题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
How many arguments in this passage lead to the belief of the existence of life on Mars？
A．Two.
B．Three.
C．Four.
D．Five.
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“How many arguments in this passage lead to the belief of the existence of life on Mars？A．T”相关的问题
Doctor Godmin says that (no matter) (how forceful) arguments (against) smoking there are, many people (persist) in smoking.
A．no matter
B．how forceful
C．against
D．persist
A.5 mins
B.6 mins
C.7 mins
D.4 mins
W: Yes I do and… well, my impression was that you were trying to connect argument after argument without any grounds to support each assertion.
M: But surely, you would agree that there simply isn’t a lot of research out there to support my arguments.
W: Ah, but research is only one way to back up an argument.
M: May I know what other things I can use？
M: For starters, your experiences. Experiences form. the basis for conclusion. Then perhaps try to look at analogies to see all that can help you.
W: Are there any guidelines available on how I can use these experiences and analogies？
M: I did give a whole lecture on it dated February 7. You were there; weren’t you？
W: Whoops, that was one that fell on the week I couldn’t be there. I had to rush back home for personal reasons.
M: Well, perhaps on your next paper you’ll know that every argument you make needs legs or your paper will remain on the ground.
M: Thanks, Mrs. Morse. It’s all food for thought and you can bet the next one will have a solid base.
W: That’s the spirit.
(20)
A．His point of view was improper and could be easily attacked.
B．He provided too many personal experiences.
C．He provided too many analogies.
D．He didn't support his arguments enough.
W: Yes I do and... well, my impression was that you were trying to connect argument after argument without any grounds to support each assertion.
M: But surely, you would agree that there simply isn't a lot of research out there to support my arguments.
W: Ah, but research is only one way to back up an argument.
M: May I know what other things I can use？
W: For starters, your experiences. Experiences form. the basis for conclusion. Then perhaps try to look at analogies to see all that can help you.
M: Are there any guidelines available on how I can use these experiences and analogies？
W: I did give a whole lecture on it dated February 7. You were there; weren't you？
M: Whoops, that was one that fell on the week I couldn't be there. I had to rush back home for personal reasons.
W: Well, perhaps on your next paper you'll know that every argument you make needs legs or your paper will remain on the ground.
M: Thanks, Mrs. Morse. It's all food for thought and you can bet the next one will have a solid base.
W: That's the spirit.
(1)
A．His point of view was improper and could be easily attacked.
B．He provided too many personal experiences.
C．He provided too many analogies.
D．He didn't support his arguments enough.
W: Personally, I feel that it is not a very sound idea. It is difficult for two people of entirely different religions to live and share a life together. They will face so many problems that it would be better if they don't get married in the first place. M: Of course there will be problems. Even two people of the same religion have problems. It is the same in this case, except that it will be slightly more difficult, I guess.
W: I agree with you, Henry. Naturally, there will be arguments and personal differences. Marriage thrives on a give-and-take policy, so a couple will have to learn to adapt to each other's customs and traditions.
M: That's right. Married people should be more tolerant towards each other and be willing to learn a bout each other's religion. Only then can understanding and acceptance be achieved ultimately.
W: You talk as if it were very simple. It isn't, you know. I should know, as I am a child of a mixed marriage.
M: All right, you tell us why it is not such a good idea.
W: You see, Henry, it depends on the individuals concerned. If two people of different religions marry, they should be prepared for the consequences. It is only after marriage that the vast differences in the cultures begin to show. Little things, from food and clothes to bigger aspects like religious beliefs, tend to clash, leading eventually to a rift. Besides, this will be either personal pride or the reluctance to accept the other's views. It may lead to a big gap between the parents, and their children may suffer a lot in between.
M: You have a point there, but I can also tell you of several such couples who are living happily together.
W: I suppose that you are right. Intermarriage can lead to happiness or sorrow, depending on how it is handled.
(33)
A．Comparison
B．Contrast
C．Causality
D．Bias
听力原文： It arrived on a Friday afternoon. The idea probably originated somewhere over the Atlantic, off the coast of Africa. It came across the world, until it finally found me, stuck in traffic, and flew through my ear into my head. And I knew exactly what I wanted to do with my life. History had always been my academic passion. I've read so many history textbooks, I've sat down and read countless encyclopedia articles, books and websites, and I've watched more hours of the History Channel than anyone I've ever met. 1 know that I want to have a hand in guiding the progress of my nation and world. My passion for history has only been matched by my love of mental competition. I live for arguments, debates and discussions. The points and counterpoints come out hard and fast. I make my statement and discredit that of my opponent, I respond, I parry, I dodge. I feel content, happy and fulfilled. These two ideas found their way to me on that Friday afternoon, a profession that would combine my two passions: Campaign Management. My love for mental combat would Be used to its fullest in matching wits with the opposing campaign staff, and my passion for history would be more than sated by my involvement in what I consider to be its most interesting aspect: its creation. Through campaign management, I would be indirect ly shaping history. Many of my friends don't know where they want to go to school, they don't talk about where they stand in the class, how good, or bad their scores are. People ask me the same questions, and I face them with confidence, because I know the answer to a larger question: I know where I want to be when I'm done with college.
(33)
A．History teacher
B．College professor.
C．History writer.
D．Campaign manager
The main idea of the first paragraph is that______.
