21. What is the main idea of this passage？
[A] The main idea of this passage is the argument whether philosophy will ultimately be solved by science or not.
[B] The importance of learning philosophies， especially the history of philosophy.
[C] The difference between philosophy and science.
[D] A discuss about how to set a proper attitude towards future.
22. The example of what Plato thought in the passage shows that
[A] the development of science really can solve a great many of the problems on which philosophers still argue
[B] plato knew nothing about Physics
[C] the scientists have achieved a lot in terms of light theory
[D] different people have different ways of perception
23. What field can our descendants know？
[A] The origin of human beings
[B] Some questions that perplex us today.
[C] Many philosophical problems which Marx and Engels wrote rather little.
[D] The future.
24. How many kinds of ideas are there about the future？
[A] Two [B] Three [C] Four [D] Five
25. What are the functions of studying philosophies mentioned in the passage？
[A] The study of philosophies would make our own idea flexible.
[B] The study of philosophies would help prepare us for the future and guide our actions.
[C] The study of philosophies would enable us to understand how things develop as to better tackle the future.
[D] All of the above.
Text 2
This line of inquiry did not begin until earlier this month—more than three months after the accident—because there were “too many emotions， too many egos，” said retired Adm. Harold Gehman， chairman of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee， Gehman said this part of his inquiry was in its earliest stages， starting just 10 days ago. But Gehman said he already has concluded it is “inconceivable” that NASA would have been unable or unwilling to attempt a rescue for astronauts in orbit if senior shuttle managers and administrators had known there was fatal damage to Columbia's left wing.
Gehman told reporters after the hearing that answers to these important questions could have enormous impact， since they could place in a different context NASA's decisions against more aggressively checking possible wing damage in the days before Columbia's fatal return.
Investigators believe breakaway insulating foam damaged part of Columbia's wing shortly after liftoff， allowing superheated air to penetrate the wing during its fiery reentry on Feb.1， melt it from inside.
Among those decisions was the choice by NASA's senior shuttle managers and administrators to reject offers of satellite images of possible damage to Columbia's left wing before the accident. The subject dominated the early part of Wednesday's hearing.
Gehman complained managers and administrators “missed signals” when they rejected those offers for images， a pointedly harsh assessment of the space agency's inaction during the 16day shuttle mission.
“We will attempt to pin this issue down in our report， but there were a number of bureaucratic and administrative missed signals here，” Gehman told senators. “We're not quite so happy with the process.”
The investigative board already had recommended that NASA push for better coordination between the space agency and military offices in charge of satellites and telescopes. The U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency in March agreed to regularly capture detailed satellite images of space shuttles in orbit.
Still， Gehman said it was unclear whether even images from America's most sophisticated spy satellites might have detected on Columbia's wing any damage， which Gehman said could have been as small as two inches square. The precise capabilities of such satellites proved to be a sensitive topic during the Senate hearing.
英语模拟题