行测-英文版 · 46题

The seasonal flu shot is（  ）recommended each year because the influenza viral strains in circulation are continuously changing.

The professor, with his shock of graying hair, peaked eyebrows, and（  ）smile, appears often on TV and at public events.

The greatest obstacle to（  ）climate warming is uncertainty about how clouds affect Earth's radiative balance.

People differ（  ）their ability to parse language in noisy environments.

The heart（  ）cardiomyocytes that beat all day every day with very little cellular turnover.

Commercial organizations and activities are concerned with making money or profits,（  ）, for example,with scientific research or providing a public service.

The most common in the universe besides photons, neutrinos exert no（  ）on the everyday objects around us.

Key to approaching the design of（  ）vascular replacements is a focus on critical functional attributes.

Although still representing a"first in human"experience, these surgical cases occurred under conditions（  ）no natural venous conduit was available.

I'm sure he（  ）his own nest with the money he allegedly raised for charity.

（  ）the worst effects of climate change requires drastic modification of our energy system.

The（  ）work is carried out on a range of telescopes.

The technology has moved from the research and development phase into the demonstration and scale-up phase and is（  ）commercialization.

Fossil fuels still serve as a vast and inexpensive source for on-demand heat and electricity,（  ）every part of the economy.

Even with intimate（  ）to a virus, some people fail to become infected.

They have consolidated their 250 hectares of land（  ）comprehensive planning and development, forming an integrated association of hamlets

Alongside sharing its development experience with African countries, China has become an important reference point for many African countries（  ）economic transformation.

The computer scientist whom the president picked last month as the next director of the NSF has followed the path taken by an（  ）number of foreign-born researchers.

Adaptive behavior requires the ability to analyze experience both prospectively and（  ）.

An effective application of animal welfare in（  ）is possible and is perhaps more effective and convincing to stakeholders.

Text2Two new books-Matt Ridley's How Innovation Works and Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell's The Innovation Delusion-reflect on society's semanticsatiation with"innovation."Both find that the term has been reduced to abuzzword; however, from this shared starting point, they take distinctlydifferent directions.In How Innovation Works, Ridley aims to upend the notion that innovationemanates from a lone inventor. Although he finds innovation to be"themost important fact about the modern world,"he reports that what ispopularly perceived as"invention"is really an extended innovationprocess-an evolutionary, as opposed to a revolutionary, process.Just as DNA recombination often results in more-successful traits thanthose that arise from random mutations, so too, he argues, doinnovations occur when humans mingle and exchange ideas, whether incultural hotbeds such as today's Silicon Valley or in the Renaissance swealthy city-states. Ridley maintains, however, that even in theseincubators, innovation is a bottom-up, iterative process that is oftenthe result of aftermarket tinkering by many users rather than theactions of theinitial inventors. To support his assertion, he meticulously documentsvarious case studies of innovation in domains ranging from public healthto communications.Invention may be the initial trigger for a new technology, acknowledgesRidley, but innovation happens as the initial idea evolves intomarketable goods. To maximally benefit from science and technology, heargues that we must focus less on revolutionaries and more on thefollow-on incremental tinkerers who substantially benefit from theunencumbered exchange of knowledge.In stark contradiction to Ridley'sefforts to bolster the concept of innovation and save it from itssuccess, in their book, The Innovation Delusion, authors Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell expose society's Faustian bargain with it. In theiropinion, strategies to boost innovation, such as emphasizing STEMeducation-which, they argue, often advance"the interests of universitiesand corporations"rather than those of students-have led us to amisplaced focus on innovation forinnovation's sake. Moreover, this misguided emphasis ignores whatmatters most in a thriving society: maintenance.Vinsel and Russell note that they are"sick of hearing about what's goodfor Silicon Valley, and what the innovating classes think is good forus."However, as much as they dislike the innovation mind-set, many ofthe maintainers that Vinsel and Russell celebrate could be consideredinnovators. They cite John Day Jr., for example, who pioneered the ideathat computers could be used to manage maintenance and advanced the ideathat"every corrective maintenance action should be balanced by sixpreventive maintenance actions."Readers might also take Vinsel andRussell to task for not appreciating how innovation can supplant theneed for maintenance-think cell phones versus phone booths.Although they diverge on many issues, both books posit that innovationis not only the purview of Silicon Valley. Vinsel and Russell, forexample, quote the economist Robert Gordon, who noted that computingtechnologies"do not hold a candle to the technological advances between1870 and 1970,"such as electricity, concrete, steel, automobiles, andairplanes. Quotingthe venture capitalist Peter Thiel, Ridley expresses a similarsentiment:"We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters."Both books also cite government regulation as inhibitory to theinnovation process.

