Text 4

Those who welcomed the railway saw it as more than a rapid and comfortable means of passing. They actually saw it as a factor in world peace. They did not foresee that the railway would be just one more means for the rapid movement of aggressive armies. None of them foresaw that the more we are together—the more chances there are of war. Any boy or girl who is one of a large family knows that.

Whenever any new invention is put forward, those for it and those against it can always find medical men to approve or condemn. The anti-railway group produced doctors who said that tunnels would be most dangerous to public health: they would produce colds, catarrhs(黏膜炎) and consumptions. The deafening noise and the glare of the engine fire, would have a bad effect on the nerves. Further, being moved through the air at a high speed would do grave injury to delicate lungs. In those with high blood pressure, the movement of the train might produce apoplexy. The sudden plunging of a train into the darkness of a tannel, and the equally sudden rush into full daylight, would cause great damage to eyesight. But the pro-railway group was of course able to produce equally famous medical men to say just the opposite. They said that the speed and swing of the train would equalize the circulation, promote digestion, tranquilize the nerves, and ensure good sleep.

The actual rolling-stock was anything but comfortable. If it was a test of endurance to sit for four hours outside a coach in rain, or inside in dirty air, the railway offered little more in the way of comfort. Certainly the first-class carriages had cushioned seats; but the second - class had only narrow bare boards, while the third - class had nothing at all; no seats and no roof; they were just open trucks. So that third - class passengers gained nothing from the few mode except speed. In the matter of comfort, indeed they lost; they did, on the coaches, have a seat, but now they had to stand all the way, which gave opportunities to the comic press. This kind of thing: "A man was seen yesterday buying a third - class ticket for the new London and Birmingham Railway. The state of his mind is being enquired into".

Part B

52. Directions:

Write an essay based on the following table on the production of TV sets in a factory.

You should write about 160 -200 words neatly on ANSWER SHEET II. (20 points)

Part A

51. Directions:

Your are asked to write a recommendation for a student. Please give your suggestions and express your opinions clearly a bout 100 words on ANSWER SHEET II. Do not sign your own name at the end of the letter. (10 points)

49.____________________

50.____________________

Part C

Directions: Read the following text carefully and then translate the underlined segments into Chinese. Your translation should be written clearly on ANSWER SHEET II. ( 10 points)

Do animals have rights.'? This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground clearing way to start. 46)Actually, it isn't, because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human rights, which is something the world does not have.

On one view of rights, to be sure, it necessarily follows that animals have none. 47)Some philosophers argue that rights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements. Therefore, animals cannot have rights. The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd, for exactly the same reason, so is the idea that tigers have rights. However, this is only one account, and by no means an uncontested one. It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people—4or instance to infants, the mentally incapable and future generations.

In addition, it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it, how do you reply to somebody who says "I don' t like this contract" ?

The point is this: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. 48 )It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consider- ation humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Better to start with another, more fundamental, question: is the way we treat animals a moral issue at all?

Many deny it. 49)Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice.

Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake—a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.

This view which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood, may seem bravely "logical". In fact it is simply shallow: the confused center is right to reject it. The most elementary form. of moral reasoning—the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl—is to weigh others' interests against one's own. This in turn requires sympathy and imagination: without there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. 50)When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind' s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.

46.____________________

47.____________________

48.____________________

P

45.____________

40. What is the tone of this passage?