阅读理解
How's this for a coincidence? Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born in the same year, on the same day: Feb. 12, 1809. Although people hardly think of them in tandem, yet instinctively, we want to say that they belong together. It's not just because they were both great men, and not because they happen to be exact contemporaries. Rather, it's because the scientist and the politician each touched off a revolution that changed the world.
They were both revolutionaries in the sense that both men upended realities that prevailed when they were born. They seem—and sound—modern to us, because the world they left behind them is more or less the one we still live in. So, considering the joint greatness of their contributions—and the coincidence of their conjoined birthdays—it is hard not to wonder: who was the greater man? It's an apples-and-oranges—or Superman-vs.-**parison. But if you limit the question to influence, very quickly the balance tips in Lincoln's favor.
As great as his book on evolution is, it does no harm to remember that Darwin hurried to publish The Origin of Species because he thought he was about to be scooped by his fellow naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace. In other words, there was a certain inevitability to Darwin's theory. Ideas about evolution surfaced throughout the first part of the 19th century, and while none of them was as convincing as Darwin's—until Wallace came along—it was not as though he was the only man who had the idea.
Lincoln, in contrast, is unique. Take him out of the picture, and there is no telling what might have happened to the country. True, his election to the presidency did provoke secession and, in turn, the war itself, but that war seems inevitable—not a question of if but when. Once in office, he becomes the indispensable man. Certainly we know what happened once he was assassinated: Reconstruction was ad-ministered punitively and then abandoned, leaving the issue of racial equality to dangle for another century.
If Darwin were not so irreplaceable as Lincoln, that should not negate his accomplishment. No one could have formulated his theory any more elegantly. Their identic
al birthdays afford us a superb opportunity to observe these men in the shared context of their time—how each was shaped by his circumstances, how each reacted to the beliefs that steered the world into which he was bom and ultimately how each reshaped his corner of that world and left it irrevocably changed.
1. 1.Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln belong together in that
A. they were born on the same day.
B. they lived in the same period of time.
C. they brought up revolutions to the world.
D. they were born to be successful men.
2. 2.What does the author mean by "an apples-and-oranges—or Superman-vs.-**parison"(Lines 4-5, Paragraph 2)?
A. It is hard to tell which one is greater as they are both outstanding.
B. **parison between Darwin and Lincoln is meaningless.
C. It is difficult to compare them as they are as famous as Superman or Santa.
D. There is no **paring them because both of them are well-known to us.
3. 3.Alfred Russel Wallace is mentioned in order to show
A. Darwin's The Origin of Species was about to be scooped.
B. Darwin's evolution theory was accepted among naturalists.
C. Darwin might not be the only one who had the idea of evolution.
D. Darwin's achievement was founded upon natural researches.
4. 4.Lincoln's contribution to the world can be best described as
A. aggressive.be your superman
B. ground-breaking.
C. dependable.
D. legitimate.
5. 5.Which of the following is true of the text?
A. Lincoln's success in election had made the war inevitable.
B. Lincoln had strived to address the racial problems.
C. Darwin was not **pared with his contemporaries.
D. Darwin's theory coincided with Lincoln's beliefs.
"It keeps you grounded, puts you in a situation that keeps you out of trouble, and puts you with a group that has the same mind-set," says Molly Skinner, a sophomore at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, appraising the nonathletic benefits she experienced while playing soccer in high school. According to one new study, suiting up for the high school team does seem to give girls a boost when it comes to getting a college dip
loma.
The recent study, conducted by professors from Brigham Young University(BYU)and West Chester University of Pennsylvania(WCUP), found that women who played sports in high school were 73 percent more likely to earn a bachelor's degree within six years of graduating from high school than those who did not.(The study did not look at male athletes.)Their analysis of data from 5,103 women collected as part of a U.S. Department of Education study found that even among girls who face statistical challenges finishing college based on socioeconomic background, the athletes still had more than 40 percent higher **pletion rates than nonathletes, regardless of whether they played at the college level.
发布评论