]A Welcomed Policy for Poor Students
[C]Thorny Questions about Homework
[D]A Faulty Approach to Homework
Text2
Pretty in pink: adult women do not rememer being so obsessed with the colour, yet it is pervasive in our young girls’ lives. Tt is not that pink is intrinsically bad, but it is such a tiny slice of the rainbow and, though it may celebrate girlhood in one way, it also repeatedly and firmly fuses girls’ identity to appearance. Then it presents that connection, even among two-year-olds, between girls as not only innocent but as evidence of innocence. Looking around, I despaired at the singular lack of imagination about girls’ lives and interests.
Girls’ attraction to pink may seem unavoidable, somehow encoded in their DNA, but according to Jo Paoletti, an associate professor of American Studies, it is not. Children were not colour-coded at all until the early 20th century: in the era before domestic washing machines all babies wore white as a practical matter, since the only way of getting clothes clean was to boil them. What’s more, both boys and girls wore what were thought of as gender-neutral dresses.When nursery colours were introduced, pink was actually considered the more masculine colour, a pastel version of red, which was associated with strength. Blue, with its intimations of the Virgin Mary, constancy and faithfulness, symbolised femininity. It was not until the mid-1980s, when amplifying age and sex differences became a dominant children’s marketing strategy, that pink fully came into its own, when it began to seem inherently attractive to girls, part of what defined them as female, at least for the first few critical years.
I had not realised how profoundly marketing trends dictated our perception of what is natural to kins, including our core beliefs about their psychological development. Take the toddler. I assumed that phase was something experts developed after years of research into children’s behaviour: wrong. Turns out, acdording to Daniel Cook, a historian of childhood consumerism, it was popularised as a marketing trick by clothing manufacrurers in the 1930s.
Trade publications counselled department stores that, in order to increase sales, they should create a “third stepping stone” between infant wear and older kids’ clothes. Tt was only after “toddler”became a common shoppers’ term that it evolved into a broadly accepted developmental stage. Splitting kids, or adults,into ever-tinier categories has proved a sure-fire way to boost profits. And one of the easiest ways to segment a market is to magnify gender differences – or invent them where they did not previously exist.
26.By saying "it is...the rainbow"(Line 3, Para.1),the author means pink______.
[A]should not be the sole representation of girlhood
[B]should not be associated with girls' innocence
[C]cannot explain girls' lack of imagination
[D]cannot influence girls' lives and interests
27.According to Paragraph 2, which of the following is true of colours？
[A]Colours are encoded in girls' DNA.
[B]Blue used to be regarded as the colour for girls.
[C]Pink used to be a neutral colour in symbolising genders.
[D]White is prefered by babies.
28.The author suggests that our perception of children's psychological development was much influenced by_____.
[A]the marketing of products for children
[B]the observation of children's nature
[C]researches into children's behavior
[D]studies of childhood consumption
29.We may learn from Paragraph 4 that department stores were advised to_____.
[A]focus on infant wear and older kids' clothes
[B]attach equal importance to different genders
[C]classify consumers into smaller groups
[D]create some common shoppers' terms
30.It can be concluded that girls' attraction to pink seems to be____.
[A] clearly explained by their inborn tendency
[B]fully understood by clothing manufacturers
[C] mainly imposed by profit-driven businessmen
[D]well interpreted by psychological experts
Text 3
In 2010. a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core. Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades-by 2005 some 20% of human genes were parented. But in March 2010 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable. Executives were violently agitated. The Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO), a trade group, assured members that this was just a “preliminary step” in a longer battle.
On July 29th they were relieved, at least temporarily. A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision, ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed holb patents to two genss that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer. The chief executive of Myriad, a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.
But as companies continue their attempts at personalised medicine, the courts will remain rather busy. The Myriad case itself is probably not over Critics make three main arguments against gene patents: a gene is a product of nature, so it may not be patented; gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it; and patents' monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's. A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal task-force urged reform for patents related to genetic tests. In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case, arguing that an isolated DNA molecule “is no less a product of nature... than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds. ”
Despite the appeals court's decision, big questions remain unanswered. For example, it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of indivi dual genes within it. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.
AS the industry advances ,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules-most are already patented or in the public domain .firms are now studying how genes intcract,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug’s efficacy,companies are eager to win patents for ‘connecting the dits’,expaains hans sauer,alawyer for the BIO.
Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue, brought by the Mayo Clinic, which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term. The BIO rtcently held a convention which included seddions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents. Each meeting was packed.
31.it canbe learned from paragraph I that the biotech companies would like-----
A.their executives to be active
B.judges to rule out gene patenting
C.genes to be patcntablc
D.the BIO to issue a warning
32.those who are against gene patents believe that----
A.genetic tests are not reliable
B.only man-made products are patentable
C.patents on genes depend much on innovatiaon
D.courts should restrict access to gene tic tests
33.according to hans sauer ,companies are eager to win patents for----
A.establishing disease comelations
B.discovering gene interactions
C.drawing pictures of genes
D.identifying human DNA
34．By saying “each meeting was packed”(line4,para6)the author means that -----
A.the supreme court was authoritative
B.the BIO was a powerful organization
C.gene patenting was a great concern
D.lawyers were keen to attend conventiongs
35.generally speaking ,the author’s attitude toward gene patenting is----
A.critical
B.supportive
C.scornful
