真题训练

Science, in practice, depends far less on the experiments it prepares than on the preparedness of the minds of the men who watch the experiments. Sir Isaac Newton supposedly discovered gravity through the fall of an apple. Apples had been falling in many places for centuries and thousands of people had seen them fall. But Newton for years had been curious about the cause of the orbital motion of the moon and planets. What kept them in place? Why didn't they fall out of the sky? The fact that the apple fell down toward the earth and not up into the tree answered the question he had been asking himself about those larger fruits of the heavens, the moon and the planets.
How many men would have considered the possibility of an apple falling up into the tree？ Newton did because he was not trying to predict anything. He was just wondering. His mind was ready for the unpredictable. Unpredicability is part of the essential nature of research. If you don't have unpredictable things, you don't have research. Scientists tend to forget this when writing their cut and dried reports for the technical journals, but history is filled with examples of it.
In talking to some scientists, particularly younger ones, you might gather the impression that they find the "scientific method" a substitute for imaginative thought. I've attended research conferences where a scientist has been asked what he thinks about the advisability of continuing a certain experiment. The scientist has frowned, looked at the graphs, and said "the data are still inconclusive." "We know that," the men from the budget office have said, "but what do you think? Is it worthwhile going on? What do you think we might expect?" The scientist has been shocked at having even been asked to speculate.
What this amounts to, of course, is that the scientist has become the victim of his own writings. He has put forward unquestioned claims so consistently that he not only believes them himself, but has convinced industrial and business management that they are true. If experiments are planned and carried out according to plan as faithfully as the reports in the science journals indicate, then it is perfectly logical for management to expect research to produce results measurable in dollars and cents. It is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope. Nor, if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect, is management to be blamed for discriminating against the "odd balls" among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who "work well with the team."

67. The author wants to prove with the example of Isaac Newton that ________.
[A] inquiring minds are more important than scientific experiments
[B] science advances when fruitful researches are conducted
[C] scientists seldom forget the essential nature of research
[D] unpredictability weighs less than prediction in scientific research

68. The author asserts that scientists ________.
[A] shouldn't replace "scientific method" with imaginative thought
[B] shouldn't neglect to speculate on unpredictable things
[C] should write more concise reports for technical journals
[D] should be confident about their research findings

69. It seems that some young scientists ________.
[A] have a keen interest in prediction
[B] often speculate on the future
[C] think highly of creative thinking
[D] stick to "scientific method"

70. The author implies that the results of scientific research ________.
[A] may not be as profitable as they are expected
[B] can be measured in dollars and cents
[C] rely on conformity to a standard pattern
[D] are mostly underestimated by management
难句解析

