No matter Awhenever I have to Bgive a speech, I get Cextremely nervous Dbefore I start.

A . Excuse me B . Sorry C . Pardon D . Apologize

A . or B . and C . but D . whe

A、when B、that C、what D、/

A．Y B．N C．NG

A) Here you are. B) It is here. C) Yes, I would. D) I've got some money.

【53】. one thing, celebrities don't have the privacy an ordinary person has. The most personal details of their lives are splashed all over the front pages of newspapers and magazines. 【54】a celebrity's family is hauled into the spotlight. Photographers hound celebrities at their homes, in restaurants, and【55】the streets, hoping to get a picture of their idols. When celebrities try to do the things that normal people do, like eat【56】or attend a football game, they 【57】the risk of being interrupted by thoughtless autograph hounds or mobbed by aggressive fans. 【58】addition to the loss of privacy, celebrities must cope【59】the constant pressure of having to look great and act right. Their physical appearance is always【60】observation, Famous women, especially,【61】from the spotlight, drawing remarks like "She really looks old" or "Boy, has she put on weight". Unflattering pictures of celebrities are photographers' prizes to be sold to the highest bidder; this increases the pressure on celebrities to look good【62】all times. Famous people are also under pressure to act calm under any【63】. Because they are constantly observed, they have【64】freedom to blow off steam or to do something just a little crazy. Most important, celebrities must deal with the stress of being in constant danger. The friendly grabs, hugs, and kisses of enthusiastic fans can quickly turn into uncontrolled assaults on a celebrity's hair, clothes, and car. Most people agree that photographers【65】some responsibility for the death of one of the leading celebrities of the 1990s—Princess Diana.【66】or not their pursuit caused the crash that took her life, it % clear she was chased as aggressively as any escaped convict【67】bloodhounds. And celebrity can even lead to deliberately lethal attacks. The attempt to kill Ronald Reagan and the murder of John Lennon came about because 2 unbalanced people became obsessed with these world-famous figures. Famous people must live with the fact that they are always fair game—and never【68】out of season, Some people【69】of starring roles, their names in lights, and their picture on the cover of People magazine. But the cost is far too high. A famous person gives up private life, feels pressured to look and act certain ways all the time, and is never completely safe. And ordinary, calm life is far safer and saner【70】 a life of fame. (51)

A．what's more B．as well C．for another D．in addition

A．as to B．as C．as of D．as for

A.it B.one C.1that D.this

A．I don’t know． B．I don’t agree with you． C．I don’t think so． D．I don’t have any good ideA．

A．A.failed B．B.trying C．C.tried D．D.failing

For a few excited days last week, however, it seemed as if the whole world was a cancer patient and that all humankind had been granted a reprieve(痛苦减轻) . Triggered by a front-page medical news story in the usually reserved New York Times, all anybody was talking about--- on the radio, on television, on the Internet, in phone calls to friends and relatives----was the report that a combination of two new drugs could , as the Times put it, “cure cancer in two years.” In a matter of hours patients had jammed their doctors’ phone lines begging for a chance to test the miracle cancer cure. Cancer scientists raced to the phones to make sure everyone knew about their research too, generating a new round of headlines. The time certainly seemed ripe for a breakthrough in cancer. Only last month scientists at the National Cancer Institute announced that they were halting a clinical trial of a drug called tamoxifen (他莫昔芬) ------ and offering it to patients getting the placebo(安慰剂) -----because it had proved so effective at preventing breast cancer (although it also seemed to increase the risk of uterine(子宫的) cancer). Two weeks later came the New York Times’ report that two new drugs could shrink tumors of every variety without any side effects whatsoever. It all seemed too good to be true, and of course it was. There are no miracle cancer drugs, at least not yet. At this stage all the drug manufactures can offer is some very interesting molecules, and the only cancers they have cured so far have been in mice. By the middle of last week, even the TV talk-show hosts who talked most about the news had learned what every scientist already knew : that curing a disease in lab animals is not the same as doing it in humans. “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse,” Dr. Richard Klausner, head of the National Cancer Institute, told the Los Angeles Times. “We have cured mice of cancer for decades---and it simply didn’t work in people.” 第11题：According to the passage, a person suffering from cancer will A．give up any hope. B．pray for the health of his loved ones. C．seize every chance of survival. D．go out of his way to help others.

A．take B．Withdraw C．bring D．fetch

So I was【66】by what's being called "the largest meta-analysis ever conducted on the association between parenting styles and delinquency (犯罪，尤指青少年). " The meta. analysis, in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, looked at 161 published and unpublished studies【67】the question, and found that how well parents【68】their children, whether they expressed rejection or hostility, and a number of other【69】indeed had an effect. What's particularly interesting is the【70】of the effect. An association can be statistically significant without being【71】significant; that is, there can be true cause-and-effect, but a tiny effect. Not so in this case.【72】kids for good behavior. had an effect size of 11%, for instance; not huge, but not tiny (it means that 11% of the difference between kids' levels of delinquency is due to whether their parents rewarded them for good behavior, something that reduces delinquency). Being authoritative also【73】delinquency, again with an effect size of 11%,【74】being authoritarian (独裁) increased delinquency, with an effect size of 12%. Put the two together and being authoritarian as opposed to authoritative【75】for a swing of 23%. Physical【76】and verbal aggression also were associated with more delinquency. The "parents don't matter" school might【77】that little delinquents-to-be bring out the worst in parents, who turn authoritarian. It is the kids'【78】tendencies that cause later delinquency, according to this argument, not how parents【79】. The【80】with this claim is the many studies showing that whether you are an authoritarian or an authoritative parent "is most often determined before your first kid is even born, and is highly【81】upon your own experience of discipline.., and your general political/personality orientation," as clinical psychologist Nestor Lopez-Duran wrote. (63) A．nearly B．hardly C．truly D．mainly

A.called in B.calling in C.call in D.to call in

A．very B．much C．too D．so

A．some; some B．some; a few C．any; a little D．any; little

A．that B．whether C．what D．when

A．must have been B．could have been C．should have been D．need have been