EFour people in England, back in 1953, stared at photo 51. it wasn’t much –a picture showing a black X. But three of these people won the Nobel Prize for figuring out what the photo really showed—the shape of DNA. The discovery brought fame and fortune to scientists James Watson, Francis crick, and Maurice Wilkins. The fourth, the one who actually made the picture, was left out.Her name was Rosalind Franklin. “She should have been up there,” says historian Mary Bowden. “If her photo hadn’t been there, the others couldn’t have come up with the structure.” one reason Franklin was missing was that she had died of cancer four years before the Nobel decision. But now scholar doubt that Franklin was not only robbed of her life by disease but robbed of credit by her competitions.At Cambridge University in the 1950s, Watson and Crick tried to make models by cutting up shapes of DNA’s parts and then putting them together. In the meantime, at king’s college in London, Franklin and Wilkins shone X-rays at the molecule(分子). The rays produced patterns reflecting the shape.But Wilkins and Franklin’s relationship was a lot rockier than the celebrated teamwork of Watson and Crick. Wilkins thought Franklin was hired to be his assistant. But the college actually employed her to take over the DNA project.What she did was produce X-ray pictures that told Watson and Crick that one of their early models was inside out. And she was not shy about saying so. That angered Watson, who attacked her in return,” Mere inspection suggested that she would not easily bend. Clearly she had to go or be put in her place.As Franklin’s competitors, Wilkins, Watson and Crick had much to gain by cutting her out of the little group of researchers, says historian Pnina Abir-Am. In 1962 at the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony, Wilkins thanked 13 colleagues by name before he mentioned Franklin. Watson wrote his book laughing at her. Crick wrote in 1974 that “Franklins was only two steps away from the solution.”No, Franklin was the solution.” She contributed more than any other player to solving the structure of DNA. She must be considered a co-discoverer,” Abir-Am says. This was backed up by Aaron Klug, who worked with Franklin and later won a Nobel Prize himself. Once described as the “Dark Lady of DNA”, Franklin is finally coming into the light.57. What is the text mainly about?A. The disagreements among DNA researchers.B. The unfair treatment of Franklin.C. The process of discovering DNA.DThe race between two teams of scientists.
E
Four people in England, back in 1953, stared at photo 51. it wasn’t much –a picture showing a black X. But three of these people won the Nobel Prize for figuring out what the photo really showed—the shape of DNA. The discovery brought fame and fortune to scientists James Watson, Francis crick, and Maurice Wilkins. The fourth, the one who actually made the picture, was left out.
Her name was Rosalind Franklin. “She should have been up there,” says historian Mary Bowden. “If her photo hadn’t been there, the others couldn’t have come up with the structure.” one reason Franklin was missing was that she had died of cancer four years before the Nobel decision. But now scholar doubt that Franklin was not only robbed of her life by disease but robbed of credit by her competitions.
At Cambridge University in the 1950s, Watson and Crick tried to make models by cutting up shapes of DNA’s parts and then putting them together. In the meantime, at king’s college in London, Franklin and Wilkins shone X-rays at the molecule(分子). The rays produced patterns reflecting the shape.
But Wilkins and Franklin’s relationship was a lot rockier than the celebrated teamwork of Watson and Crick. Wilkins thought Franklin was hired to be his assistant. But the college actually employed her to take over the DNA project.
What she did was produce X-ray pictures that told Watson and Crick that one of their early models was inside out. And she was not shy about saying so. That angered Watson, who attacked her in return,” Mere inspection suggested that she would not easily bend. Clearly she had to go or be put in her place.
As Franklin’s competitors, Wilkins, Watson and Crick had much to gain by cutting her out of the little group of researchers, says historian Pnina Abir-Am. In 1962 at the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony, Wilkins thanked 13 colleagues by name before he mentioned Franklin. Watson wrote his book laughing at her. Crick wrote in 1974 that “Franklins was only two steps away from the solution.”
No, Franklin was the solution.” She contributed more than any other player to solving the structure of DNA. She must be considered a co-discoverer,” Abir-Am says. This was backed up by Aaron Klug, who worked with Franklin and later won a Nobel Prize himself. Once described as the “Dark Lady of DNA”, Franklin is finally coming into the light.