What does the writer mean by saying"semantic satiation"?

Text2Two new books-Matt Ridley's How Innovation Works and Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell's The Innovation Delusion-reflect on society's semanticsatiation with"innovation."Both find that the term has been reduced to abuzzword; however, from this shared starting point, they take distinctlydifferent directions.In How Innovation Works, Ridley aims to upend the notion that innovationemanates from a lone inventor. Although he finds innovation to be"themost important fact about the modern world,"he reports that what ispopularly perceived as"invention"is really an extended innovationprocess-an evolutionary, as opposed to a revolutionary, process.Just as DNA recombination often results in more-successful traits thanthose that arise from random mutations, so too, he argues, doinnovations occur when humans mingle and exchange ideas, whether incultural hotbeds such as today's Silicon Valley or in the Renaissance swealthy city-states. Ridley maintains, however, that even in theseincubators, innovation is a bottom-up, iterative process that is oftenthe result of aftermarket tinkering by many users rather than theactions of theinitial inventors. To support his assertion, he meticulously documentsvarious case studies of innovation in domains ranging from public healthto communications.Invention may be the initial trigger for a new technology, acknowledgesRidley, but innovation happens as the initial idea evolves intomarketable goods. To maximally benefit from science and technology, heargues that we must focus less on revolutionaries and more on thefollow-on incremental tinkerers who substantially benefit from theunencumbered exchange of knowledge.In stark contradiction to Ridley'sefforts to bolster the concept of innovation and save it from itssuccess, in their book, The Innovation Delusion, authors Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell expose society's Faustian bargain with it. In theiropinion, strategies to boost innovation, such as emphasizing STEMeducation-which, they argue, often advance"the interests of universitiesand corporations"rather than those of students-have led us to amisplaced focus on innovation forinnovation's sake. Moreover, this misguided emphasis ignores whatmatters most in a thriving society: maintenance.Vinsel and Russell note that they are"sick of hearing about what's goodfor Silicon Valley, and what the innovating classes think is good forus."However, as much as they dislike the innovation mind-set, many ofthe maintainers that Vinsel and Russell celebrate could be consideredinnovators. They cite John Day Jr., for example, who pioneered the ideathat computers could be used to manage maintenance and advanced the ideathat"every corrective maintenance action should be balanced by sixpreventive maintenance actions."Readers might also take Vinsel andRussell to task for not appreciating how innovation can supplant theneed for maintenance-think cell phones versus phone booths.Although they diverge on many issues, both books posit that innovationis not only the purview of Silicon Valley. Vinsel and Russell, forexample, quote the economist Robert Gordon, who noted that computingtechnologies"do not hold a candle to the technological advances between1870 and 1970,"such as electricity, concrete, steel, automobiles, andairplanes. Quotingthe venture capitalist Peter Thiel, Ridley expresses a similarsentiment:"We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters."Both books also cite government regulation as inhibitory to theinnovation process.

What is the opinion of Matt Ridley?