A．some scholars have proved that Shakespeare"s works were not his own
B．some scholars do not believe Shakespeare"s works were his own
C．some pseudo-scholars try to prove that Shakespeare"s works were not his own
D．some pseudo-scholars take it for granted that Shakespeare"s works were his own
听力原文：M: How did you like our American History class yesterday？
W: Well I did enjoy it, but I didn't exactly buy everything Barnum said either.
M: You mean his view that the early framers of the constitution really didn’t want democracy as we know it today？
W: Well, "as we know it today" I can accept. But when he states that there was no affinity towards democracy as it was understand then well.., to me this just sounds like historical revisionism.
M: Well, surely you have to admit that their concept of democracy was not "democratic". After all, many groups including those without land, women, blacks and many others were shut out of participating in the new system.
W: Yes, but when we look at what we call democracy today, there are still groups shut out of being able to vote in America, such as children and convicted people. Also, I think it is fair to say that many groups find it still very difficult to participate. So we don't have complete democracy even today.
M: Yes, but I think he is basing his arguments on the factual transcripts of the early Founding Fathers realizing that they didn't like to use the term "democracy" and some even heaped scorn on it.
W: Perhaps it was just that the term had a different meaning from the way it is used today.
M: But I think it is fair to say that democracy wasn't exactly in fashion. And perhaps it is worthwhile to draw a distinction between liberty and democracy, since the relationship between the two is somewhat blurry.
W: But if you are to say that America was not a democracy in the beginning then you might as well say it is not one today either because the structures of federalism, 3 branch government and checks and balances are basically the same as it was over 200 years ago.
M: You have a point there, most of the constitution remains intact, and despite the fact that America is much closer to a true democracy than it was even 50 years ago, it's still a fair way from being ideal.
W: Right and if you apply the democracy to an ideal you will get nowhere. I wish Barnum was lls~ning to us right now.
M: Well, here's your chance to challenge him right now. I see him coming our way.
W: Are you joking？ I still need to get a decent mark in this course and I'm not doing it by making him angry.
(23)
A．She loved it.
B．She disagreed with too much of it to enjoy.
C．She thought it was just so.
D．She liked the class but disagreed with the Professor.
W: Personally, I feel that it is not a very sound idea. It is difficult for two people of entirely different religions to live and share life together. They will face so many problems that it would be better if they don't get married in the first place.
M: Of course there will be problems. Even two people of the same religion have problems. It is the same in this case. except that it will be slightly more difficult, I guess.
W: I agree with you, Henry. Naturally, there will be arguments and personal differences. Marriage thrives on a give-and-take policy, so a couple will have to learn to adapt to each other's customs and traditions.
M: That's right. Married people should be more tolerant towards each other and be willing to learn about each other's religion. Only then can understanding and acceptance be achieved ultimately.
W: You talk as if it were very simple. It isn't, you know. I should know. as I am a child of a mixed marriage.
M: All right, you tell us why is is not such a good idea.
W: You see, Henry, it depends on the individuals concerned. If two people of different religions marry, they should be prepared for the consequences. It is only after marriage that the vast differences in the cultures begin to show. Little things, from food and clothes to bigger aspects like religious beliefs, tend to clash, leading eventually to a rift. Besides. there will be either personal pride or the reluctance to accept the other's views. It may lead to a big gap between the parents, and their children may suffer a lot in between.
M: You have a point there. but I can also tell you of several such couples who are living happily together.
W: I suppose that you are right. Intermarriage can lead to happiness or sorrow, depending on how it is handled.
Which word may best describe the two speakers' positions on intermarriage？
A．Comparison.
B．Contrast.
C．Casuality.
D．Bias.
Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral. They oppose killing patients in any circumstances whatever. However, they think it is all right, in some special circumstances, to allow patients to die by withholding treatment The American Medical Association's policy statement on mercy killing supports this traditional view. In my paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia" I argue, against the traditional view, that there is in fact no normal difference between killing and letting die --if one is permissible, then so is the other.
Professor Sullivan does not dispute my argument; instead he dismisses it as irrelevant The traditional doctrine, he says, does not appeal to or depend on the distinction between killing and letting die. Therefore, arguments against that distinction "leave the traditional position untouched".
Is my argument really irrelevant？ I don' t see how it can be. As Sullivan himself points out, nearly everyone holds that it is sometimes meaningless to prolong the process of dying and that in those cases it is morally permissible to let a patient die even though a few more hours or days could be saved by procedures that would also increase the agonies of the dying. But if' it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible.
But traditionalists like professor Sullivan hold that active euthanasia--the direct killing of patients--is not morally permissible; so, if thy argument is sound, their view must ,be mistaken. I can not agree, then, that my argument "leave the traditional position untouched".
However, I shall not press this point. Instead I shall present some further arguments against the traditional position, concentrating on those elements of the position which professor Sullivan himself thinks most important. According to him, what is important is, first, that we should never intentionally terminate the life of a patient, either by action or omission, and second, that we may cease or omit treatment of a patient, knowing that this will result in death, only if the means of treatment involved are extraordinary.
The author's purpose in writing this passage is______
A．to air his opinions on Sullivan's fallacies.
B．to attack the traditional view on euthanasia.
C．to explain why his argument is relevant.
D．to draw a line between killing and letting die.
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！