57. What is the text mainly about?
A. The disagreements among DNA researchers.
B. The unfair treatment of Franklin.
C. The process of discovering DNA.
DThe race between two teams of scientists.
相关考题：
Ask three people to look out the same window at a busy street corner and tell you what they see. Chances are you will receive three different answers. Each person sees the same scene, but each perceives something different about it.Perceiving goes on in our minds. Of the three people who look out the window, one may say that he sees a policeman giving a motorist a ticket. Another may say that he sees a rush hour traffic jam at the intersection. The third may tell you that he sees a woman trying to cross the street with four children in tow. For perception is the mind’s interpretation of what the senses in this case our eyes tell us.Many psychologists (心理学家) today are working to try to determine just how a person experiences or perceives the world around him. Using a scientific approach, these psychologists set up experiments in which they can control all of the factors. By measuring and charting the results of many experiments, they are trying to find out what makes different people perceive totally different things about the same scene.(1)Which of the following is TRUE?A、We have chances to receive three different answers from three people.B、It is likely that we will receive three different answers from three people.C、It is proved that we will receive three different answers from three people.D、It is impossible that we will receive three different answers from three people.(2)Seeing and perceiving are ________.A、the same actionB、two separate actionsC、two actions carried on entirely by the eyesD、several actions that take place at different times(3)Perceiving is an action that takes place ________.A、in our eyesB、only when we are thinking hardC、only under the direction of a psychologistD、in every person's mind(4)Psychologists study perception by _______.A、setting up many experimentsB、asking each other what they seeC、looking out of windowsD、studying people's eyes(5)The best title for this selection is _______.A、How We SeeB、Learning about Our Minds through ScienceC、Color and PeopleD、How to Become a Psychologist
Passage TwoIn 1826, a Frenchman named Niepce needed pictures for his business. So he invented a very simple camera. He put it in a window of his house and took a picture of his garden. That was the first photo.The next important date in the history of photography (摄影术) was in 1837. That year, Daguere, another Frenchman, took a picture of his reading room. He used a new kind of camera in a different way. In his picture you could see everything very clearly, even the smallest thing. This kind of photo was called a Daguerreotype.In about 1840, photography was developed. Then photographers could take pictures of people and moving things. That was not simple. The photographers had to carry a lot of film and other machines. But this did not stop them, for example, some in the United States worked so hard.Mathew Brady was a famous American photographer. He took many pictures of great people. The pictures were unusual' because they were very lifelike.Photographs also became one kind of art by the end of the 19th century. Some photos were not just copies of the real world. They showed feelings like other kinds of art.36. The first photo taken by Niepce was a picture of______.A. his businessB. his houseC. his gardenD. his window
The purpose of two questions in the second paragraph is to ________.[A] demonstrate why people are amused[B] display what people laugh at[C] bring to light the phenomenon of laughter[D] accent what a phenomenon laughter really is
Vingo showed the young people the pictures of his family which were _____ snapshots.A. many-handlingB. much-handlingC. many-handledD. much-handled
—I saw Dave in lift this morning.— Really? He ______ around here for a long time. A won’t be seenB wasn’t seeC hasn’t been seenD hadn’t been seen
He was _________ for the Nobel Prize for literature several times and finally won it. A、shortlistedB、combatedC、struggledD、enlisted
A Nobel Prize is considered by most people one of the highest international honors a person can receive. As you know, the prizes were started by a Swede called Alfred Nobel. Alfred Nobel was born in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, and lived from 1833 to1896. Alfred Nobel was a chemist and inventor. He made two important inventions. And so he became very rich. Although he was rich, Nobel was not a happy man. He never married nor had children. Also, he was a sick man in a large part of his life. Nobel died at the age of sixty-three. When he died, he left a fund 基金) of $9,000, 000. The money was to be used in giving prizes to those who made outstanding achievements in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and the promotion 促进)of world peace. The first Nobel Prizes were given on December 10th, 1901, five years after Nobel’s death. Many famous people from all over the world have been given Nobel Prizes for their achievements. Albert Einstein was one of them. Each Prize has three parts. The first part is a gold medal. Second, a winner of a Nobel Prize is given a diploma(证书)saying that he has been given the Prize. The third part of the prize is a large amount of money—about $40, 000. Often a Prize is given to just one person, but not always. Sometimes, a Prize is shared. It may be given to two or three people who have worked together. Sometimes a Prize is not given at all if there is no outstanding achievement. In 1972, for example, no Nobel Peace Prize was given. It is the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm that decides whether to give the Prize or not1.Most people