Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research — the mapping of all DNA in a human gene(基因) is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish. All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been a topic of argument, in terms of morality(道德) or religion.

Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning. If the clone was free of genetic limitations, then the other clone would be as well. The latter could be inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term. Moreover, cloning would enable women, who can’t get pregnant, to have children of their own.

Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs. This surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single (or more) organ(s). It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.

Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle” of life. There would be a large number of same genes, which reduce the chances of improvement, and, in turn, development — the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance. Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappear, thus leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes, and chances are that those individuals would be regarded as “objects” rather than people in the society.

Scientists haven’t 100% guaranteed that the first cloned humans will be normal. Thus, this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.

Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally. We should rather try to look at all “shades” of it. I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs; not humans. Then we could regard this as for “saving life” instead of “creating life”. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.

Which of the following is true according to the passage?

A. Genetic limitations will be beneficial for some women.

B. A large number of genes will prevent us from developing.

C. First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists.

D. Forbidding cloning might limit the freedom of scientists.

What’s the author’s opinion on cloning?

A. It should be entirely banned.    B. It is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs.

C. It will take away the right to reproduce.  D. It should be used in creating life.

Where can you read this article?

A. In a story book.        B. In a magazine.

C. In a science fiction.          D. In a novel.

Which of the following shows the structure of the passage(1—6 refer to paragraph 1—6)?

Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research—the mapping of all DNA in a human gene（基因）is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish. All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been a topic of argument，in terms of morality or religion.
Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning. If the clone was free of genetic limitations. Then the other clone would be as well. The latter could foe inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term. Moreover，cloning would enable women, who can’t get pregnant, to have children of their own.
Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs. This, surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single(or more) organ(s）.It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.
Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle”of life. There would be a large number of same genes., which reduce the chances of improvement，and, in turn, development-the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance. Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappea. Thus, leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes and, chances are, that those individuals would be regarded as “objects” rather than people in the society.
Scientists haven’t 100 percent. guaranteed that the first cloned will be normal. Thus this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.
Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally. We should rather try to look at all “shades: of it. I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs, not humans. Then we could regard this as for “saving life” instead of “creating life”. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.
【小题1】Which of the following is true according to the passage？

A．Genetic limitation will be beneficial for some women

B．A large number of genes will prevent us from developing

C．Prohibition of cloning might limit the freedom of scientists

D．First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists

【小题2】What’s the author’s opinion on cloning?

A．Cloning should be entirely banned

B．Cloning should be used in creating life

C．Cloning will take away the right to reproduce

D．Cloning is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs

【小题3】Where can you read this article?

A．In a story book.

B．In a magazine.

C．In a science fiction

D．In a brochure

【小题4】   Which of the following shows the structure of the passage

Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research—the mapping of all DNA in a human gene（基因）is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish. All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been a topic of argument，in terms of morality or religion.
Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning. If the clone was free of genetic limitations. Then the other clone would be as well. The latter could foe inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term. Moreover，cloning would enable women, who can’t get pregnant, to have children of their own.
Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs. This, surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single(or more) organ(s）.It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.
Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle”of life. There would be a large number of same genes., which reduce the chances of improvement，and, in turn, development-the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance. Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappea. Thus, leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes and, chances are, that those individuals would be regarded as “objects” rather than people in the society.Scientists haven’t 100 percent. guaranteed that the first cloned will be normal. Thus this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.
Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally. We should rather try to look at all “shades: of it. I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs, not humans. Then we could regard this as for “saving life” instead of “creating life”. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.
【小题1】Which of the following is true according to the passage？

A．Genetic limitation will be beneficial for some women

B．A large number of genes will prevent us from developing

C．Prohibition of cloning might limit the freedom of scientists

D．First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists

【小题2】What’s the author’s opinion on cloning?

A．Cloning should be entirely banned

B．Cloning should be used in creating life

C．Cloning will take away the right to reproduce

D．Cloning is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs

【小题3】Where can you read this article?

A．In a story book.

B．In a magazine.

C．In a science fiction

D．In a brochure

【小题4】Which of the following shows the structure of the passage

Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research — the mapping of all DNA in a human gene(基因) is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish. All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been a topic of argument, in terms of morality(道德) or religion.
Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning. If the clone was free of genetic limitations, then the other clone would be as well. The latter could be inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term. Moreover, cloning would enable women, who can’t get pregnant, to have children of their own.
Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs. This surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single (or more) organ(s). It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.
Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle” of life. There would be a large number of same genes, which reduce the chances of improvement, and, in turn, development — the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance. Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappear, thus leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes, and chances are that those individuals would be regarded as “objects” rather than people in the society.
Scientists haven’t 100% guaranteed that the first cloned humans will be normal. Thus, this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.
Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally. We should rather try to look at all “shades” of it. I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs; not humans. Then we could regard this as for “saving life” instead of “creating life”. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.
【小题1】   Which of the following is true according to the passage？

A．Genetic limitation will be beneficial for some women

B．A large number of genes will prevent us from developing

C．Prohibition(禁止) of cloning might limit the freedom of scientists

D．First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists

【小题2】What’s the author’s opinion on cloning?

