网友您好， 请在下方输入框内输入要搜索的题目：
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
The discovery of the strange stone in the deserted valley has spurred series of scientific research.
A:encouraged
B:endangered
C:endorsed
D:enlarged
B:endangered
C:endorsed
D:enlarged
参考答案
参考解析
解析：本句意思：在那个荒凉的山谷中发现的奇异石头激发了一系列的科学研究。encourage的 意思为“激励，鼓励”;endanger的意思为“使……处于险境”;endorse的意思为“赞同，签名”;en- larg。的意思为“使增大”。spur的意思为“激励，促进”，和encourage的意思接近。
更多 “The discovery of the strange stone in the deserted valley has spurred series of scientific research.A:encouraged B:endangered C:endorsed D:enlarged” 相关考题
考题
Bryce’s Department Store ___ its furniture department about a year ago.
A、enlargedB、was enlargedC、has enlargedD、has been enlarged
考题
Some type of instrument ()has been known to painters since the early Stone Age.
A、for applying paintB、applying paintC、is for applying paintD、for applying paint, it
考题
Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it[A] has attracted the attention of the general public.[B]has been examined by the scientific community.[C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers.[D]has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.
考题
Which of the following would be the best title of the test?[A] Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.[B]Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.[D]Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.
考题
Which of the following has the proper word stress?A.scientific
B.Scientific
C.sCienTific
D.scientific
考题
Text 3 In the idealized version of how science is done,facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work.But in the everyday practice of science,discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.We aim to be objective,but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience.Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience,what we think our experiences mean,and the subsequent actions we take.Opportunities for misinterpretation,error,and self-deception abound.Consequently,discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience.Similar to newly staked mining claims,they are full of potential.But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery.This is the credibility process,through which the individual researcher’s me,here,now becomes the community’s anyone,anywhere,anytime.Objective knowledge is the goal,not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes public,the discoverer receives intellectual credit.But,unlike with mining claims,the community takes control of what happens next.Within the complex social structure of the scientific community,researchers make discoveries;editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process;other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes;and finally,the public（including other scientists）receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology.As a discovery claim works it through the community,the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.First,scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.The goal is new-search,not re-search.Not surprisingly,newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers.Second,novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief.Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.”But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views.Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.In the end,credibility“happens”to a discovery claim–a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.“We reason together,challenge,revise,and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”33.Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after itA.has attracted the attention of the general public.
B.has been examined by the scientific community.
C.has received recognition from editors and reviewers.
D.has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.
考题
Text 3 In the idealized version of how science is done,facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work.But in the everyday practice of science,discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.We aim to be objective,but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience.Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience,what we think our experiences mean,and the subsequent actions we take.Opportunities for misinterpretation,error,and self-deception abound.Consequently,discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience.Similar to newly staked mining claims,they are full of potential.But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery.This is the credibility process,through which the individual researcher’s me,here,now becomes the community’s anyone,anywhere,anytime.Objective knowledge is the goal,not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes public,the discoverer receives intellectual credit.But,unlike with mining claims,the community takes control of what happens next.Within the complex social structure of the scientific community,researchers make discoveries;editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process;other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes;and finally,the public（including other scientists）receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology.As a discovery claim works it through the community,the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.First,scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.The goal is new-search,not re-search.Not surprisingly,newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers.Second,novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief.Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.”But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views.Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.In the end,credibility“happens”to a discovery claim–a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.“We reason together,challenge,revise,and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”35.Which of the following would be the best title of the test?A.Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.
B.Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.
C.Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.
D.Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.
考题
Text 3 In the idealized version of how science is done,facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work.But in the everyday practice of science,discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.We aim to be objective,but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience.Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience,what we think our experiences mean,and the subsequent actions we take.Opportunities for misinterpretation,error,and self-deception abound.Consequently,discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience.Similar to newly staked mining claims,they are full of potential.But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery.This is the credibility process,through which the individual researcher’s me,here,now becomes the community’s anyone,anywhere,anytime.Objective knowledge is the goal,not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes public,the discoverer receives intellectual credit.But,unlike with mining claims,the community takes control of what happens next.Within the complex social structure of the scientific community,researchers make discoveries;editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process;other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes;and finally,the public（including other scientists）receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology.As a discovery claim works it through the community,the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.First,scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.The goal is new-search,not re-search.Not surprisingly,newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers.Second,novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief.Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.”But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views.Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.In the end,credibility“happens”to a discovery claim–a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.“We reason together,challenge,revise,and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”31.According to the first paragraph,the process of discovery is characterized by itsA.uncertainty and complexity.
B.misconception and deceptiveness.
C.logicality and objectivity.