Text2Two new books-Matt Ridley's How Innovation Works and Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell's The Innovation Delusion-reflect on society's semanticsatiation with"innovation."Both find that the term has been reduced to abuzzword; however, from this shared starting point, they take distinctlydifferent directions.In How Innovation Works, Ridley aims to upend the notion that innovationemanates from a lone inventor. Although he finds innovation to be"themost important fact about the modern world,"he reports that what ispopularly perceived as"invention"is really an extended innovationprocess-an evolutionary, as opposed to a revolutionary, process.Just as DNA recombination often results in more-successful traits thanthose that arise from random mutations, so too, he argues, doinnovations occur when humans mingle and exchange ideas, whether incultural hotbeds such as today's Silicon Valley or in the Renaissance swealthy city-states. Ridley maintains, however, that even in theseincubators, innovation is a bottom-up, iterative process that is oftenthe result of aftermarket tinkering by many users rather than theactions of theinitial inventors. To support his assertion, he meticulously documentsvarious case studies of innovation in domains ranging from public healthto communications.Invention may be the initial trigger for a new technology, acknowledgesRidley, but innovation happens as the initial idea evolves intomarketable goods. To maximally benefit from science and technology, heargues that we must focus less on revolutionaries and more on thefollow-on incremental tinkerers who substantially benefit from theunencumbered exchange of knowledge.In stark contradiction to Ridley'sefforts to bolster the concept of innovation and save it from itssuccess, in their book, The Innovation Delusion, authors Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell expose society's Faustian bargain with it. In theiropinion, strategies to boost innovation, such as emphasizing STEMeducation-which, they argue, often advance"the interests of universitiesand corporations"rather than those of students-have led us to amisplaced focus on innovation forinnovation's sake. Moreover, this misguided emphasis ignores whatmatters most in a thriving society: maintenance.Vinsel and Russell note that they are"sick of hearing about what's goodfor Silicon Valley, and what the innovating classes think is good forus."However, as much as they dislike the innovation mind-set, many ofthe maintainers that Vinsel and Russell celebrate could be consideredinnovators. They cite John Day Jr., for example, who pioneered the ideathat computers could be used to manage maintenance and advanced the ideathat"every corrective maintenance action should be balanced by sixpreventive maintenance actions."Readers might also take Vinsel andRussell to task for not appreciating how innovation can supplant theneed for maintenance-think cell phones versus phone booths.Although they diverge on many issues, both books posit that innovationis not only the purview of Silicon Valley. Vinsel and Russell, forexample, quote the economist Robert Gordon, who noted that computingtechnologies"do not hold a candle to the technological advances between1870 and 1970,"such as electricity, concrete, steel, automobiles, andairplanes. Quotingthe venture capitalist Peter Thiel, Ridley expresses a similarsentiment:"We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters."Both books also cite government regulation as inhibitory to theinnovation process.

Why does the writer take DNA recombination as an example?