A．Cloning should be entirely banned

B．Cloning should be used in creating life

C．Cloning will take away the right to reproduce

D．Cloning is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs

【小题3】Which of the following shows the structure of the passage

Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research—the mapping of all DNA in a human gene（基因） is complete．Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish．All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away．Human cloning has always been a topic of argument, in terms of morality or religion．

         Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning．If the clone was free of genetic limitations．then the other clone would be as well．The latter could foe inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term．Moreover, cloning would enable women, who can't get pregnant, to have children of their own．

         Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs．This, surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single （or more） organ （s）．It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists．

         Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side．Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal "cycle" of life．There would be a large number of same genes, which reduce the chances of improvement, and, in turn, development—the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment．Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance．Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappear．Thus, leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes and, chances are, that those individuals would be regarded as "objects" rather than people in the society．

         Scientists haven't 100 per cent．guaranteed that the first cloned humans will be normal．Thus this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human "gene-pool"．

         Regarding such arguable topics in "black or white" approach seems very innocent to me personally．We should rather try to look at all "shades" of it．I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs; not humans．Then we could regard this as for "saving life" instead of "creating life"．I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable．

1.Which of the following is true according to the passage?

A．Genetic limitation will be beneficial for some women

B．A large number of genes will prevent us from developing

C．Prohibition of cloning might limit the freedom of scientists

D．First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists

2.What's the author's opinion on cloning?

A．Cloning should be entirely banned．

B．Cloning should be used in creating life．

C．Cloning will take away the right to reproduce．

D．Cloning is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs．

3.Where can you read this article?

A．In a story book

B．In a magazine

C．In a science fiction

D．In a brochure

4.Which of the following shows the structure of the passage?

 

 

Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research—the mapping of all DNA in a human gene（基因）is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish. All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been a topic of argument，in terms of morality or religion.

Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning. If the clone was free of genetic limitations. Then the other clone would be as well. The latter could foe inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term. Moreover，cloning would enable women, who can’t get pregnant, to have children of their own.

Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs. This, surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single(or more) organ(s）.It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.

Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle”of life. There would be a large number of same genes., which reduce the chances of improvement，and, in turn, development-the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance. Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappea. Thus, leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes and, chances are, that those individuals would be regarded as “objects” rather than people in the society.Scientists haven’t 100 percent. guaranteed that the first cloned will be normal. Thus this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.

Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally. We should rather try to look at all “shades: of it. I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs, not humans. Then we could regard this as for “saving life” instead of “creating life”. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.

1.Which of the following is true according to the passage？

    A. Genetic limitation will be beneficial for some women

   B. A large number of genes will prevent us from developing

   C. Prohibition of cloning might limit the freedom of scientists

   D. First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists

2.What’s the author’s opinion on cloning?

   A. Cloning should be entirely banned

   B. Cloning should be used in creating life

   C. Cloning will take away the right to reproduce

   D. Cloning is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs

3.Where can you read this article?

   A. In a story book. B. In a magazine.   C. In a science fiction D. In a brochure

4.Which of the following shows the structure of the passage

 

Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research — the mapping of all DNA in a human gene(基因) is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish. All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been a topic of argument, in terms of morality(道德) or religion.

Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning. If the clone was free of genetic limitations, then the other clone would be as well. The latter could be inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term. Moreover, cloning would enable women, who can’t get pregnant, to have children of their own.

Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs. This surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single (or more) organ(s). It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.

Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle” of life. There would be a large number of same genes, which reduce the chances of improvement, and, in turn, development — the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance. Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappear, thus leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes, and chances are that those individuals would be regarded as “objects” rather than people in the society.

Scientists haven’t 100% guaranteed that the first cloned humans will be normal. Thus, this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.

Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally. We should rather try to look at all “shades” of it. I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs; not humans. Then we could regard this as for “saving life” instead of “creating life”. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.

1.Which of the following is true according to the passage?

A. Genetic limitations will be beneficial for some women.

B. A large number of genes will prevent us from developing.

C. First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists.

D. Forbidding cloning might limit the freedom of scientists.

2.What’s the author’s opinion on cloning?

A. It should be entirely banned.                         B. It is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs.

C. It will take away the right to reproduce.    D. It should be used in creating life.

3.Where can you read this article?

A. In a story book.                                                  B. In a magazine.

C. In a science fiction.                                           D. In a novel.

4.Which of the following shows the structure of the passage(1—6 refer to paragraph 1—6)?

