时间:2010-12-19 17:21:58
W: There is an element there about competition then, isn’t there? Because British railways are a nationalized industry. There’s only one railway system in the country. If you don’t like a particular kind of big beans, you can go and buy another. But if you don't like a particular railway, you can’t go and use another.
M: Some people who write to me say this. They say that if you didn’t have monopoly, you wouldn’t be able to do the things you do. Well, I don’t think we do anything deliberately to upset our customers. We have particular problems. Since 1946, when the Transport Act came in, we were nationalized.
W: Do you think that’s a good thing? Has it been a good thing for the railways, do you think, to be nationalized?
M: Oh I think so, yes. Because in general, modes of transport are all around. Let’s face the fact. The car arrived. The car is here to stay. There is no question about that.
W: So what are you saying then? Is it if the railways happen being nationalized, they would simply have disappeared?
M: Oh, I think they would have. They’re disappearing fast in America. Er, the French railways lose 1 billion ponds a year. The German railways, 2 billion ponds a year. But you see, those governments are preparing to pour money into the transport system to keep it going.
W: So in a sense, you cope between two extremes. On the one hand, you’re trying not to lose too much money. And on the other hand, you’ve got to provide the best service.
M: Yes, you are right.
Questions 22 to 25 are based on the conversation you have just heard.
22. What does the woman say about British railways?
23. What do some people who write to the man complain about?
24. What does the man say threatens the existence of railways?
25. What does the man say about railways in other countries?
Section B
Passage One
Among global warming’s most frightening threats is the prediction is that the polar ice-caps will melt, raising sea level so much that coastal cities from New York to Los Angles to Shanghai will be flooded. Scientists agree that key player in this scenario is the West Antarctic ice sheet, a Brazil-size mass of frozen water that is much as 7000 feet thick. Unlike floating ice shelves which have little impact on sea level when they break up, the ice sheet is anchored to bedrock will blow the sea surface. Surrounded by open ocean, it is also vulnerable, but Antarctic experts disagree strongly on just how unstable it is. Now, new evidence reveals that all or most of the Antarctic ice sheet collapsed at least once during the past 1.3 million years, a period when global temperatures probably were not significantly higher than they are today. And the ice sheet was assumed to have been stable. In geological time, a million years is recent history. The proof, which was published last week in Science, comes from a team of scientists from Uppsala University in Sweden and California Institute of Technology who drew deep holes near the edge of ice sheet. Within samples collected from the solid substances lying beneath the ice. They found fossils of microscopic marine plants which suggest that the region was once open ocean not solid ice. As Herman Engleheart, a co-author from the California Institute of Technology says, ‘the West Antarctic ice sheet disappear once and can disappear again.’
26. What is one of the most frightening threats of global warming according to the passage?
27. What did scientists disagree on?
28. What is the latest information revealed about the West Antarctic ice sheet?
29. What the sci