A study of art history might be a good way to learn more about a culture than is possible to learn in general history classes, Most【B1】history courses primarily concentrate on polities, economies, and war. But art history【B2】on much more than this【B3】art reflects not only the political【B4】of a people, but also religious beliefs, emotions, and psychology. In addition,【B5】about the daily activities of our【B6】or of people very different from our own can be provided by art, In short, art【B7】the essential qualities of a time and a place, and a study of it【B8】offers us a deeper understanding【B9】can be found in most history, books.
In history books,【B10】information about the political life of a country is【B11】; that is, facts about polities axe given,【B12】opinions are not expressed. Art, on the other hand, is【B13】, it reflects emotions and opinions. The great Spanish painter Francisco Goya was perhaps the first【B14】"political" artist. In his well-known painting The Third of May, 1080, he【B15】the Spanish government for its【B16】of power over people.
In the same way, art can【B17】a culture's religious beliefs. For hundreds of years in Europe, religious alt was almost the only【B18】of art that existed. Churches and other religious buildings were filled with paintings that【B19】people and stories from the Bible. By【B20】, one of the main characteristics of art in the Middle East was(and still is) its absence of human and animal images.
【B1】
A．usual
B．typical
C．average
D．popular
According to reports in major news outlets, a study published last week included a startling discovery: the nation's Jewish population is in shrinking. The study, the National Jewish Population Survey, found 5.2 million Jews living in the United States in 2000, a drop of 5 percent, or 300,000 people, since a similar study in 1990. What's truly startling is that the reported decline is not tree. Worse still, the sponsor of the $6 million study, United Jewish Communities, knows it.
Both it and the authors have openly admitted their doubts. They have acknowledged in interviews that the population totals for 2000 and 1990 were reached by different methods and are not directly comparable. The survey itself also cautions readers, in a dauntingly technical appendix, that judgment calls by the researchers may have led to an undercount. When the research director and project director were asked whether the data should be construed to indicate a declining Jewish population, they flatly answered no. In addition, other survey researchers interviewed pointed to other studies with population estimates as high as 6.7 million.
Despite all this, the two figures --5.2 million now, 5.5 million then --are listed by side in the survey, leaving the impression that the population has shrunk. The result, predictably, has been a rash of headlines trumpeting the illusionary decline, in turn touching off jeremiads by rabbis and moralists condemning the religious laxity behind it. Whether out of ideology, ego, incompetence or a combination of all three, the respected charity has invented a crisis.
United Jewish Communities is the coordinating body for a national network of Jewish philanthropies with combined budgets of $2 billion. Its population surveys carry huge weight in shaping community policy. This is not the first time the survey has set off a false alarm. The last one, conducted by a predecessor organization, found that 52 percent of American Jews who married between 1985 and 1990 did so outside the faith. That number was a fabrication produced by including marriages in which neither party was Jewish by anyone's definition, including the researchers.
Its publication created a huge stir, inspiring anguished sermons, books and conferences. It put liberals on the defensive, emboldened conservatives who reject full integration into society and alienated ordinary folks by the increasingly xenophobic tone of Jewish communal culture. The new survey, to its credit, retracts that figure and offers the latest survey has spawned a panic created by the last one.
So why did the organization flawed figures once again？ Some scholars who have studied the. survey believe the motivation then came partly out of a desire to shock straying Jews into greater observance. It' s too early to tell if that' s the case this time around. What is clear is the researchers did their job with little regard to how their data could be misconstrued. They used statistical models and question formats that, while internally sound, made the new survey incompatible with the previous one. For example, this time the researchers divided the population of 5.2 million into two groups--"highly involved" Jews and "people of Jewish background"- and posed most questions only to the first group. As a result, most findings about belief and observance refer only to a subgroup of American Jews, making comparisons to the past impossible.
We can' t afford to wait a decade before these figures are revised. The false population decline must be corrected before it further sours communal discourse. The United Jewish Communities owes it to itself and its public to step forward and state plainly what it knows to be true: American Jews are not disappearing.
According to the passage, which of the following statements is NOT true about the National Jewish Population Survey？
A．It found a decline of 300,000 Jews in ten years.
B．It was carded out by United Jewish Communities.
C．This is the first time United Jewish Communities has made mistakes in the population survey.
D．The reported decline is not reliable.
Scientists have long believed one way to stop the Earth’s atmosphere from warming is by planting more trees. The idea is that more trees will take in or absorb some of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a gas released by cars, factories and other human activities. The gas traps heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, which warms the planet. However, two new studies have found that trees may not be as helpful in reducing carbon dioxide as had been thought.
The first study was done at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Researchers pumped extra carbon dioxide into a test area where pine trees were growing. The trees grew thirty-four percent faster during the first three years. However, in time, the trees slowed to about their normal growth rate. The scientists say this is because trees need other nutrients, such as nitrogen.
In the second study, researchers from Duke and Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine examined the soil around trees. They discovered that as the leaves broke down into the soil, all the carbon was not trapped in the soil. Much of it was released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
The findings of the two studies were published last month in Nature magazine. They suggest there is limited value in planting trees to reduce the carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere.
Forest planting has been a part of negotiations on a world agreement to reduce greenhouse gases that scientists believe cause global warming. The United States, Canada, Japan and some other industrial countries have supported the idea. But this new research suggests the idea is not as effective as environmental activists had thought. Scientist Ram Oren of Duke University led the study on tree growth. He says that earlier estimates on the ability of forests to absorb carbon dioxide were overly hopeful.
Some scientists not involved in the studies say the research provides some of the first evidence on how trees react to carbon dioxide. Other scientists say the research disputes a belief among some coal and power companies. The companies say that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not create harmful global warming. Instead, they say it will increase forests and other plants.
What is the purpose of this passage？
A．Introduce some new ideas about the relationship between trees and carbon dioxide.
B．Introduce recent condition of global industrial pollution.
C．Call on people to plant more trees to reduce greenhouse gases.
D．Point out that power companies should be responsible for the rising levels of carbon dioxide.
