Scientists made a great break through this year in England when the first "test tube" baby was born．The birth was the result of many years of research by doctors．The doctors did the research in groups to help the women who cannot conceive a baby in the normal way．

What happened when the baby was born "from a test tube"? Well, the baby did not literally grow in a test tube．The first stage of the process was that the egg from the woman and the sperm from the man were put together in the test tube．After all, the embryo was put into the womb of a woman．This process was difficult．But it was successful, so the baby was eventually born, like any other, from a woman, only the woman wasn't the baby's real mother, but a sort of "carrier" of a baby produced by another couple．

Obviously, this method is to help to couples who can't have children because of physical problems in the woman．But very difficult moral problems arise in the kind of situation．Take it for instance, a case that happened this year．A couple who wanted a baby advertised for a woman to have a child by the father of the couple．They offered the woman a lot of money．The woman was made pregnant by artificial insemination; in this case, the woman "employed" to bear the child was its real mother．When the baby was born, the woman refused to give it back to the couple．But, in the eyes of the law, the woman had a right to keep the children because she was its biological mother．

You could argue that we should change the law to deal with this kind of situation．In earlier times, there were always healthy babies needing adoption, because family planning methods were not so effective as they are now．These days, however, most of the children who can be adopted are over six years old, often handicapped in some way．So a couple who want a young healthy baby cannot always adopt one, this is why the "test tube" baby is in demand．But is it normally right to use this method? Should we temper with nature in this way? Even if we change the law, would this be the right step to take ?

1.The birth of the first "test-tube" baby is a great advance _____．

    A．on medical science

    B．in birth control

    C．on the research for babies

    D．in the lives of married women

2.When we say a baby was born "from a test-tube", we mean_____ ．

    A．the baby didn't develop in the womb of a woman

    B．the baby has no biological parents

    C．the embryo was formed in the test tube

    D．the baby grew in the test-tube before it was born

3.According to the law, who has right to keep the baby produced by the artificial method?

    A．The couple who want a baby．

    B．The biological mother of the child．

    C．The person who pays the money to the real mother．

    D．The father who advertises for a biological mother．

4.According to the passage, people need "test-tube baby" because_____ ．

    A．family planning methods are not effective．

    B．they can't always adopt a young healthy baby

    C．they are unwilling to adopt a child．

    D．there are so many babies needing adoption．

Mistreat(虐待) your animals and someone might take them from you.

Allen (not his real name) is driving north out of Virginia in the middle of the night，with stolen property in the back of his van.But Allen isn’t a criminal—in fact he normally would never dream of breaking the law.

The “property” he stole is a dog he calls Flash.Allen doesn’t particularly want Flash in fact，in a few hours he’ll drop him off at a stranger’s house and never see him again.“I couldn’t just stand by and do nothing，”he explains.“The owner was plainly neglecting (忽视) the dog，but the police wouldn’t do anything about it.”

For over a year，Flash had been tied to a tree in front of someone’s house.“He was sick and weak，”says Allen.“More than once I saw the owner kick him for no reason at all.”Allen had repeatedly tried to get the owner to take better care of the animal，or to give it away to someone who would.Finally，he took matters into his own hands—in the dead of night，he took Flash off his chain and drove away with him.

An hour later，Flash had a new license and he_was_treated_by_a_veterinarian_who_knew_better_than_to_ask_questions.

Pictures of the dog were put up on animal rescue websites，asking for someone to adopt the dog.A couple in New York offered to take the dog，and animal lovers in states along the way agreed to provide transportation.

Nobody can say for sure how many animals like Flash are “rescued” every year；receiving stolen property is a crime，so rescuers tend to stay in the shadows.But a growing number of empty collars are because of their work as more and more animals find their way to loving homes.

1.Why did Allen steal the dog?

A．He liked the dog very much.

B．He wanted to stop the dog being treated badly.

C．He is a criminal who likes stealing dogs.

D．Someone ordered him to do that.

2.What had Allen ever done for the dog before stealing him?

A．Finding a new owner for him.

B．In the dead of night，taking him off his chain and drove away with him.

C．Kicking him for no reason at all.

D．Asking the owner to treat the dog better or give it to someone else.

3.How did Allen help the dog find a new owner?

A．By putting advertisements on TV.

B．By asking the Animals Protection Association for help.

C．By asking for help on the Internet.