Text2Two new books-Matt Ridley's How Innovation Works and Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell's The Innovation Delusion-reflect on society's semanticsatiation with"innovation."Both find that the term has been reduced to abuzzword; however, from this shared starting point, they take distinctlydifferent directions.In How Innovation Works, Ridley aims to upend the notion that innovationemanates from a lone inventor. Although he finds innovation to be"themost important fact about the modern world,"he reports that what ispopularly perceived as"invention"is really an extended innovationprocess-an evolutionary, as opposed to a revolutionary, process.Just as DNA recombination often results in more-successful traits thanthose that arise from random mutations, so too, he argues, doinnovations occur when humans mingle and exchange ideas, whether incultural hotbeds such as today's Silicon Valley or in the Renaissance swealthy city-states. Ridley maintains, however, that even in theseincubators, innovation is a bottom-up, iterative process that is oftenthe result of aftermarket tinkering by many users rather than theactions of theinitial inventors. To support his assertion, he meticulously documentsvarious case studies of innovation in domains ranging from public healthto communications.Invention may be the initial trigger for a new technology, acknowledgesRidley, but innovation happens as the initial idea evolves intomarketable goods. To maximally benefit from science and technology, heargues that we must focus less on revolutionaries and more on thefollow-on incremental tinkerers who substantially benefit from theunencumbered exchange of knowledge.In stark contradiction to Ridley'sefforts to bolster the concept of innovation and save it from itssuccess, in their book, The Innovation Delusion, authors Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell expose society's Faustian bargain with it. In theiropinion, strategies to boost innovation, such as emphasizing STEMeducation-which, they argue, often advance"the interests of universitiesand corporations"rather than those of students-have led us to amisplaced focus on innovation forinnovation's sake. Moreover, this misguided emphasis ignores whatmatters most in a thriving society: maintenance.Vinsel and Russell note that they are"sick of hearing about what's goodfor Silicon Valley, and what the innovating classes think is good forus."However, as much as they dislike the innovation mind-set, many ofthe maintainers that Vinsel and Russell celebrate could be consideredinnovators. They cite John Day Jr., for example, who pioneered the ideathat computers could be used to manage maintenance and advanced the ideathat"every corrective maintenance action should be balanced by sixpreventive maintenance actions."Readers might also take Vinsel andRussell to task for not appreciating how innovation can supplant theneed for maintenance-think cell phones versus phone booths.Although they diverge on many issues, both books posit that innovationis not only the purview of Silicon Valley. Vinsel and Russell, forexample, quote the economist Robert Gordon, who noted that computingtechnologies"do not hold a candle to the technological advances between1870 and 1970,"such as electricity, concrete, steel, automobiles, andairplanes. Quotingthe venture capitalist Peter Thiel, Ridley expresses a similarsentiment:"We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters."Both books also cite government regulation as inhibitory to theinnovation process.

Which is not correct about Lee Vinsel and Andrew Russell?

Text2Two new books-Matt Ridley's How Innovation Works and Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell's The Innovation Delusion-reflect on society's semanticsatiation with"innovation."Both find that the term has been reduced to abuzzword; however, from this shared starting point, they take distinctlydifferent directions.In How Innovation Works, Ridley aims to upend the notion that innovationemanates from a lone inventor. Although he finds innovation to be"themost important fact about the modern world,"he reports that what ispopularly perceived as"invention"is really an extended innovationprocess-an evolutionary, as opposed to a revolutionary, process.Just as DNA recombination often results in more-successful traits thanthose that arise from random mutations, so too, he argues, doinnovations occur when humans mingle and exchange ideas, whether incultural hotbeds such as today's Silicon Valley or in the Renaissance swealthy city-states. Ridley maintains, however, that even in theseincubators, innovation is a bottom-up, iterative process that is oftenthe result of aftermarket tinkering by many users rather than theactions of theinitial inventors. To support his assertion, he meticulously documentsvarious case studies of innovation in domains ranging from public healthto communications.Invention may be the initial trigger for a new technology, acknowledgesRidley, but innovation happens as the initial idea evolves intomarketable goods. To maximally benefit from science and technology, heargues that we must focus less on revolutionaries and more on thefollow-on incremental tinkerers who substantially benefit from theunencumbered exchange of knowledge.In stark contradiction to Ridley'sefforts to bolster the concept of innovation and save it from itssuccess, in their book, The Innovation Delusion, authors Lee Vinsel andAndrew Russell expose society's Faustian bargain with it. In theiropinion, strategies to boost innovation, such as emphasizing STEMeducation-which, they argue, often advance"the interests of universitiesand corporations"rather than those of students-have led us to amisplaced focus on innovation forinnovation's sake. Moreover, this misguided emphasis ignores whatmatters most in a thriving society: maintenance.Vinsel and Russell note that they are"sick of hearing about what's goodfor Silicon Valley, and what the innovating classes think is good forus."However, as much as they dislike the innovation mind-set, many ofthe maintainers that Vinsel and Russell celebrate could be consideredinnovators. They cite John Day Jr., for example, who pioneered the ideathat computers could be used to manage maintenance and advanced the ideathat"every corrective maintenance action should be balanced by sixpreventive maintenance actions."Readers might also take Vinsel andRussell to task for not appreciating how innovation can supplant theneed for maintenance-think cell phones versus phone booths.Although they diverge on many issues, both books posit that innovationis not only the purview of Silicon Valley. Vinsel and Russell, forexample, quote the economist Robert Gordon, who noted that computingtechnologies"do not hold a candle to the technological advances between1870 and 1970,"such as electricity, concrete, steel, automobiles, andairplanes. Quotingthe venture capitalist Peter Thiel, Ridley expresses a similarsentiment:"We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters."Both books also cite government regulation as inhibitory to theinnovation process.