think that the Nobel Prize is __________ a person can receive.A、 the highest honor in the worldB、 one of the highest international honorsC、 a higher honor than othersD、 as high as any other honor2.Alfred Nobel who started the Nobel Prize was __________A、 a rich, happy and lucky manB、 a poor, unhappy and unlucky manC、 a poor, but happy and lucky manD、 a rich, unhappy and unlucky man3.A Nobel Prize is made up of _________A、 a gold medal and a large amount of moneyB、 a gold medal and a diplomaC、 a gold medal and a diploma and a large amount of moneyD、 a diploma and a large amount of money4.A Nobel Prize is given to __________ each year.A、 just one personB、 one personC、 not always one personD、 three persons5.When he died, Nobel left an amount of money __________A、 to his wife and his childrenB、 to the university he used to study inC、 to his parents and his studentsD、 to be spend on setting five prizes
Before his_________Alfred Nobel decided to set up a prize with his money to honor the people who did great things in science. A、deathB、happyC、bornD、health
()means a list of the people employed by a company showing how much each one earns.A. expertiseB. franchiseC. payrollD. reluctant
You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning.Which of the following is true of the Nobel Prize in Literature according to Para.3?A.Its judges are narrow-minded.B.lts value is overstated by the public.C.Its decision is interfered by amateurs.D.Its rewards for the winners are falling.
You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning.The author mentioned science prizes to support the view thatA.scientific reputation should depend on expert opinion.B.science prizes should not ignore the work of teams.C.literary writers should be judged by fellow writers.D.literary merit should not rely on specialist judgment.
You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning.We can learn from the last paragraph thatA.enduring love of readers makes a work a classic.B.readers do need the Nobel Prize in Literature.C.marketing makes contribution to literary reputation.D.excellent works naturally attract much good criticism.
My daughter was leafing through some old photo albums the other day when she laughed and pulled out an old picture to show me. There I was a skinny 12 year old with thick, bushy, brown hair. l looked down at the picture and smiled. Only one thought was on my mind: "If only I knew then what I know now. If I knew then what I know now: I would have danced more, laughed more, and sang more no matter who was watching. I would have not cared a bit what other people thought of me.I would have cared a whole lot more, however, about what God thought of me. I would have been fearless in showing my love, sharing my joy, and living my life.Of all the four ideas, which won ' t the author agree with?A. One should not care what other people think of him/her.B. One should show his/her love bravely.C. One should only care what God thinks of him/her.D. One should do anything regardless of who is watching.
共用题干When Our Words Collide"Wanna buy a body?"That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance （自由职业）photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S.News.Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into "them",who trade in pictures of bodies or chase celebrities,and"us",the serious news people.But after 16 years in that role,I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.Working in the reputable world of journalism,I assigned photographers to cover other people'5 nightmares.I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise（借口）of the reader' s right to know.I didn't ask photographers to trespass（冒犯）or to stalk（跟踪）,but I didn't have to.I worked with pros (同行）who did what others did, talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after.And I wasn't alone.In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore（血腥场面）.But you are likely to see local newspaper and television photographers on the scene-and fast.How can we justify our behavior?Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record.Repeatedly,they are reminded of a news-business dictum （格言）:leave your conscience in the office.You get the picture of the footage ; the decision whether to print or air it comes later.A victim may lie bleeding,unconscious,or dead;your job is to record the image.You put away your emotions and document the scene.Te act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning.Photographs can change deplorable（凄惨的）situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.However,disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors.In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs,photo agencies buy pictures.Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer arid put it up for bid by major magazines.The most keenly sought"exclusives"command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things,and it's our pictures that annoy people the most.Readers may not believe,as we do,that there is a distinction between sober-minded"us" and sleazy（低级庸俗的）"them".In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them,we prove our readers right.News photographers are usually a problem for rescue workers at an accident.A:Right B:Wrong C:Not mentioned