难句解析：
①The fact that the apple fell down toward the earth and not up into the tree answered the question he had been asking himself about those larger fruits of the heavens, the moon and the planets.
▲这个句子的主干是The fact answered the question。复杂之处在于主语fact跟了一个同位语从句，解释的是fact的内容，注意这个从句中and省略了与前面相同的主语谓语the apple fell；后面的宾语带了一个定语从句，这个从句的引导词that或者which省略了，about短语是对question的解释，those larger fruits of the heavens指的就是the moon and the planets。
△找出这个句子的主干，再看主语和宾语的修饰性短语，再一个需要注意的是larger fruits of the heavens和后面the moon and the planets的复指关系。
②In talking to scientists, particularly younger ones, you might gather the impression that they find the "scientific method" a substitute for imaginative thought.
▲这个句子的主干是you... gather the impression...，但是它的主要内容集中在impression后面的同位语从句中。在这个解释impression的从句中有一个动词结构find+n.+n.，意思是“觉得……是……”，在本句中是“觉得科学方法是一种替代品”，for后面的短语解释了是什么的替代品。句子开始的介词短语充当的是状语，表示的是这种形象形成的时刻。
△可以撇开前面的状语短语，只看主干，重要的是理解that从句中find后面跟两个名词的用法。
③If experiments are planned and carried out according to plan as faithfully as the reports in the science journals indicate, then it is perfectly logical for management to expect research to produce results measurable in dollars and cents.
▲这个主从复合句中的前半部分是if引导的条件从句，这个从句中有一个as... as...的结构，比较施行中的和书面所说的试验的真实度（faithfully），注意后一个as后面跟的是一个句子，其中the report谓语是indicate；后半部分是主句，句中的it是形式主语，代替的是后面for... to...的结构，这是真正的主语。还需要注意的是results后面跟的形容词短语说明的是results的衡量方式。
△准确理解as... as...结构，弄清faithfully这个副词修饰的是动词planned and carried out，再就是主句中形式主语的用法，要找到作为真正主语的不定式短语。
④It is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope.
▲这个简单句的主语用的是形式主语it，真正的主语是for后面的部分。believe后面跟的是一个that引导的宾语从句，主干是scientists... should not be distracted by...，其中的主语scientists跟了一个who引导的定语从句，这个定语从句的宾语分别是where和how引导的两个从句。by后面名词跟了一个of前导的动名词短语，后面还有一个while引导的伴随状语，表示同时发生的动作。注意动词词组keep an eye on的用法。
△抓住believe后面宾语从句的意义，尤其是主语scientists的限定性从句以及by后面名词短语的修饰作用。
⑤Nor, if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect, is management to be blamed for discriminating against the "odd balls" among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who "work well with the team."
▲首先注意这个句子是个倒装句，原因是否定词nor在句首，后面紧跟的是if引导的条件从句，注意其中有一个as... as...的用法，中间跟的是形容词desirable，比较的是科学家对regularity and conformity的希望和他们论文所反映的要求；这样的构成使得主句的主语和谓语is发生了倒装，介词for后面跟动名词短语的是blamed的理由，注意against和in favor of后面各跟了一种不同类型的researchers，最后需要注意的是thinkers后面跟的是who引导的定语从句，起修饰作用。
△理解主句的倒装结构是理解这句话的关键，在看这个句子的时候不要忽略了句首的nor，这个单词否定了整个主句。此句的主干是Nor is management to be blamed。
试题解析

试题解析：
67. [A] 意为：好奇心比科学实验更重要。
第一段第一句指出，在实践中，科学（的进步）更多地依赖于实验的观察者（指做实验的人）的心理准备状况，而更少地依赖于科学所设置的实验。本段其他部分所举的牛顿的例子用于说明这一句阐明的道理；第二段又对这一个例子进行了更具体的总结概括，指出了为捕捉未预料到的现象而做好心理准备的重要性。
B意为：当进行有成果的研究时，科学就会进步。
C意为：很少有科学家忘记研究的本质内容。
D意为：在科学研究中，不可预测性不如预测重要。根据第二段第五、六句，不可预测性是科学研究的本质内容（不可缺少）的一部分。如果没有不可预测性，就无所谓研究。
68. [B] 意为：不应该忽视对不可预测现象的推测。
第二段指出，不可预测性是科学研究的本质内容（不可缺少）的一部分。如果没有不可预测性，就无所谓研究。科学家们在为科学杂志写作千篇一律的报告时往往忘记这一点，但是历史上充满了这样的例子（指像牛顿一样通过预测没有预料到的现象获得重大发现的例子）。
A意为：不应该用想像思维代替“科学方法”。第三段指出，在与某些科学家——特别是年轻一点的科学家交谈时，你也许会得到达样一个印象：他们认为“科学方法”可以代替想象思维。可见，有些科学家是遵循“科学方法”的，但是，在他们写作论文时却经常忽视了。
C意为：应该为科学杂志撰写更简明的报告。根据文章第三、四段，科学家在撰写论文时经常忽视科学实验中的不可预测性因素，写出的论文给人以错误的印象，似乎科学实验总是能取得预期的结果。可见，这里不是一个简明不简明的问题。
D意为：应该对自己的研究发现有信心。第三段举的例子旨在说明：科学家对待科学实验的态度和他们写作论文的方式很不一致，因此容易引起其他人的误解。
69. [D] 意为：坚持“科学方法”。参考第68题对选择项A的解释。
A意为：对预测很感兴趣。
B意为；经常预测未来。
C意为：崇尚创造性思维。
文章只在第三段第一句提到了年轻科学家的态度。
70. [A] 意为：可能不像预料的那样有利可图。
第四段第三句指出，假如科学实验像科学杂志登载的论文所显示的那样完全按事先的计划设计完成，那么，管理者如果期望实验会产生可以用美元和美分测量的结果就会是完全符合逻辑的。言外之意，科学实验中总是会存在一些难以预测的现象，因此所产生的结果有时难以预测到，因此，不能肯定地说某项实验必定会产生经济效益。
B意为：可以用美元和美分测量。
C意为：依赖于与标准模式的一致性。第四段最后一句话的意思是：假如像他们的论文所反映的那样科学家们也想看到规律性和与某种标准模式的一致性，那么，如果管理者们歧视研究者中的“怪人”，而喜欢善于合作的、具有传统思维模式的人，这也是无可指责的。言外之意，科学实验中可能存在很多不可预测现象，如果实验者有充分的心理准备，及时把握住这些现象，突破传统的思维方式，就可能获得更有价值的发明。
D意为：大都被管理者低估了。
全文翻译