What can we infer from this passage?

Text1Primate researchers in the United States have banded together in a pushfor an ambitious monkey study that would do head-to-head comparisons ofthe leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Although 10 candidates arealready undergoing large-scale tests in people, proponents of the monkeyplan say those clinical trials may not deliver the comprehensive dataneeded to choose the safest and most effective vaccines. The comparisontrial in monkeys, in contrast, could shed light in a matter of weeks onhow the candidates stack up on measures including potential sideeffects, the strength of immune responses they trigger, and how wellthey protect against infection and disease."We should take a cold, hard look at all of the data and ask ourselves,'What appears to work best?'" says Nancy Haigwood, who directs theOregon National Primate Research Center and is a key advocate for thecomparative monkey study.The proposed monkey vaccine comparison faces hurdles: It would add tothe pressure on the dwindling U.S. supply of research monkeys,potentially delaying research on other diseases, and it does not yethave funding. Haigwood says she expected the U.S. government wouldgladly support the effort, which would cost an estimated $10 million.But facing a lackof interest by current Warp Speed officials, Haigwood and colleagues atthe six other national primate research centers are now turning to theNational Institutes of Health (NIH) for support.Most developers of the vaccine candidates in efficacy trials havealready published how well each works in monkeys againsta"challenge"with SARS-CoV-2-a deliberate exposure to the pandemiccoronavirus that causes COVID -19. But the details of how theexperiments were conducted and the ways the results were analyzed differso profoundly that immunologist JohnMoore of Weill Cornell Medicine says he can't make sense of how thecandidates compare."It's comparing apples to oranges and bananas,"saysMoore, who has Co-authored a review, on preprint.org, that compares thevarious monkey studies.The human vaccine trials, for their part, are likely to yield onlypreliminary signals of efficacy over the next few months, not clear-cutevidence that one or more is safe and protects people."We're going toget data dribbling in from clinical trials,"says Haigwood, a veteranAIDS vaccine researcher.

Which is the consequence of the comparison trial in monkeys?

Text1Primate researchers in the United States have banded together in a pushfor an ambitious monkey study that would do head-to-head comparisons ofthe leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Although 10 candidates arealready undergoing large-scale tests in people, proponents of the monkeyplan say those clinical trials may not deliver the comprehensive dataneeded to choose the safest and most effective vaccines. The comparisontrial in monkeys, in contrast, could shed light in a matter of weeks onhow the candidates stack up on measures including potential sideeffects, the strength of immune responses they trigger, and how wellthey protect against infection and disease."We should take a cold, hard look at all of the data and ask ourselves,'What appears to work best?'" says Nancy Haigwood, who directs theOregon National Primate Research Center and is a key advocate for thecomparative monkey study.The proposed monkey vaccine comparison faces hurdles: It would add tothe pressure on the dwindling U.S. supply of research monkeys,potentially delaying research on other diseases, and it does not yethave funding. Haigwood says she expected the U.S. government wouldgladly support the effort, which would cost an estimated $10 million.But facing a lackof interest by current Warp Speed officials, Haigwood and colleagues atthe six other national primate research centers are now turning to theNational Institutes of Health (NIH) for support.Most developers of the vaccine candidates in efficacy trials havealready published how well each works in monkeys againsta"challenge"with SARS-CoV-2-a deliberate exposure to the pandemiccoronavirus that causes COVID -19. But the details of how theexperiments were conducted and the ways the results were analyzed differso profoundly that immunologist JohnMoore of Weill Cornell Medicine says he can't make sense of how thecandidates compare."It's comparing apples to oranges and bananas,"saysMoore, who has Co-authored a review, on preprint.org, that compares thevarious monkey studies.The human vaccine trials, for their part, are likely to yield onlypreliminary signals of efficacy over the next few months, not clear-cutevidence that one or more is safe and protects people."We're going toget data dribbling in from clinical trials,"says Haigwood, a veteranAIDS vaccine researcher.