D．By putting up signs on the street.

4.What can we infer from the underlined sentence in the fifth paragraph?

A．The veterinarian had treated many animals that were mistreated by their owners.

B．The veterinarian had once stolen some animals like Flash before.

C．The veterinarian was Allen’s friend.

D．The veterinarian was a learned man.

Passage two (Vicious and Dangerous Sports Should be Banned by Law)
When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remains as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungey lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long age; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting.
It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of ‘the sporting spirit’ is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence.
Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally – admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings.
1.It can be inferred from the passage that the author’s opinion of nowadays’ human beings is
A.  not very high.    B.  high.      C.  contemptuous.     D.  critical.
2.The main idea of this passage is
A.  vicious and dangerous sports should be banned by law.
B.  people are willing to pay vast sums money to see violence.
C.  to compare two different attitudes towards dangerous sports.
D.  people are bloodthirsty in sports.
3.That the author mentions the old Romans is
A.  To compare the old Romans with today’s people.
B.  to give an example.
C.  to show human beings in the past know nothing better.
D.  to indicate human beings are used to bloodthirsty.
4.How many dangerous sports does the author mention in this passage?
A.  Three.       B.  Five.         C.  Six.       D.  Seven.
5.The purpose of the author in writing this passage is
A.  that, by banning the violent sports, we human beings can improve our selves.
B.  that, by banning the dangerous sports, we can improve the law.
C.  that we must take positive steps to improve social welfare system.
D.  to show law is the main instrument of social change.

Passage two (Vicious and Dangerous Sports Should be Banned by Law)

When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remains as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungey lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long age; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting.

It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of ‘the sporting spirit’ is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence.

Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally – admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings.

1.It can be inferred from the passage that the author’s opinion of nowadays’ human beings is

A.  not very high.     B.  high.      C.  contemptuous.       D.  critical.

2.The main idea of this passage is

A.  vicious and dangerous sports should be banned by law.

B.  people are willing to pay vast sums money to see violence.

C.  to compare two different attitudes towards dangerous sports.

D.  people are bloodthirsty in sports.

3.That the author mentions the old Romans is

A.  To compare the old Romans with today’s people.

B.  to give an example.

C.  to show human beings in the past know nothing better.

D.  to indicate human beings are used to bloodthirsty.

4.How many dangerous sports does the author mention in this passage?

A.  Three.            B.  Five.         C.  Six.            D.  Seven.

5.The purpose of the author in writing this passage is

A.  that, by banning the violent sports, we human beings can improve our selves.

B.  that, by banning the dangerous sports, we can improve the law.

C.  that we must take positive steps to improve social welfare system.

D.  to show law is the main instrument of social change.

Mistreat(虐待) your animals and someone might take them from you.
Allen (not his real name) is driving north out of Virginia in the middle of the night，with stolen property in the back of his van.But Allen isn’t a criminal—in fact he normally would never dream of breaking the law.
The “property” he stole is a dog he calls Flash.Allen doesn’t particularly want Flash in fact，in a few hours he’ll drop him off at a stranger’s house and never see him again.“I couldn’t just stand by and do nothing，”he explains.“The owner was plainly neglecting (忽视) the dog，but the police wouldn’t do anything about it.”
For over a year，Flash had been tied to a tree in front of someone’s house.“He was sick and weak，”says Allen.“More than once I saw the owner kick him for no reason at all.”Allen had repeatedly tried to get the owner to take better care of the animal，or to give it away to someone who would.Finally，he took matters into his own hands—in the dead of night，he took Flash off his chain and drove away with him.
An hour later，Flash had a new license and he_was_treated_by_a_veterinarian_who_knew_better_than_to_ask_questions.
Pictures of the dog were put up on animal rescue websites，asking for someone to adopt the dog.A couple in New York offered to take the dog，and animal lovers in states along the way agreed to provide transportation.
Nobody can say for sure how many animals like Flash are “rescued” every year；receiving stolen property is a crime，so rescuers tend to stay in the shadows.But a growing number of empty collars are because of their work as more and more animals find their way to loving homes.
【小题1】Why did Allen steal the dog?

A．The veterinarian had treated many animals that were mistreated by their owners.

B．The veterinarian had once stolen some animals like Flash before.

C．The veterinarian was Allen’s friend.

D．The veterinarian was a learned man.