A golden voice is an asset for any public speaker, so every public speaker should have a golden voice.

听力原文： Today we are going to practice evaluating a main tool used when addressing groups—the voice. There are three main elements that combine to create either a positive or negative experience for listeners. They can result in a voice that is pleasing to listen to and can be used effectively. Or they can create a voice that doesn't hold attention. Or even worse, causes an adverse reaction. The three elements are volume, pitch and pace.

When evaluating volume, keep in mind that a good speaker will adjust to the size of both the room and the audience. Of course, with an amplifying device like a microphone, the speaker can use a natural tone. But speaker should not be dependent on microphones. A good speaker can speak loudly without shouting.

The second element, pitch is related to the highness or lowness of the sounds. High pitches are for most people more difficult to listen to. So, in general, speaker should use the lower registers of their voice. During a presentation, it's important to vary pitch to some extent in order to maintain interest.

The third element, pace, that is how fast or slow words and sounds are articulated should also be varied. A slower pace can be used to emphasize important points. Note that the time spent not speaking can be meaningful too. Pauses ought to be used to signal transitions or create anticipation. Because a pause gives the listener time to think about what was just said or even to. predict what might come next, it can be very affective when moving from one topic to another.

What I'd like you to do now is watch and listen to a videotape and use the forms I gave you to rate the speaking voices you hear. Then tonight, I want you to go home and read a passage into a tape recorder and evaluate your own voice.

According to the professor, what can a speaker do to keep an audience's attention?

A．Speak very loudly.

B．Ask questions frequently.

C．Vary tone, volume, and speed of speech.

D．Limit the speech to fifteen minutes.

For about three centuries we have been doing science, trying science out, using science for the construction of what we call modem civilization. Every dispensable item of contemporary technology, from canal locks to dial telephones to penicillin, was pieced together from the analysis of data provided by one or another series of scientific experiments. Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human interliving, long enough to settle back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go on with it or not. There is an argument.

Voices have been raised in protest since the beginning, rising in pitch and violence in the nineteenth century during the early stages of the industrial revolution, summoning urgent crowds into the streets any day these days on the issue of nuclear energy. Give it back, say some of the voices, it doesn't really work, we've tried it and it doesn't work, go back three hundred years and start again on something else less chancy for the race of man.

The principle discoveries in this century, taking all in all, are the glimpses of the depth of our ignorance about nature. Things that used to seem clear and rational, matters of absolute certainty-Newtonian mechanics, for example—have slipped through our fingers, and we are left with a new set of gigantic puzzles, cosmic uncertainties, ambiguities; some of the laws of physics are amended every few years, some are canceled outright, some undergo revised versions of legislative intent as if they were acts of Congress.

Just thirty years age we call it a biological revolution when the fantastic geometry of the DNA molecule was exposed to public view and the linear language of genetics was decoded. For a while, things seemed simple and clear, the cell was a neat little machine, a mechanical device ready for taking to pieces and reassembling, like a tiny watch. But just in the last few years it has become almost unbelievably complex, filled with strange parts whose functions are beyond today's imagining.

It is not just that there is more to do, there is everything to do. What lies ahead, or what can lie ahead if the efforts in research are continued, is much more than the conquest of human disease or the improvement of agricultural technology or the cultivation of nutrients in the sea. As we learn more about fundamental processes of living things in general we will learn more about ourselves.

What can't be inferred from the 1st paragraph?

A．Scientific experiments in the past three hundred years have produced many valuable items.

B．For three hundred years there have been people holding hostile attitude toward science.

C．Modern civilization depends on science so man supports scientific progress unanimously.

D．Three hundred years is not long enough to settle back critical appraisal of scientific method.

Section B

Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. You should decide on the best choice.

For about three centuries we have been doing science, trying science out, using science for the construction of what we call modern civilization, Every dispensable item of contemporary technology, from canal locks to dial telephones to penicillin, was pieced together from the analysis of data provided by one or another series of scientific experiments. Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human inter-living, long enough to set back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go on with it or not. There is an argument.