What's the Nancy Haigwood's attitude toward her research?

Text1Primate researchers in the United States have banded together in a pushfor an ambitious monkey study that would do head-to-head comparisons ofthe leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Although 10 candidates arealready undergoing large-scale tests in people, proponents of the monkeyplan say those clinical trials may not deliver the comprehensive dataneeded to choose the safest and most effective vaccines. The comparisontrial in monkeys, in contrast, could shed light in a matter of weeks onhow the candidates stack up on measures including potential sideeffects, the strength of immune responses they trigger, and how wellthey protect against infection and disease."We should take a cold, hard look at all of the data and ask ourselves,'What appears to work best?'" says Nancy Haigwood, who directs theOregon National Primate Research Center and is a key advocate for thecomparative monkey study.The proposed monkey vaccine comparison faces hurdles: It would add tothe pressure on the dwindling U.S. supply of research monkeys,potentially delaying research on other diseases, and it does not yethave funding. Haigwood says she expected the U.S. government wouldgladly support the effort, which would cost an estimated $10 million.But facing a lackof interest by current Warp Speed officials, Haigwood and colleagues atthe six other national primate research centers are now turning to theNational Institutes of Health (NIH) for support.Most developers of the vaccine candidates in efficacy trials havealready published how well each works in monkeys againsta"challenge"with SARS-CoV-2-a deliberate exposure to the pandemiccoronavirus that causes COVID -19. But the details of how theexperiments were conducted and the ways the results were analyzed differso profoundly that immunologist JohnMoore of Weill Cornell Medicine says he can't make sense of how thecandidates compare."It's comparing apples to oranges and bananas,"saysMoore, who has Co-authored a review, on preprint.org, that compares thevarious monkey studies.The human vaccine trials, for their part, are likely to yield onlypreliminary signals of efficacy over the next few months, not clear-cutevidence that one or more is safe and protects people."We're going toget data dribbling in from clinical trials,"says Haigwood, a veteranAIDS vaccine researcher.

What's the similarity between John Moore's and Jay Rappaport'sideas towards the trial?

Text1Primate researchers in the United States have banded together in a pushfor an ambitious monkey study that would do head-to-head comparisons ofthe leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Although 10 candidates arealready undergoing large-scale tests in people, proponents of the monkeyplan say those clinical trials may not deliver the comprehensive dataneeded to choose the safest and most effective vaccines. The comparisontrial in monkeys, in contrast, could shed light in a matter of weeks onhow the candidates stack up on measures including potential sideeffects, the strength of immune responses they trigger, and how wellthey protect against infection and disease."We should take a cold, hard look at all of the data and ask ourselves,'What appears to work best?'" says Nancy Haigwood, who directs theOregon National Primate Research Center and is a key advocate for thecomparative monkey study.The proposed monkey vaccine comparison faces hurdles: It would add tothe pressure on the dwindling U.S. supply of research monkeys,potentially delaying research on other diseases, and it does not yethave funding. Haigwood says she expected the U.S. government wouldgladly support the effort, which would cost an estimated $10 million.But facing a lackof interest by current Warp Speed officials, Haigwood and colleagues atthe six other national primate research centers are now turning to theNational Institutes of Health (NIH) for support.Most developers of the vaccine candidates in efficacy trials havealready published how well each works in monkeys againsta"challenge"with SARS-CoV-2-a deliberate exposure to the pandemiccoronavirus that causes COVID -19. But the details of how theexperiments were conducted and the ways the results were analyzed differso profoundly that immunologist JohnMoore of Weill Cornell Medicine says he can't make sense of how thecandidates compare."It's comparing apples to oranges and bananas,"saysMoore, who has Co-authored a review, on preprint.org, that compares thevarious monkey studies.The human vaccine trials, for their part, are likely to yield onlypreliminary signals of efficacy over the next few months, not clear-cutevidence that one or more is safe and protects people."We're going toget data dribbling in from clinical trials,"says Haigwood, a veteranAIDS vaccine researcher.

