【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 prove written language skills through programs D. students have classes each day from June 20 to July 29 57. What is true of the two afternoon activities? A. Both of them are free of charge. B. They are held in the same area. C. Students are asked to register by themselves. D. Transportation service is arranged for the students. B With a presidential campaign, health care and the gun control debate in the news these days, one can’t help getting sucked into the flame wars that are Inter ment threads. But psychologists say this addictive form of vitriolic (刻薄 ) back and forth should be avoided — or simply checked by online media outlets — because it actually damages society and mental health. A perfect storm of factors e together to cause the rudeness and aggression seen in the ments’ sections of Web pages, said Markman, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. First, menters are often nearly nameless, and thus, unaccountable for their rudeness. Second, they are at a distance from the target of their anger — be it the article they’re menting on or another ment on that article — and people tend to go against distant abstractions more easily than living, breathing talkers. Third, it’s easier to be nasty in writing than in speech, hence the now somewhat outofdate practice of leaving angry notes (back when people used paper), Markman said. And finally, Edward Wasserman, Knight Professor in Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University, noted another cause of the vitriol: bad examples set by the media. ―Unfortunately, mainstream media have made a fortune teaching people the wrong ways to talk to each other. People understandably conclude anger is the political vernacular (行話 ) , that this is how public ideas are talked about,‖ Wasserman wrote in an article on his university’s website. “It isn’t.‖ In Markman’s opinion, media outlets should cut down on the anger and hatred that have bee the model in reader exchanges. ―It’s valuable to allow all sides of an argument to be heard. To a greater degree, someone who is making a reasonable point but with an angry tone is hurting the nature of the argument, because they are promoting people to respond in a similar way,‖ he said. For their part, people should seek out actual human beings to municate with, Markman said — and we should make a point of including a few people in our social circles who think differently from us. ―You’ll develop a healthy respect for people whose opinions differ from your own。 the backandforth negotiation that goes on in having a conversation with someone you don’t agree with is a skill and it’s not easy to master it,‖ Markman said. 58. Why do psychologists encourage people to stop attacking each other online? A. The social problems are too plex to figure out. B. The online media outlets will review the ments. C. The action does harm to society and individuals. D. The Inter users are easily attached to hot topics. 59. What can we learn from the analysis by Markman? A. People are cautious to make vitriolic remarks online. B. The targets online are more likely to be mented on. C. Understanding the literal meaning is easier than oral language. D. An argument with an angry tone can promote its power. 60. What is the author’s main purpose in writing the passage? A. To show different ways of expressing opinions. B. To reveal the severe problems of the public media. C. To raise the awareness of proper munication. D. To urge people to carry out actual offline munications. C Scientists should be allowed to change a person’s DNA in ways that will be passed on to future generations, but only to prevent serious and strongly heritable (遺傳 ) diseases, according to a new report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine. However, making changes to these genes in order to improve or change traits such as strength, intelligence or beauty should remain offlimits, the report authors concluded. Changing the socalled germline (種系 ) is illegal in the United States. It has largely been considered ethically offlimits here as well, at least while bioethicists and scientists considered the unforeseen effects and unexamined moral dilemmas of using new geneediting technologies. However, scientists have moved forward aggressively to explore the possibility of changing disease genes in other adult human cells with a revolutionary technique known as CRISPRCas9. It is widely believed that gene editing of this sort could treat patients with metabolic (新陳代謝的 ) disorders, certain cancers, and a range of other diseases that arise from geic mutations (突變 ) — without changing the germline. Last year, Chinese scientists launched a trial that uses CRISPRCas9 in a treatment for lung cancer. While the trial’s oute is awaited with high anticipation, scientists outside China have expressed concern that ethical reservations in the United States and Europe will put them at a disadvantage. CRISPRCas9 makes gene editing more straightforward, more precise and far more widespread. As such, the National Academies’ report acknowledges that changing heritable DNA in eggs, sperm and early embryos is fast being ―a realistic possibility that deserves serious consideration.‖ The 22member panel of scientists and bioethicists who produced the report pleted a prehensive review of the issues raised by that prospect. Clinical trials involving germline editing should only be pursued to treat diseases that cannot be improved with ―reasonable alternatives,‖ the 22member panel of scientists and bioethicists said. In addition, they added, scientists should convincingly demonstrate they are targeting a gene that either causes or strongly makes a carrier likely to suffer from a serious disease or condition, and that the