Voices have been raised in protest since the beginning, rising in pitch and violence in the nineteenth century during the early stages of the industrial revolution, summoning urgent crowds into the streets on the issue of nuclear energy. "Give it back," say some of the voices, "It doesn't really work, we've tried it and it doesn't work. Go back three hundred years and start again on something else less chancy for the race of man."

The principle discoveries in this century, taking all in all, are the glimpses of the depth of our ignorance of nature. Things that used to seem clear and rational, and matters of absolute certainty-Newtonian mechanics, for example-have slipped through our fingers; and we are left with a new set of gigantic puzzles, cosmic uncertainties, and ambiguities. Some of the laws of physics are amended every few years; some are canceled outright; some undergo revised versions of legislative intent as if they were acts of Congress.

Just thirty years ago we call it a biological revolution when the fantastic geometry of the DNA molecule was exposed to public view and the linear language of genetics was decoded. For a while, things seemed simple and clear: the cell was a neat little machine, a mechanical device ready for taking to pieces and reassembling, like a tiny watch. But just in the last few years it has become almost unbelievably complex, filled with strange parts whose functions are beyond today's imagining.

It is not just that there is more to do, there is everything to do. What lies ahead, or what can lie ahead if the efforts in basic research are continued, is much more than the conquest of human disease or the improvement of agricultural technology or the cultivation of nutrients in the sea. As we learn more about fundamental processes of living things in general we will learn more about ourselves.

What CANNOT be inferred from the first paragraph?

A．Scientific experiments in the past three hundred years have produced many valuable items.

B．For three hundred years there have been people holding a hostile attitude toward science.

C．Modern civilization depends on science so man supports scientific progress unanimously.

D．Some people think three hundred years is not long enough to set hack for critical appraisal of scientific method.

Section B

Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. You should decide on the best choice.

For about three centuries we have been doing science, trying science out, using science for the construction of what we call modern civilization. Every dispensable item of contemporary technology, from canal locks to dial telophones to penicillin, was pieced together from the analysis of data provided by one or another series of scientific experiments. Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human inter-living, long enough to set back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go on with it or not. There is an argument.

Voices have been raised in protest since the beginning, rising in pitch and violence in the nineteenth century during the early stages of the industrial revolution, summoning urgent crowds into the streets on the issue of nuclear energy. "Give it hack," say some of the voices, "It doesn't really work, we've tried it and it doesn't work. Go back three hundred years and start again on something else less chancy for the race of man."

The principle discoveries in this century, taking all in all, are the glimpses of the depth of our ignorance of nature. Things that used to seem clear and rational, and matters of absolute certainty—Newtonian mechanics, for example—have slipped through our fingers; and we are left with a new set of gigantic puzzles, cosmic uncertainties, and ambiguities. Some of the laws of physics are amended every few years; some are canceled outright; some undergo revised versions of legislative intent as if they were acts of Congress.

Just thirty years ago we call it a biological revolution when the fantastic geometry of the DNA molecule was exposed to public view and the linear language of genetics was decoded. For a while, things seamed simple and clear: the cell was a neat little machine, a mechanical device ready for taking to pieces and reassembling, like a tiny watch. But just in the last few years it has become almost unbelievably complex, filled with strange parts whose functions are beyond today's imagining.

It is not just that there is more to do, there is everything to do. What lies ahead, or what can lie ahead if the efforts in basic research are continued, is much more than the conquest of human disease or the improvement of agricultural technology or the cultivation of nutrients in the sea. As we learn more about fundamental processes of living things in general we will learn more about ourselves.

What CANNOT be inferred from the first paragraph?

A．Scientific experiments in the past three hundred years have produced many valuable items.

B．For three hundred years there have been people holding a hostile attitude toward science.

C．Modern civilization depends on science so man supports scientific progress unanimously.

D．Some people think three hundred years is not long enough to set back for critical appraisal of scientific method.

Please ( ) your voice if you have any questions to ask the exporter.

A．speak up

B．rise

C．lift

D．raise