DO WE NEED CITIES ANY MORE?
A I don't want to live in a city. Perhaps we divide naturally into two types: those for whom cities are vibrant and exciting, a focus for human activity; and those for whom they are dirty, noisy and dangerous. It may be unfashionable, but I'm in the latter camp. I do not believe that we are a species whose behaviour improves in overcrowded conditions.
B A new study proposes a significant increase in the capacity of towns and cities through a combination of increased housing densities, lower onplot provision for cars and more onstreet parking, and the re-use of marginal open space that is "devoid of any amenity value". The benefit of this approach is to reduce the loss of green fields and to help "move towards more sustainable patterns of development".
C This study suggests that it would be possible to achieve a 25% increase in density in a typical provincial city without changing the traditional street scene, although it would be necessary to reduce the size of the houses and substitute parking spaces for garages. Therefore, the cost of this approach is to have more people living in smaller homes at higher densities, along streets that are lined with parked cars. Can we really accept the notion that space within dwellings may be reduced even further? In times when, we are told, living standards are rising in real terms, is it realistic to seek to reduce personal space standards?
D The streets of many inner suburbs are already lined with cars on both sides, reducing movement to a single lane. Increasing densities means accepting urban streets that are designed as linear car parks, bounded by even smaller living units and tempered only by occasional trees sprouting from the tarmac. Would the benefits of higher density be worth the disadvantages of increasing on-street parking? Can we achieve a satisfactory visual environment from such raw materials? Higher urban densities may be communally good for us, but they will fail to meet the aspirations of many prospective home owners.
E Those without economic choice can be directed to live in this way, but if we are to continue to rely on the private sector to produce this urban housing, it will need to appeal to the private developers' customers. Who will choose to live in these high-density developments of small dwellings, with minimal open space and a chance to park on the highway if you are lucky enough to find a space? The main consumers will be single people, couples without children, and perhaps some "empty nesters" (people whose children have grown up and left home). These are people who can choose to spend much of their time outside their home, making the most of those urban cultural opportunities or getting away at weekends to a country cottage or sporting activities.
F The combination of a young family and a mortgage restricts the mobility and spending power of many couples, Most people with a family will try to avoid bringing up their children in a cramped flat or house. Space for independent activity is important in developing the individual and in maintaining family equilibrium. The garden is the secure place where the children can work off excess energy.
G There is a danger that planners may take a dispassionate, logical view of how we should live, and seek to force society into that mould. A few years ago a European Commission study provided a good example of this. It took the view, quite sensibly, that housing should not be under-occupied because this is a waste of resources. Therefore, it would be much better if the many thousands of old ladies who live alone in large detached houses would move into small urban flats, thus releasing the large houses for families. What the study failed to recognise was that many of those old ladies prefer to continue to live in their family home with their familiar surroundings and, most importantly, with their memories. What is good for us is not necessarily what we want.
H The urban housing option may be technically sustainable, but individually unacceptable. There still seems to be a perception among planners that new housing investment can be forced into those areas that planners want to see developed, without proper consideration of where the prospective purchasers want to live. There is a fatal flaw in this premise. Housing developers run businesses. They are not irrevocably committed to building houses and they are not obliged to invest their resources in housing development, Unless there is a reasonable prospect of a profit on the capital at risk in a housing project, they may simply choose to invest in some other activity.
Questions 1 - 6
Choose ONE phrase A - G from the box to complete each of the following key points. Write the appropriate letters A - G in boxes 1 - 6 on your answer sheet. The information in the completed sentences should be an accurate summary of points made by the writer
You may use any phrase more than once.
Example Answer
There will be more green space available ... E
1. Residential density in cities will be increased ...
2. There are two types of ...
3. There are three types of ...
4. Developers are unlikely to build houses ...
5. Planners might try to dictate ...
6. Many people will not be happy ...
A people likely to want to live in high-density accommodation.
B living in higher density accommodation.
C if houses are built smaller.
D where old people should live.
E if residential density in cities is increased.
F where people do not want to live.
G attitude towards city living.
第七课时
READING PASSAGE 1
You are advised to spend about 20 minutes on Questions 1 - 15 which are based on Reading Passage 1.
The Birth Of The Microwave
A Chances are, you'll use a microwave oven at least once this week-probably (according to research) for heating up leftovers or defrosting something. Microwave ovens are so common today that it's easy to forget how rare they once were. As late as 1977, only 10% of U.S. homes had one. By 1995, 85% of households had at least one. Today, more people own microwaves than own dishwashers.
B Magnetrons, the tubes that produce microwaves, were invented by British scientists in 1940. They were used in radar systems during World War II, and were instrumental in detecting German planes during the Battle of Britain. These tubes—which are sort of like TV picture tubes—might still be strictly military hardware if Percy Spencer, an engineer at Raytheon (a U.S. defense contractor), hadn't stepped in front of one in 1946. He had a chocolate bar in his pocket; when he went to eat it a few minutes later, he found that the chocolate had almost completely melted. That didn't make sense. Spencer wasn't hot—how could the chocolate bar be? He suspected the magnetron was responsible, so he tried an experiment. He put a bag of popcorn kernels in the tube. Seconds later, they popped. The next day, Spencer brought eggs and an old tea-kettle to work. He cut a hole in the side of the kettle, put an egg in it, an laced it next to the magnetron. Just as a colleague went to see what was happening, the egg exploded.
C Spencer shared his discovery with his employers at Raytheon, and suggested manufacturing magnetron-powered ovens to sell to the public. Raytheon was interested. They had the capacity to produce 10,000 magnetron tubes per week, but with World War II over, military purchases had been cut down to almost nothing. What is the better way to recover lost sales than to put a radar set disguised as a microwave oven in every American home? Raytheon agreed to back the project. The company patented the first "high frequency dielectric heating apparatus" in 1953. Then they held a contest to find a name for their product. Some came up with "Radar Range", which was later combined into the single word—Radarange.