全文翻译：
在实践中，科学的进步依赖于做实验，但更依赖于实验的观察者（即做实验的人）的心理是否有足够的准备。艾萨克•牛顿爵士通过苹果落地发现了万有引力。多少个世纪以来，苹果一直在许多地方落到地面，也有成千上万的人看到过苹果落地。多年来牛顿一直对月球和行星绕轨道运行的起因好奇不已。是什么使它们处于现在的位置呢？它们为什么不落到天空之外呢？苹果向下落到地面不是向上飞到树上，这一事实回答了他长期以来一直对天空中更大果实——月球和行星所存有的疑问。
多少人会考虑过苹果向上飞到树上的可能性呢？牛顿考虑过，因为他不想对任何事情进行预测。他只是怀有好奇心。他的思想在准备思考不可预测的事。不可预测性是科学研究不可或缺的一个重要特征。如果没有不可预测现象的产生就无所谓科学研究了。科学家们在为科学杂志撰写千篇一律的报告时常常忘记这一点，而历史上这样的例子却比比皆是。
在和一些科学家，特别是年轻科学家交谈时，你可能会有这样一种印象：他们认为“科学方法”可以代替创造性思维。我出席过一些科研会议，会上有人问一位科学家继续某项实验是否是明智之举。那位科学家皱了皱眉，又看了看图表，然后说：“数据还是不够充分。”预算部门的人说：“这点我们知道，但你的意见如何？你觉得值得做下去吗？你觉得我们可以期待什么呢？”这位科学家感到很震惊，他没有料到人们会让他做出预测。
当然，这几乎等于说：那位科学家成了他自己论文的受害者。他所提出的种种论断是如此不容置疑、如此一致，以至于不仅他自己相信了，而且也说服了工商界的管理者相信其正确性。假如科学实验像科学杂志登载的科学报告显示的那样完全按事先的计划去规划和实施，那么，对管理层来说，期待研究能够产生可以用金钱衡量的结果是完全合理的。审计人员也完全有理由相信，确切知道自己的目标并知道如何实现这一目标的科学家们根本没必要用一只眼盯着现金计数器的同时，还要用另一只眼睛盯着显微镜。如果像他们的论文所反映的那样，科学家也想看到规律性和与某种标准模式的一致性，那么如果管理人员歧视研究人员中的“标新立异者”，而赞赏“善于合作”的具有传统思维模式的人，那也是无可指摘的。