D.systematicness and regularity.
考题
Text 3 In the idealized version of how science is done,facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work.But in the everyday practice of science,discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.We aim to be objective,but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience.Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience,what we think our experiences mean,and the subsequent actions we take.Opportunities for misinterpretation,error,and self-deception abound.Consequently,discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience.Similar to newly staked mining claims,they are full of potential.But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery.This is the credibility process,through which the individual researcher’s me,here,now becomes the community’s anyone,anywhere,anytime.Objective knowledge is the goal,not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes public,the discoverer receives intellectual credit.But,unlike with mining claims,the community takes control of what happens next.Within the complex social structure of the scientific community,researchers make discoveries;editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process;other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes;and finally,the public（including other scientists）receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology.As a discovery claim works it through the community,the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.First,scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.The goal is new-search,not re-search.Not surprisingly,newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers.Second,novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief.Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.”But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views.Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.In the end,credibility“happens”to a discovery claim–a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.“We reason together,challenge,revise,and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”32.It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requiresA.strict inspection.
B.shared efforts.
C.individual wisdom.
D.persistent innovation.
考题
Text 3 In the idealized version of how science is done,facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work.But in the everyday practice of science,discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.We aim to be objective,but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience.Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience,what we think our experiences mean,and the subsequent actions we take.Opportunities for misinterpretation,error,and self-deception abound.Consequently,discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience.Similar to newly staked mining claims,they are full of potential.But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery.This is the credibility process,through which the individual researcher’s me,here,now becomes the community’s anyone,anywhere,anytime.Objective knowledge is the goal,not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes public,the discoverer receives intellectual credit.But,unlike with mining claims,the community takes control of what happens next.Within the complex social structure of the scientific community,researchers make discoveries;editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process;other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes;and finally,the public（including other scientists）receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology.As a discovery claim works it through the community,the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.First,scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.The goal is new-search,not re-search.Not surprisingly,newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers.Second,novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief.Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.”But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views.Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.In the end,credibility“happens”to a discovery claim–a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.“We reason together,challenge,revise,and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”34.Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi would most likely agree thatA.scientific claims will survive challenges.
B.discoveries today inspire future research.
C.efforts to make discoveries are justified.
D.scientific work calls for a critical mind.
考题
The project required ten years of diligent research.A:hardworking
B:social
C:basic
D:scientific
考题
America's emphasis on the importance of education for everyone has spurred scientific research.A:encouraged
B:endangered
C:endorsed
D:enlarged
考题
Silicon Valley has been hailed as a symbol of creativity and success.A:published
B:challenged
C:acclaimed
D:guided
考题
This rare bird has become（）Aan endangered specieBendangered speciesCendangering speciesDan endangered species
考题
This rare bird has become（）A、an endangered specieB、endangered speciesC、endangering speciesD、an endangered species
考题
You are performing the initial setup of a new MAG Series device and have installed a valid CA- signed certificate on the MAG Series device. Connectivity to an existing SRX Series firewall enforcer cannot be obtained.What are two explanations for this behavior?（）A、The MAG Series device has multiple ports associated with the certificate.B、The MAG Series device's serial number needs to be configured on the SRX Series device.C、The SRX Series device must have a certificate signed by the same authority as the MAG Series device.D、The MAG Series device and SRX Series device are not synchronized to an NTP server.
考题
单选题It can be inferred from the passage that ______.A
new radio devices should be developed for tracking the endangered blue whalesB
blue whales are no longer endangered with the use of the new listening systemC
opinions differ as to whether civilian scientists should be allowed to use military technologyD
military technology has great potential in civilian use
考题
单选题______ it or not , his discovery has created a stir in scientific circles.A
BelieveB
To believeC
BelievingD
Believed
考题
单选题This rare bird has become（）A
an endangered specieB
endangered speciesC
endangering speciesD
an endangered species
考题
填空题Endangered Minds, written by Jane Heady, suggests that television has something to do with the change of our brain.____
考题
单选题Obama has established or enlarged_____national monuments during his two terms.A
19B
20C
26D
30
考题
单选题He has been ill with a strange disease lately, ______ I’ve never heard of before.A
itB
thisC
thatD
one
考题
单选题The passage is focused on _____.A
how the scientists tried to protect endangered speciesB
how the symbolic endangered species has been chosenC
the relation between global warming and endangered speciesD
the problems in and the future of endangered species protection
考题
单选题The term “natural law” as it appears in the text refers to _____.A
common senseB
the result of an inductionC
the order of natureD
a scientific discovery
考题
单选题The plan has set off（） controversy.A
a storm ofB
a stone ofC
a rock ofD
a blow of
热门标签
最新试卷