What does the word"efficacy"probably mean in this passage?

Text1Primate researchers in the United States have banded together in a pushfor an ambitious monkey study that would do head-to-head comparisons ofthe leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Although 10 candidates arealready undergoing large-scale tests in people, proponents of the monkeyplan say those clinical trials may not deliver the comprehensive dataneeded to choose the safest and most effective vaccines. The comparisontrial in monkeys, in contrast, could shed light in a matter of weeks onhow the candidates stack up on measures including potential sideeffects, the strength of immune responses they trigger, and how wellthey protect against infection and disease."We should take a cold, hard look at all of the data and ask ourselves,'What appears to work best?'" says Nancy Haigwood, who directs theOregon National Primate Research Center and is a key advocate for thecomparative monkey study.The proposed monkey vaccine comparison faces hurdles: It would add tothe pressure on the dwindling U.S. supply of research monkeys,potentially delaying research on other diseases, and it does not yethave funding. Haigwood says she expected the U.S. government wouldgladly support the effort, which would cost an estimated $10 million.But facing a lackof interest by current Warp Speed officials, Haigwood and colleagues atthe six other national primate research centers are now turning to theNational Institutes of Health (NIH) for support.Most developers of the vaccine candidates in efficacy trials havealready published how well each works in monkeys againsta"challenge"with SARS-CoV-2-a deliberate exposure to the pandemiccoronavirus that causes COVID -19. But the details of how theexperiments were conducted and the ways the results were analyzed differso profoundly that immunologist JohnMoore of Weill Cornell Medicine says he can't make sense of how thecandidates compare."It's comparing apples to oranges and bananas,"saysMoore, who has Co-authored a review, on preprint.org, that compares thevarious monkey studies.The human vaccine trials, for their part, are likely to yield onlypreliminary signals of efficacy over the next few months, not clear-cutevidence that one or more is safe and protects people."We're going toget data dribbling in from clinical trials,"says Haigwood, a veteranAIDS vaccine researcher.

What can we infer from this passage?

＂BMI (body-mass index) is a cheap and cheerful way of getting a handle on whether or not you might be overweight. The alternatives are rather more complicated and expensive. You can go for an MRI scan or a dexa scan and those will measure your whole body fat, but that really is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BMI does separate those people who are normal from those who are obese and there is some area of uncertainty in the middle.＂

Tim Cole, Professor of Medical Statistics at University College London

＂The body-mass index that the National Health Service counts on to assess obesity is a bizarre measure. We live in a three-dimensional world, yet the BMI is defined as weight divided by height squared. It was invented in the 1840s, before calculators,when a formula had to be very simple and usable. As a consequence of this ill-founded definition, millions of short people think they are thinner than they are, and millions of tall people think they are fatter.＂

Nick Trefethen, Professor of numerical analysis, University of Oxford

According to Tim Cole, what are two of the benefits of the BMI?

①Cheap

②Quick

③Accurate

④Accessible

＂BMI (body-mass index) is a cheap and cheerful way of getting a handle on whether or not you might be overweight. The alternatives are rather more complicated and expensive. You can go for an MRI scan or a dexa scan and those will measure your whole body fat, but that really is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BMI does separate those people who are normal from those who are obese and there is some area of uncertainty in the middle.＂

Tim Cole, Professor of Medical Statistics at University College London

＂The body-mass index that the National Health Service counts on to assess obesity is a bizarre measure. We live in a three-dimensional world, yet the BMI is defined as weight divided by height squared. It was invented in the 1840s, before calculators,when a formula had to be very simple and usable. As a consequence of this ill-founded definition, millions of short people think they are thinner than they are, and millions of tall people think they are fatter.＂

Nick Trefethen, Professor of numerical analysis, University of Oxford

Which one of the following would best replace ＂cheerful＂ while maintaining the meaning of the passage?