 

Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research — the mapping of all DNA in a human gene(基因) is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish. All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been a topic of argument, in terms of morality(道德) or religion.

Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning. If the clone was free of genetic limitations, then the other clone would be as well. The latter could be inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term. Moreover, cloning would enable women, who can’t get pregnant, to have children of their own.

Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs. This surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single (or more) organ(s). It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.

Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle” of life. There would be a large number of same genes, which reduce the chances of improvement, and, in turn, development — the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance. Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappear, thus leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes, and chances are that those individuals would be regarded as “objects” rather than people in the society.

Scientists haven’t 100% guaranteed that the first cloned humans will be normal. Thus, this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.

Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally. We should rather try to look at all “shades” of it. I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs; not humans. Then we could regard this as for “saving life” instead of “creating life”. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.

1.  Which of the following is true according to the passage？

    A. Genetic limitation will be beneficial for some women

   B. A large number of genes will prevent us from developing

   C. Prohibition(禁止) of cloning might limit the freedom of scientists

   D. First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists

2.What’s the author’s opinion on cloning?

   A. Cloning should be entirely banned

   B. Cloning should be used in creating life

   C. Cloning will take away the right to reproduce

   D. Cloning is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs

3.Which of the following shows the structure of the passage

 

Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research—the mapping of all DNA in a human gene（基因）is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish. All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been a topic of argument，in terms of morality or religion.

Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning. If the clone was free of genetic limitations. Then the other clone would be as well. The latter could foe inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term. Moreover，cloning would enable women, who can’t get pregnant, to have children of their own.

Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs. This, surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single(or more) organ(s）.It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would rob people of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.

Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle”of life. There would be a large number of same genes., which reduce the chances of improvement，and, in turn, development-the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance. Furthermore, cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disappea. Thus, leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes and, chances are, that those individuals would be regarded as “objects” rather than people in the society.

Scientists haven’t 100 percent. guaranteed that the first cloned will be normal. Thus this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.

Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally. We should rather try to look at all “shades: of it. I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs, not humans. Then we could regard this as for “saving life” instead of “creating life”. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.

1.Which of the following is true according to the passage？

    A. Genetic limitation will be beneficial for some women

   B. A large number of genes will prevent us from developing

   C. Prohibition of cloning might limit the freedom of scientists

   D. First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists

2.What’s the author’s opinion on cloning?

   A. Cloning should be entirely banned

   B. Cloning should be used in creating life

   C. Cloning will take away the right to reproduce

   D. Cloning is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs

3.Where can you read this article?

   A. In a story book.                   B. In a magazine.   C. In a science fiction D. In a brochure

4.  Which of the following shows the structure of the passage

 

Recently there was a major discovery in the scientific research—the mapping of all DNA in a human gene（基因）is complete.Couple of years ago,this seems an impossible task for scientist to accomplish.All this progress in science leads us to believe that the day,when the human being will be cloned,is not far away.Human cloning has always been a topic of argument，in terms of morality or religion.

Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial,among many cases,it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic limitation to a child could make use of cloning.If the clonc was free of genetic limitations。Then the other clone would be as well.The latter could foe inserted in the woman and allowed to ripen to term.Moreover，cloning would enable women,who can’t get pregnant,to have children of their own.

Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned,so it would be a source of perfect transfer organs.This,surely would be greatly beneficial to millions of unfortunate peoplearound the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single(or more) organ

（s）.It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unlawful and would reb pepole of the right to reproduce and limit the freedom of scientists.

Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly practical side.Primarily,I believe that cloning would step in the normal “cycle”of life.There would be a large number of same genes.,which reduce the chances of improvement，and,in turn,development-the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely disappearance.Futhermore,cloning would make the uniqueness that each one of us possesses disapparance.Thus,leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes and,chances are,that those individuals would be regarded as “objects”rather than people in the society.

Scientists haven’t 100 percent. guaranteed that the first cloned will be normal.Thus this could result in introduction of additional limitations in the human “gene-pool”.

Regarding such arguable topics in “black or white” approach seems very innocent to me personally.We should rather try to look at all “shades:of it.I believe that cloning is only legal if its purpose is for cloning organs,not humans.Then we could regard this as for “saving life”instead of “creating life”.I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.

67.Which of the following is true according to the passage？

   A.Genetic limitation will be beneficial for some women

   B.A large number of genes will prevent us from developing

   C.Prohibition of cloning might limit the freedom of scientists

   D.First cloned humans might be normal according to scientists

68.What’s the author’s oponion on cloning?

   A.Cloning should be entirely banned

   B. Cloning should be used in creating life

   C. Cloning will take away the right to reproduce

   D. Cloning is acceptable if it is used for cloning organs

69.Where can you read this article?

   A.In a story book

   B.In a magazine

   C.In a science fiction

   D.In a brochure

70.Which of the following shows the structure of the passage