Text 1 The sculptural legacy that the new United States inherited from its colonial predecessors was far from a rich one, and, in fact, in 1776 sculpture as an art form was still in the hands of artisans and craftspeople. Stone carvers engraved their motifs of skulls and crossbones and other religious icons of death into the gray slabs that we still see standing today in old burial ground. Some skilled craftspeople made intricately carved wooden ornamentations for furniture or architectural decorations, while other carved wooden shop signs and ships’ figureheads. Although they often achieved expression and formal excellence in their generally primitive style, they remained artisans skilled in the craft of carving and constituted a group distinct from what we normally think of as “sculptors” in today’s use of the word. On the rare occasion when a fine piece of sculpture was desired, Americans turned to foreign sculptors, as in the 1770’s when the cities of New York and Charleston, South Carolina, commissioned the Englishman Joseph Wilton to make marble statues of William Pitt. Wilton also made a lead equestrian image of King George III that was erected in New York in 1770 and torn down by zealous patriots six years later. A few marble memorials with carved busts, urns, or other decorations were produced in England and brought to the colonies to be set in the walls of churches --- as in King’s Chapel in Boston. But sculpture as a high art, practiced by artists who knew both the artistic theory of their Renaissance-Baroque-Rococo predecessors and the various technical procedures of modeling, casting, and carving rich three-dimensional forms, was not known among Americans in 1776. Indeed, for many years thereafter, the United States had two groups from which to choose --- either the local craftspeople or the imported talent of European sculptors. The eighteenth century was not one in which powerful sculptural conceptions were developed. Add to this the timidity with which unschooled artisans --- originally trained as stonemasons, carpenters, or cabinetmakers --- attacked the medium from which they were to make their images, and one understands more fully the development of sculpture made in the United States in the late eighteenth century. 1. What is the main idea of the passage? A) There was great demand for the work of eighteenth-century artisans. B) Skilled sculptors did not exist in the United States in the 1770’s C) Many foreign sculptors worked in the United States after 1776 D) American sculptors were hampered by a lack of tools and materials. 2. The word “others” in paragraph 1, sentence 3 refers to ______. A) craftspeople B) decorations C) ornamentations D) shop signs 3, Why does the author mention Joseph Wilton in paragraph 2, sentence 1? A) He was an English sculptor who did work in the United States . B) He was well known for his wood carvings. C) He produced sculpture for churches. D) He settled in the United States in 1776 4. What can be inferred about the importation of marble memorials from England ? A) Such sculpture was less expensive to produce locally than to import. B) Such sculpture was not available in the United States . C) Such sculpture was at prestigious as those made locally. D) The materials found abroad were superior. 5. How did the work of American carvers in 1776 differ from that of contemporary sculptors? A) It was less time-consuming. B) It was more dangerous. C) It was more expensive. D) It was less refined. Text 2 To live in the United States today is to gain an appreciation for Dahrendorf's assertion that social change exists everywhere. Technology, the application of knowledge for practical ends, is a major source of social change. Yet we would do well to remind ourselves that technology is a human creation; it does not exist naturally. A spear or a robot is as much a cultural as a physical object. Until humans use a spear to hunt game or a robot to produce machine parts, neither is much more than a solid mass of matter. For a bird looking for an object on which to rest, a spear or robot serves the purpose equally well. The explosion of the Challenger space shuttle and the Russian nuclear accident at Chernobyl drive home the human quality of technology; they provide cases in which well-planned systems suddenly went haywire and there was no ready hand to set them right. Since technology is a human creation, we are responsible for what is done with it. Pessimists worry that we will use our technology eventually to blow our world and ourselves to pieces. But they have been saying this for decades, and so far we have managed to survive and even flourish. Whether we will continue to do so in the years ahead remains uncertain. Clearly, the impact of technology on our lives deserves a closer examination. Few technological developments have had a greater impact on our lives than the computer revolution. Scientists and engineers have designed specialized machines that can do the tasks that once only people could do. There are those who assert that the switch to an information-based economy is in the same camp as other great historical milestones, particularly the Industrial Revolution. Yet when we ask why the Industrial Revolution was a revolution, we find that it was not the machines. The primary reason why it was revolutionary is that it led to great social change. It gave rise to mass production and, through mass production, to a society in which wealth was not confined to the few. In somewhat similar fashion, computers promise to revolutionize the structure of American life, particularly as they free the human mind and open new possibilities in knowledge and communication. The Industrial Revolution supplemented and replaced the muscles of humans and animals by mechanical methods. The computer extends this development to supplement and replace some aspects of the mind of human beings by electronic methods. It is the capacity of the computer for solving problems and making decisions that represents its greatest potential and that poses the greatest difficulties in predicting the impact on society. 6. A spear or a robot has the quality of technology only when it _________. A) is used both as a cultural and a physical object B) serves different purposes equally well C) is utilized by man D) can be of use to both man and animal 7. The examples of the Challenger and Chernobyl cited by the author serve to show that _________. A) if not given close examination, technology could be used to destroy our world B) technology is a human creation, so we are responsible for it C) technology usually goes wrong, if not controlled by man D) being a human creation, technology is liable to error 8. According to the author, the introduction of the computer is a revolution mainly because __________. A) the computer has revolutionized the workings of the human mind B) the computer can do the tasks that could only be done by people before C) it has helped to switch to an information technology D) it has a great potential impact on society 9. By using the phrase "the human quality of technology", the author refers to the fact that technology __________. A) has a great impact on human life B) has some characteristics of human nature C) can replace some aspects of the human mind D) does not exist in the natural world 10. The passage is based on the author's __________. A) keen insight into the nature of technology B) prejudiced criticism of the role of the Industrial Revolution C) cautious analysis of the replacement of the human mind by computers D) exaggerated description of the negative consequences of technology Text 3 For years, doctors advised their patients that the only thing taking multivitamins does is give them expensive urine. After all, true vitamin deficiencies are practically unheard of in industrialized countries. Now it seems those doctors may have been wrong. The results of a growing number of studies suggest that even a modest vitamin shortfall can be harmful to your health. Although proof of the benefits of multivitamins is still far from certain, the few dollars you spend on them is probably a good investment. Or at least that's the argument put forward in the New England Journal of Medicine. Ideally, say Dr. Walter Willett and Dr. Meir Stampfer of Harvard, all vitamin supplements would be evaluated in scientifically rigorous clinical trials. But those studies can take a long time and often raise more questions than they answer. At some point, while researchers work on figuring out where the truth lies, it just makes sense to say the potential benefit outweighs the cost. The best evidence to date concerns folate, one of the B vitamins. It's been proved to limit the number of defects in embryos, and a recent trial found that folate in combination with vitamin B 12 and a form of B6 also decreases the re-blockage of arteries after surgical repair. The news on vitamin E has been more mixed. Healthy folks who take 400 international units daily for at least two years appear somewhat less likely to develop heart disease. But when doctors give vitamin E to patients who already have heart disease, the vitamin doesn't seem to help. It may turn out that vitamin E plays a role in prevention but cannot undo serious damage. Despite vitamin C's great popularity, consuming large amounts of it still has not been positively linked to any great benefit. The body quickly becomes saturated with C and simply excretes any excess. The multivitamins question boils down to this: Do you need to wait until all the evidence is in before you take them, or are you willing to accept that there's enough evidence that they don't hurt and could help? If the latter, there's no need to go to extremes and buy the biggest 'horse pills or the most expensive bottles. Large doses can cause trouble, including excessive bleeding and nervous system problems. Multivitamins are no substitute for exercise