We should stress that this is the first order with your firm, and if satisfied, we would place ___________________.

听力原文：M: Hi, this is Mike calling from Parker's Dentistry to confirm your appointment for tomorrow morning at 9: 00 a. m. with Dr Parker.

W: Thank you for reminding me. Actually, I do need to change the time of my appointment. I have a schedule conflict. And I can't make it that early.

M: That's alright. I think I should be able to make it at 4: 00 p. m. Would it be a better time?

W: No problem. Thanks a lot.

Who most likely are the speakers?

A．An customer and a waiter

B．The secretary and her boss

C．An customer and a receptionist

D．A patient and the dentist assistant

听力原文：M: Hi, this is Mike calling from Parker's Dentistry to confirm your appointment for tomorrow morning at 9: 00 a. m. with Dr Parker.

W: Thank you for reminding me. Actually, I do need to change the time of my appointment. I have a schedule conflict. And I can't make it that early.

M: That's alright. I think I should be able to make it at 4: 00 p. m. Would it be a better time?

W: No problem. Thanks a lot.

Who most likely are the speakers?

A．An customer and a waiter

B．The secretary and her boss

C．An customer and a receptionist

D．A patient and the dentist assistant

Imagine eating everything delicious your want--with none of the fat. That would be great, wouldn't it?

New "fake fat" products appeared on store shelves in the United States recently, but not everyone is happy about it. Makers of the products, which contain a compound called olestra, say food manufacturers can now eliminate fat from certain foods. Critics, however, say the new compound can rob the body of essential vitamins and nutrients(营养物) and can also cause unpleasant side effects in some people. So it's up to consumers to decide whether the new fatfree products taste good enough to keep eating.

Chemists discovered olestra in the late 1960s, when they were searching for a fat that could be digested by infants more easily. Instead of finding the desired fat, the researchers created a fat the can't be digested at all.

Normally, special chemicals in the intestines(肠) "grab" molecules of regular fat and break them down so they can be used by the body. A molecule of regular fat is made up of three molecules of substances called fatty acids.

The fatty acids are absorbed by the intestines and bring with them the essential vitamins A, D, E, and K. When fat molecules are present in the intestines with any of those vitamins, the vitamins attach to the molecules and are carried into the bloodstream.

Olestra, which is made from six to eight molecules of fatty acids, is too large for the intestines to absorb. It just slides through the intestines without being broken down. Manufacturers say it's that ability to slide unchanged through the intestines that makes olestra so valuable as a fat substitute. It provides consumers with the taste of regular fat without any bad effects on the body. But critics say olestra can prevent vitamins A, D, E, and K from being absorbed. It can also prevent the absorption of carotenoids(类胡萝卜素), compounds that may reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease, etc.

Manufacturers are adding vitamins A, D, E, and K as well as carotenoids to their products now. Even so, some nutritionists are still concerned that people might eat unlimited amounts of food made with the fat substitute without worrying about how many calories they are consuming.

Olestra is a substance that makes foods 'fat-free while keeping them delicious.

A．Right

B．Wrong

C．Not mentioned

Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn't know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.

There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth's atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made. The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, added this key point in the preface to the panel's report: "Science never has all the answers, but science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions".

Just as on smoking, voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it's OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the time 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.

Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it's obvious that a majority of the president's advisers still don't take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research—a classic case of "paralysis by analysis".

To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won't take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures. A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry, is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound.

An argument made by supporters of smoking was that ______.

A．there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death

B．the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant

C．people had the freedom to choose their own way of life

D．antismoking people were usually talking nonsense

Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn't know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to caily graves.

There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth's atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made. The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, added this key point in the preface to the panel's report "Science never has all the answers but science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that out nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions.

Just as on smoking voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it's OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.

Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it's obvious that a majority of the president's advisers still don't take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research—a classic ease of "paralysis by analysis".

To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won't take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound.

An argument made by supporters of smoking was that ______.

A．there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death.

B．the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant.

C．people had the freedom to choose their own way of life.

D．antismoking people were usually talking nonsense.

Task 2

Directions: This task is the same as Task 1. The 5 questions or unfinished statements are numbered 41 through 45.

The world is not only hungry; it is also thirsty for water. This may seem strange to you because nearly 75% of the earth's surface is covered with water. But about 97% of this huge amount is seawater or salt water. Man can only drink and use the other 3%—the freshwater that comes from rivers, lakes, underground, and other sources. And we cannot use all of that, because some of it is in the form. of iceberg and glaciers (冰河). Even worse, some of it has been polluted.

However, as things stand today, this small amount of fresh water, which is constantly being replaced by rainfall, is still enough for us. But our need for water is increasing rapidly almost day by day. Only if we take steps to deal with this problem now can we avoid a severe worldwide water shortage later on. A limited water supply would have a bad effect on agriculture and industry.

We all have to learn how to stop wasting our precious water. One of the first steps we should take is to develop ways of reusing it. Experiments have already been done in this field, but only a small scale. The systems that have been worked out resemble those used in spacecraft.

The first sentence "The world is not only hungry; it is also thirsty for water "means"______".

A．the world has not enough fresh water to meet our future needs

B．people all over the world are thirsty for water now

C．we are now facing a serious problem of worldwide water shortage

D．people in the world all feel hungry and thirsty