26.By saying "it is...the rainbow"(Line 3, Para.1),the author means pink______.

　　[A]should not be the sole representation of girlhood

　　[B]should not be associated with girls' innocence

　　[C]cannot explain girls' lack of imagination

　　[D]cannot influence girls' lives and interests

　　27.According to Paragraph 2, which of the following is true of colours?

　　[A]Colours are encoded in girls' DNA.

　　[B]Blue used to be regarded as the colour for girls.

　　[C]Pink used to be a neutral colour in symbolising genders.

　　[D]White is prefered by babies.

　　28.The author suggests that our perception of children's psychological development was much influenced by_____.

　　[A]the marketing of products for children

　　[B]the observation of children's nature

　　[C]researches into children's behavior

　　[D]studies of childhood consumption

　　29.We may learn from Paragraph 4 that department stores were advised to_____.

　　[A]focus on infant wear and older kids' clothes

　　[B]attach equal importance to different genders

　　[C]classify consumers into smaller groups

　　[D]create some common shoppers' terms

　　30.It can be concluded that girls' attraction to pink seems to be____.

　　[A] clearly explained by their inborn tendency

　　[B]fully understood by clothing manufacturers

　　[C] mainly imposed by profit-driven businessmen

　　[D]well interpreted by psychological experts

　　Text3

　　In2010.afederaljudgeshookAmerica'sbiotechindustrytoitscore.CompanieshadwonpatentsforisolatedDNAfordecades-by2005some20%ofhumangeneswereparented.ButinMarch2010ajudgeruledthatgeneswereunpatentable.Executiveswereviolentlyagitated.TheBiotechnologyIndustryOrganisation(BIO),atradegroup,assuredmembersthatthiswasjusta“preliminarystep”inalongerbattle.

　　OnJuly29ththeywererelieved,atleasttemporarily.Afederalappealscourtoverturnedthepriordecision,rulingthatMyriadGeneticscouldindeedholbpatentstotwogenssthathelpforecastawoman'sriskofbreastcancer.ThechiefexecutiveofMyriad,acompanyinUtah,saidtherulingwasablessingtofirmsandpatientsalike.

　　Butascompaniescontinuetheirattemptsatpersonalisedmedicine,thecourtswillremainratherbusy.TheMyriadcaseitselfisprobablynotoverCriticsmakethreemainargumentsagainstgenepatents:ageneisaproductofnature,soitmaynotbepatented;genepatentssuppressinnovationratherthanrewardit;andpatents'monopoliesrestrictaccesstogenetictestssuchasMyriad's.Agrowingnumberseemtoagree.Lastyearafederaltask-forceurgedreformforpatentsrelatedtogenetictests.InOctobertheDepartmentofJusticefiledabriefintheMyriadcase,arguingthatanisolatedDNAmolecule“isnolessaproductofnature...thanarecottonfibresthathavebeenseparatedfromcottonseeds.”

　　Despitetheappealscourt'sdecision,bigquestionsremainunanswered.Forexample,itisunclearwhetherthesequencingofawholegenomeviolatesthepatentsofindividualgeneswithinit.ThecasemayyetreachtheSupremeCourt.

　　AS the industry advances ,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules-most are already patented or in the public domain .firms are now studying how genes intcract,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug’s efficacy,companies are eager to win patents for ‘connecting the dits’,expaains hans sauer,alawyer for the BIO.