Text 3
The journal Science is adding an extra source at Peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNott announced today. The Follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that Mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the Published research findings.
"Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,"writes McNutt in an editorial. Working with the American Statistical Association, the Journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the Journal's editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these
Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said,"The creation of the'statistics board'was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of Science's overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish."
Giovanni Parmigiani，a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group, says he expects the board to "play primarily on advisory role." He agreed to join because he "found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science."
John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is "a most welcome step forward"and "long overdue,""Most journals are weak in statistical review，and this damages the quality of what they publish. I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review,"he says. But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.
Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research，according to David Vaux，a cell biologist. Researchers should improve their standards, he wrote in 2012，but journals should also take a tougher line，"engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process."Vaux says that Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians "has some merit，but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify'the papers that need scrutiny'in the first place."
31. It can be learned from Paragraph I that
[A] Science intends to simplify its peer-review process.
[B]journals are strengthening their statistical checks.
[C]few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis.
[D]lack of data analysis is common in research projects.
32. The phrase "flagged up "(Para.2)is the closest in meaning to
[A]found.
[B]revised.
[C]marked
[D]stored
33. Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may
[A]pose a threat to all its peers
[B]meet with strong opposition
[C]increase Science's circulation.
[D]set an example for other journals
34. David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now
A. adds to researchers' worklosd.
B. diminishes the role of reviewers.
C. has room for further improvement.
D. is to fail in the foreseeable future.
35. Which of the following is the best title of the text?
A. Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers
B. Professional Statisticians Deserve More Respect
C. Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors' Desks
D. Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science
31.B journals are strengthening their statistical checks
32.B marked
33. D set an example for other journals
34. C has room for further improvement
35.A science joins Push to screen statistics in papers
Text4
Two years ago. Rupert Murdoch's daughter, spoke at the "unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our collapsed, she argued, because of a collective acceptance that the mechanism"in society should be profit and the market we the people who create the society we want, not profit."
Driving her point home, she continued"It's increasingly absence of purpose，of a moral language with in government, could become one of the most dangerous goals for capitalism and freedom." This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies, such as International, she thought, making it more likely that it would fore had with widespread illegal telephone hacking.
As the hacking trial concludes-finding guilty one ex-editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, for conspiring to hack phones, and finding the predecessor, Rebekah Brooks, innocent of the same charge-the wide dearth of integrity still stands. Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5,500 people. This is hacking on an industrial scale, as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire, the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking. Others await trial. This long story still unfolds.
In many respects, the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place. One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom, how little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired how the stories arrived. The core of her successful defence was that she knew nothing.
In today's world, it has become normal that well-paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organizations that they run. Perhaps we should not be so surprised. For a generation, the collective doctrine has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit. The words that have mattered are efficiency, flexibility, shareholder value, business-friendly, wealth generation, sales, impact and, in newspapers, circulation. Words degraded to the margin have been justice, fairness, tolerance, proportionality and accountability.
The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding, to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity. It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact. Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got their stories, but she asked no questions, gave no instructions-nor received traceable, recorded answers.
36. Accordign to the first two paragraphs, Elisabeth was upset by
(A) the consequences of the current sorting mechanism.
(B) companies' financial loss due to immoral practices
(C) governmental ineffectiveness on moral issues.
(D) the wide misuse of integrity among institutions.
37. It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that
(A) Glenn Mulcaire may deny phone hacking as a crime.
(B) more journalists may be found guilty of phone hacking.
(C) Andy Coulson should be held innocent of the charge.
(D) phone hacking will be accepted on certain occasions.
38. The author believes that Rebekah Brooks's defence
(A) revealed a cunning personality.
(B) centered on trivial issues.
(C) was hardly convincing.
(D) was part of a conspiracy.
39. The author holds that the current collective doctrine shows
(A) generally distorted values.
(B) unfair wealth distribution.
(C) a marginalized lifestyle.
(D) a rigid moral code.
40 Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?
(A) The quality of writings is of primary importance.
(B) Common humanity is central to news reporting.
(C) Moral awareness matters in editing a newspaper.
(D) Journalists need stricter industrial regulations.
36. A the consequences of the current sorting mechanism
37. Bmore journalists may be found guilty of phone hacking
38. C was hardly convincing
39. A generally distorted values
40. C moral awareness matters in editing a newspaper
Part B
Directions:
In the following text, some sentences have been removed. For Questions 41-45, choose the most suitable one from the list A- G to fit into each of numbered blanks. There are two extra choices, which do not fit in any of the blanks. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
How does your reading proceed? Clearly you try to comprehend, in the sense of identifying meanings for individual words and working out relationships between them, drawing on your implicit knowledge of English grammar.(41)______________ You begin to infer a context for the text, for instance, by making decisions about what kind of speech event is involved.Who is making the utterance, to whom, when and where.
The ways of reading indicated here are without doubt kinds of comprehension. But they show comprehension to consist not just of passive assimilation but of active engagement in inference and problem-solving. You infer information you feel the writer has invited you to grasp by presenting you with specific evidence and clues.(42)_________________
Conceived in this way, comprehension will not follow exactly the same track for each reader. What is in question is not the retrieval of an absolute, fixed or "true" meaning that can be read off and checked for accuracy, or some timeless relation of the text to theworld.(43)___________
Such background material inevitably reflects who we are. (44)________________________
This doesn't, however, make interpretation merely relative or even pointless. Precisely because readers from different historical periods, places and social experiences produce different but overlapping readings of the same words on the page-including for texts that engage with fundamental human concerns-debates about texts can play an important role in social discussion of beliefs and values.
How we read a given text also depends to some extent on our particular interest in reading it.(45)_______________________Such dimensions of reading suggest-as others introduced later in the book will also do-that we bring an implicit(often unacknowledged)agenda to any act of reading. It doesn't then necessarily follow that one kind of reading is fuller, more advanced or more worthwhile than another. Ideally, different minds of reading inform each other, and act as useful reference points for and counterbalances to one another. Together, they make up the reading component of your overall literacy, or relationship to your surrounding textual environment.
[A] Are we studying that text and trying to respond in a way that fulfills the requirement of a given course? Reading it simply for pleasure? Skimming it for information? Ways of reading on a train or in bed are likely to differ considerably from reading in a seminar room.
[B] Factors such as the place and period in which we are reading, our gender, ethnicity, age and social class will encourage us towards certain interpretations but at the same time obscure or even close off others.
[C] If you are unfamiliar with words or idioms, you guess at their meaning, using clues presented in the context. On the assumption that they will become relevant later, you make a mental note of discourse entities as well as possible links between them.
[D] In effect, you try to reconstruct the likely meanings or effects that any given sentence, image or reference might have had: These might be the ones the author intended.
[E] You make further inferences, for instance, about how the text may be significant to you, or about its validity-inferences that form the basis of a personal response for which the author will inevitably be far less responsible.
[F] In plays, novels and narrative poems, characters speak as constructs created by the author, not necessarily as mouthpieces for the author's own thoughts.
[G] Rather, we ascribe meanings to texts on the basis of interaction between what we might call textual and contextual material:between kinds of organization or patterning we perceive in a text's formal structures(so especially its language structures) and various kinds of background, social knowledge, belief and attitude that we bring to the text.
41.C 42.E 43.G 44.B 45.A