D Raytheon had a great product idea and a great name, but they didn't have an oven anyone could afford. The 1953 model was 51/2 feet tall, weighed more than 750 pounds, and cost $3000. Over the next 20 years, railroads, ocean liners and high-end restaurants were virtually the only Radarange customers. In 1955, a company called Tappan introduced the first microwave oven for average consumers; it was smaller than the Radarange, but still cost $1,295—more than some small homes. Then in 1964, a Japanese company perfected a miniaturized magnetron, and Raytheon soon after introduced a Radarange that used the new magnetron. It sold for $495. But that was still too expensive for the average American family. Finally, in the 1980s, technical improvements lowered the price and improve the quality enough to make microwave ovens both affordable and practical. By 1988, 10% of all new food products in the U.S were microwaveable.
E Here is the first thing you should know about "microwaves": Like visible light, radio waves and X-rays, they are waves of electromagnetic energy. What makes the four waves different from each other? Each has a different length (wavelength) and vibrates at a different speed (frequency). Microwaves get their name because their wavelength is much shorter than electromagnetic waves that carry TV and radio signals. The microwaves in a microwave oven have a wavelength o about four inches, and they vibrate 2.5 billion times per second—about the same natural frequency as water molecules. That's what at makes them so effective at heating food. A conventional oven heats the air in the oven, which then cooks the food. But microwaves cause water molecules in the food to vibrate at high speeds, creating heat. The heated water molecules are what cook the food. Glass, ceramics and plastics contain virtually no water molecules, which is why they don't heat up in the microwave. When the microwave oven is turned on, electricity passes through the magnetron, the tube that produces microwaves. The microwaves are then channeled down a metal tube (waveguide) and through a slow rotating metal fan (stirrer), which scatters them into the part of the oven where the food is placed. The walls of the oven are made of metal, which reflects microwaves the same way that a mirror reflects visible light. So when the microwaves hit the stirrer and are scattered into the food chamber, they bounce off the metal walls and penetrate the food from every direction. Some ovens have a rotating turntable that helps food cook more evenly.
F Do microwaves cook food from the inside out? Some people think so, but the answer seems to be no. Microwaves cook food from the outside in, like conventional ovens. But the microwave energy only penetrates about an inch into the food. The heat that's created by the water molecules then penetrates deeper into the food, cooking it all the way through. This secondary cooking process is known as "conduction".
G When sales of microwave ovens took off in the late 1980s, millions of cooks discovered the same thing: Microwaves just don't cook some foods as well as regular ovens do. The reason: Because microwaves cook by exciting the water molecules in food, the food inside the microwave oven rarely cooks at temperature higher than 212°F, the temperature at which water turns to steam. Conventional ovens, on the other hand, cook to temperatures as high as 550°F. High temperatures are needed to caramelize sugars and break down proteins, carbohydrates and other substances, and combine them into more complex flavors. So, microwave oven can't do any of this, and it can't bake, either. Some people feel this is the microwave's Achilles heel. "The name 'microwave oven' is a misnomer," says Cindy Ayers, an executive with Campbell Soup. "It doesn't do what an oven does." "It's a glorified popcorn popper," says Tom Vierhile, a researcher with Marketing Intelligence, a newsletter that tracks microwave sales. "When the microwave first came out, people thought they had stumbled on nirvana. It's not the appliance the food industry thought it would be. It's a major disappointment." Adds one cooking critic: "Microwave sales are still strong, but time will tell whether they have a future in the American kitchen."
Questions 1 - 6
Reading Passage 1 has seven paragraphs A - G. State which paragraph discusses each of the points below. Write the appropriate letters A - G in boxes 1 - 6 on your answer sheet.
Examples The Discovery That Spencer Made
Answer B
1. The Introduction of the Radarange
2. The Conduction Process of Heating Food
3. Basic Cooking Method of Microwave oven
4. The Commercial Development of the Microwave
5. Popularity of Microwaves Today
6. Limitations of the Microwave
Questions 7 - 11
Complete the summary below with the word taken from each blank. Write your answers in boxes 7 - 11 in your answer sheet. Use NO MORE THAN ONE WORD for each blank.
Before magnetrons were used for microwaves they were primarily used (7) systems. Microwaves have much (8) wavelength than electromagnetic waves. Why do microwaves cook so fast? The reason that regular ovens cook so slowly is because ovens heat air molecules first, while microwaves heat (9) molecules first. Microwave ovens cook food in any direction because when the microwaves hits the metal walls in a microwave they (10) off the metal walls. The process that allows microwaves to cook food from the outside to the inside may best be called "heat transfer by (11) ."
Questions 12 - 15
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 1? Write your answers in boxes 12 - 15 on your answer sheet.
YES if the statement agrees with the information
NO if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this in the passage
12. Spencer invented magnetrons.
13. Regular ovens are better at breaking down sugars because they heat them at a lower temperature.
14. Raytheon couldn't make money out of microwave ovens at first.
15. In the future, microwave sales are not likely to be as good as they were in the past.
READING PASSAGE 2
You are advised to spend about 20 minutes on Questions 16 - 28 which are based on Reading Passage 2.
Play with mother is key to children's success (Mothers who did badly at school can still boost their young children's academic performance with stimulating activities at home). Mothers' (rather than fathers') own educational achievements have long been thought to be the key to children's progress at school. But government-funded research suggests that mothers can compensate for their lack of exam success if they offer their under-fives activities linked to literacy and numeracy.
