“Yes, Mr. Green,” the nurse answered. She was in a hurry. “Where do you want it?”
“Well, then,” the old man answered __10__ “I want it in your left arm, please.”
1. A. looked for him B. looked him over
C. looked after him D. looked him up
2. A. get B. give C. make D. hold
3. A. so B. but C. or D. and
4. A. must B. can C. had better D. have to
5. A. In the morning B. In the afternoon
C. In the end D. In the evening
6. A. first B. one C. two D. second
7. A. confident B. surprised C. full D. hungry
8. A. hour B. minutes C. year D. moment
9. A. Somebody B. Anybody C. Nobody D. people
10. A. with a smile B. in time
C. in surprise D. with tears in his eyes
答案解析：
B。look for sb/sth 意为“寻找……”;look after sb 意为“照料……”;look up sb意为“看望……”;而look over sb意为“检查某人”，最贴近文意，为正确选项。
A。医生要对格林先生进行注射，格林先生是动作的接受者，故应选get。
D。空白部分前面I come 和后面的give形成承接关系，所以应用 and连接。
D。must 不可以用于将来时，根据文章意思，应选have to。
D。与上文this evening相对应，In the evening应为正确选项。
A。one 填入空白部分显得画蛇添足，根据上下文这是第一次注射,应用first。
B。老人对护士的提问应感到surprised, 因为下文提到从来没人问过他这样的问题。
D。对护士的提问, 老人思考了一会儿, 故应选moment。
C。老人感到奇怪, 是因为没有人问过这样的问题, 故应选nobody。
A。老人想捉弄一下这个小护士。按常理, 应是带着微笑取笑她, 故应选with a smile。
The average number of authors on scientific papers is sky-rocketing. That’s partly because labs are bigger, problems are more complicated, and more different subspecialties are needed. But it’s also because U.S. government agencies have started to promote “team science”. As physics developed in the post-World War Ⅱ era, federal funds built expensive national facilities, and these served as surfaces on which collaborations could crystallize naturally.
Yet multiple authorship — however good it may be in other ways — presents problems for journals and for the institutions in which these authors work. For the journals, long lists of authors are hard to deal with in themselves. But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper. If there is research misconduct, how should the liability be allocated among the authors? If there is an honest mistake in one part of the work but not in others, how should an evaluator aim his or her review?
Various practical or impractical suggestions have emerged during the long-standing debate on this issue. One is that each author should provide, and the journal should then publish, an account of that author’s particular contribution to the work. But a different view of the problem, and perhaps of the solution, comes as we get to university committee on appointments and promotions, which is where the authorship rubber really meets the road. Half a lifetime of involvement with this process has taught me how much authorship matters. I have watched committees attempting to decode sequences of names, agonize over whether a much-cited paper was really the candidate’s work or a coauthor’s, and send back recommendations asking for more specificity about the division of responsibility.