共用题干When Our Words Collide"Wanna buy a body?"That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance （自由职业）photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S.News.Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into "them",who trade in pictures of bodies or chase celebrities,and"us",the serious news people.But after 16 years in that role,I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.Working in the reputable world of journalism,I assigned photographers to cover other people'5 nightmares.I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise（借口）of the reader' s right to know.I didn't ask photographers to trespass（冒犯）or to stalk（跟踪）,but I didn't have to.I worked with pros (同行）who did what others did, talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after.And I wasn't alone.In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore（血腥场面）.But you are likely to see local newspaper and television photographers on the scene-and fast.How can we justify our behavior?Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record.Repeatedly,they are reminded of a news-business dictum （格言）:leave your conscience in the office.You get the picture of the footage ; the decision whether to print or air it comes later.A victim may lie bleeding,unconscious,or dead;your job is to record the image.You put away your emotions and document the scene.Te act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning.Photographs can change deplorable（凄惨的）situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.However,disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors.In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs,photo agencies buy pictures.Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer arid put it up for bid by major magazines.The most keenly sought"exclusives"command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things,and it's our pictures that annoy people the most.Readers may not believe,as we do,that there is a distinction between sober-minded"us" and sleazy（低级庸俗的）"them".In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them,we prove our readers right.The writer believes that shooting people's nightmares is justifiable.A:Right B:Wrong C:Not mentioned
共用题干When Our Words Collide"Wanna buy a body?"That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance （自由职业）photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S.News.Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into "them",who trade in pictures of bodies or chase celebrities,and"us",the serious news people.But after 16 years in that role,I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.Working in the reputable world of journalism,I assigned photographers to cover other people'5 nightmares.I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise（借口）of the reader' s right to know.I didn't ask photographers to trespass（冒犯）or to stalk（跟踪）,but I didn't have to.I worked with pros (同行）who did what others did, talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after.And I wasn't alone.In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore（血腥场面）.But you are likely to see local newspaper and television photographers on the scene-and fast.How can we justify our behavior?Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record.Repeatedly,they are reminded of a news-business dictum （格言）:leave your conscience in the office.You get the picture of the footage ; the decision whether to print or air it comes later.A victim may lie bleeding,unconscious,or dead;your job is to record the image.You put away your emotions and document the scene.Te act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning.Photographs can change deplorable（凄惨的）situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.However,disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors.In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs,photo agencies buy pictures.Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer arid put it up for bid by major magazines.The most keenly sought"exclusives"command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things,and it's our pictures that annoy people the most.Readers may not believe,as we do,that there is a distinction between sober-minded"us" and sleazy（低级庸俗的）"them".In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them,we prove our readers right.Journalists aren't supposed to think about whether they are doing the right thing.A:Right B:Wrong C:Not mentioned
I really hope that you will （）your trip to Canada and get back as soon as possible when people have to knowledge of the law.ApreferBreferCenjoyDi nfer
Not always（）they want (to)A、people can do whatB、can people do whatC、people can not do whatD、can‘t people do what
在网页中，使用（1）标记来完成超级链接，（2）标记用于插入图片。空白（2）处应选择（）A、image…/imageB、img…/imgC、photo…/photoD、picture…/picture
单选题1t was______he had made such great contributions to world peace that he won the Nobel Prize for Peace.AthatBbecauseChowDwhy
单选题阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。 When Our Words Collide “Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable. Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone. In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast. How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene. We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding. However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests. Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.Many people say that they are annoyed by the U.S. News pictures.ARightBWrongCNot mentioned
单选题We can infer from the first two paragraphs that______.Amost large gym chains really don't want members to show up frequentlyBoverweight people are often frustrated and pushed away by traditional gym industryCregular gyms don't accept overweight people to participate in their programsDoverweight people have to pay extra to work out in a gym
单选题According to the passage, what problem does Sao Paulo have?AA lot of people don’t have jobs.BToo many people live in the city centre.CA lot of people are moving out of the city.DToo many people travel into the city every day.
单选题—Mum, I’ve got the first prize in the photo competition.—______!AGood luckBNot at allCGood ideaDCongratulations