＂BMI (body-mass index) is a cheap and cheerful way of getting a handle on whether or not you might be overweight. The alternatives are rather more complicated and expensive. You can go for an MRI scan or a dexa scan and those will measure your whole body fat, but that really is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BMI does separate those people who are normal from those who are obese and there is some area of uncertainty in the middle.＂

Tim Cole, Professor of Medical Statistics at University College London

＂The body-mass index that the National Health Service counts on to assess obesity is a bizarre measure. We live in a three-dimensional world, yet the BMI is defined as weight divided by height squared. It was invented in the 1840s, before calculators,when a formula had to be very simple and usable. As a consequence of this ill-founded definition, millions of short people think they are thinner than they are, and millions of tall people think they are fatter.＂

Nick Trefethen, Professor of numerical analysis, University of Oxford

Which one of the following provides the best summary of the common ground between both quotes?

＂BMI (body-mass index) is a cheap and cheerful way of getting a handle on whether or not you might be overweight. The alternatives are rather more complicated and expensive. You can go for an MRI scan or a dexa scan and those will measure your whole body fat, but that really is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BMI does separate those people who are normal from those who are obese and there is some area of uncertainty in the middle.＂

Tim Cole, Professor of Medical Statistics at University College London

＂The body-mass index that the National Health Service counts on to assess obesity is a bizarre measure. We live in a three-dimensional world, yet the BMI is defined as weight divided by height squared. It was invented in the 1840s, before calculators,when a formula had to be very simple and usable. As a consequence of this ill-founded definition, millions of short people think they are thinner than they are, and millions of tall people think they are fatter.＂

Nick Trefethen, Professor of numerical analysis, University of Oxford

Which passage is overtly critical of the BMI?

Share sales and dividend

In the first half of the year, what was the total cost of buying 450 HPQ shares at their highest price and a fifth of this amount of DELL shares at their lowest price?

Share sales and dividend

In the second half of the year, for which company is the dividend valued at over 1% of the mid-range* of the share＇s　price?

* Mid-range = (Max.Price + Min.Price)/2

Share sales and dividend

If you sold 10,000 HPQ stocks in the first half of the year at their highest price,after collecting the dividend for these months once,how many APPL stocks could you buy with the proceeds in the second half of the year at their lowest price?

Train Transportation Patterns Over Time

Train Transportation Patterns Over Time

In which of the train lines was the difference between the number of day and nighttime passengers the smallest in 2005?

Train Transportation Patterns Over Time

By what percentage did the use of the daytime PE line increase between 1930 and 2005?

Job Prospects for University Graduates

How many more or less employed graduates were there in 1990 than in 2000?

Job Prospects for University Graduates

What proportion of the unemployed graduates in 2000 studied in private universities? (rounded to2 d.p)

Job Prospects for University Graduates

Which group of graduates (Private university or State university) had the highest unemployment rate?

Trains in England

The table below shows the weekday train timetable between Euston and Runcorn:

What time will Emily arrive in Runcorn if she leaves her house at 7:45, drives 25 minutes to Euston station, and takes the first available train?

Trains in England

The table below shows the weekday train timetable between Euston and Runcorn:

What time will John arrive in Stafford if he finishes his meeting in Manchester at 11:00 and has to walk a further 25 minutes to the station?

Trains in England

The table below shows the weekday train timetable between Euston and Runcorn:

Alice has an 11:45 meting at an office which is a 10-minute taxi ride from the station in Runcorn. What is the latest train she can take from her hometown of Stoke-on-Trent?