planets on which earthlike life might be found. However, even if life could exist on only one planet in a million, there are so many billions of planets that this would still leave a vast number on which life could exist.
Astronomers believe that matter in different parts of the universe ______.
A．has different laws
B．has one common law
C．shares the same laws
D．shares no common law
As far as astronomers can determine, the entire universe is built of the same matter. They have no reason to doubt that matter obeys the same laws in every part of the universe. Therefore, it is reasonable to guess that other stars, with their own planets, were born in the same way as our own solar system. What we know of life on earth suggests that life will arise wherever the proper conditions exist.
Life requires the right amount and kind of atmosphere. This eliminates all those planets in the universe that are not about the same size and weight as the earth. A smaller planet would lose its atmosphere; a larger one would hold too much of it.
Life also requires a steady supply of heat and light. This eliminates double stars, or stars that flare up suddenly. Only single stars that are steady sources of heat and light like our sun would qualify.
Finally, life could evolve only if the planet is just the right distance from its sun. With a weaker sun than our own, the planet would have to be closer to it. With a stronger sun, it would have to be farther away.
If we suppose that every star in the universe has a family of planets, then how many planets might support life？ First, eliminate those stars that are not like our sun. Next eliminate most of their planets; they are either too far from or too close to their suns. Then eliminate all those planets which are not the same size and weight as the earth. Finally, remember that the proper conditions do not necessarily mean that life actually does exist on a planet. It may not have begun yet, or it may have already died out.
This process of elimination seems to leave very few planets on which earthlike life might be found. However, even if life could exist on only one planet in a million, there are so many billions of planets that this would still leave a vast number on which life could exist.
第36题：Astronomers believe that matter in different parts of the universe
A) has different laws.
B) has one common law.
C) shares the same laws
D) shares no common law.
Everyone understands the meaning of the sentence“Man should respect animal life and nature”. But the exact meaning of man，nature and animal life is not always clear. Many refer to man and animals as if they were essentially different. I consider man to be an animal and only differing in degree and not in kind from other animals. Although I discuss in conventional terms human rights and animal rights as if they were separate，strictly speaking，human rights should be considered a branch of animal rights.
The word“nature”is one of the most complex words in the language，but it has developed three main areas of meaning. These are，first，the essential quality and character of something(as in human nature，or the nature of wood)；second，the inherent force which influences the world(as in Mother Nature)；third，the entire world itself. The last can be taken to include or to exclude human beings. as the phrase man and the natural world implies.
I consider humans to be an integral part of nature，although they are also the beings most capable of interfering with its processes. Unfortunately a central drive of Western“man”has been to conquer“nature”. as if it were an object separate from him. Hence it has become connnon to distinguish between what is natural(existing without man's interference)and artificial(man-made). In this way，natural growth is opposed to education，civilization to the natural state. For many urban people living permanently among concrete and glass，nature itself has come to mean little more than the countryside. And this notion of opposition is where the seed of potential destruction lies.
The word“unbiased”in Line 3 of Para. 1 means______.
A．unbalanced
B．fair
C．partial
D．unreasonable
Now there is a similar challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration (恶化) of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy.
The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to na; ve wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always be at the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound？
Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with far-sighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism (实用主义) with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will. "I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming," says Fred Krupp. "But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before."
What does the passage mainly discuss？
A．Human wars.
B．Economic crisis.
C．America's environmental policies.
D．Global environment in general.
根据短文回答 36～40 题。
Life in the Universe
Many scientists today are convinced that life exists elsewhere in the universe － life probably much like that on our own planet. They reason in the folio, wing way.
As far as astronomers (天文学家) can determine, the entire universe is built of the same matter. They have no reason to doubt that matter obeys the same laws in every part of the universe. Therefore, it is reasonable to guess that other stars, with their own planets, were born in the same way as our own solar system. What we know of life on earth suggests that life will arise wherever the proper conditions exist.
Life requires the right amount and kind of atmosphere. This .eliminates all those planets in the universe that are not about the same size and weight as the earth. A smaller planet would lose its atmosphere; a larger one would hold too much of it.
Life also requires a steady supply of heat and light. This eliminates double stars, or tars that flare up (闪耀) suddenly. Only single stab that are steady sources of heat and light like our sun would qualify.
Finally, life could evolve only if the planet is just the right distance from its sun. With a weaker sun than our own, the planet would have to be closer to it. With a stronger sun, it would have to be farther away.
If we suppose that every star in the universe has a family of planets, then how many planets might support life？ First, eliminate those stars that are not like our sun. Next, eliminate most of their planets; they are either too far from or too close to their suns. Then eliminate all those planets which are not the same size and weight as the earth. Finally, remember that the proper conditions do not necessarily mean that life actually does exist on a planet. It may not have begun yet, or it may have already died out.
This process of elimination seems to leave very few planets on which earthlike life might be found. However, even if life could exist on only one planet in a million, there are so many billions of planets that this would still leave a vast number on which life could exist.
第 36 题 Astronomers believe that matter in different parts of the universe（）
A．obeys different laws
B．obeys one common law
C．obeys the same laws
D．obeys no common law
警告：系统检测到您的账号存在安全风险
为了保护您的账号安全，请在“简答题”公众号进行验证，点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证，验证成功后方可继续查看答案！
