Make the following sentences complete
 Скачать 26.43 Kb.
|
 Make the following sentences complete. With little to be interested in his life he ... .2. This chance is a good chance to .... 3. The less people are complaining about the price increase ... .4. ... which is what we were supposed to believe. 5. As we finally come to agree on this decision let’s ... .6. ... is much more productive than filling in all those documents. 7. Without anything to talk about to such a person she ... .8. ... which is what they agreed to complete. 9. ... let’s stop this useless confrontation. 10. Their plan is not a very cautious plan to .... sentence- Paraphrase the following sentences using the speech patterns. 1. It is useless to continue this argument. 2. Even when the audience start asking shrewd questions it is much easier to deliver a lecture than when the people are stark silent. 3. By saying this he means that he will have neither part nor lot with you. 4 When there is no time to lose, it is sensible to move it on the double. 5. Together with starting on this new project we must not forget about our humdrum responsibilities. 6. That choice was wrong. We should change the direction we had been following. 7. She claims that there was no harm being done and we are supposed to believe her statement. 8. The less is known about this experiment the louder possible hue and cry might be. 9. While they begin to realize the difficulty of the task we should prevent them from backing out. 10. If you couldn’t say anything in favor of this proposal you might have at least kept silent, sentences Compose three sentences for each speech pattern. (Work in pairs.) Enact situations in a dialogue form using the speech patterns. Translate into English using the speech patterns. 1. Якщо тобі немає чого запропонувати, найкраще буде сидіти мовчки. 2. Оскільки ми почали вірити у можливість закінчити все вчасно, давайте не зменшувати темп роботи. 3. Ця нагода дуже слушна для того, щоб проінформувати широкий загал про успішність наших досліджень. 4. Якщо менше людей знатимуть про цей прикрий випадок, то це лише на краще, адже буде поширено менше нісенітниць та пліток. 5. Після Чорнобильської аварії влада стверджувала, що нічого страшного не відбулося, і ми мали у це вірити. 6. Зараз не дуже вдалий час, щоб розмовляти з шефом з приводу відпустки. 7. Великі зміни у суспільстві - це часто гірше, ніж стабільність та передбачуваність життя. 8. Оскільки ми всі почали хвилюватися за неї, давайте вийдемо зустріти її на зупинку.‘9. Висунули пропозицію пообідати, на що всі відразу погодилися. 10. Позаяк нічого іншого не залишалось, вони мали спробувати добути вогонь без сірників. THE POLITICS ОЕ SCIENCE From Newsweek, October 9,2000 Sir Robert May, a leading theoretical biologist and expert in chaos theory, has applied mathematics to the spread of AIDS and global extinctions, winning his discipline's highest honor, the Crafoord Prize*, along the way. For the past five years, the blunt, sharp-witted Australian has served as the British government's chief scientific adviser and head of its Office of Science and Technology. He steps down to become president of the Royal Society* in November. He spoke to NewsweekN Oliver Morton while civil servants packed away his papers in London. MORTON: Is there an anti-science backlash? MAY: More people talking about science - even if many of them are worrying about it - is much better than people just assuming everything's OK. The century that just ended is one in which we learned a hell of a lot - life is just a hell of a lot better, people live longer, they lead healthier lives, their food has never been as plentiful or cheap. And yet there were unintended adverse consequences, like climate change. In the next century, as we come to understand the molecular machinery of life and have the ability to change not just the external world but ourselves, let's think ahead more carefully to make sure that we, insofar as it's possible, foresee the unintended consequences. You’ve tried to make the science policy process more open in Britain. How has that worked? It's an approach that has its drawbacks. Instead of being able to have a sober, measured discussion in which everyone can express themselves freely and then come to a conclusion and announce it, which is what we used to do, you let all the mess hang out. But I think that's good. That's how science itself works. You'll always have the disadvantage of crackpot opinions being expressed, but that's a price you have to willingly pay for letting sensible dissident voices and cautionary voices be heard. Many issues, such as climate change, involve thinking for the long term, far longer than a government's term of office. Yes, but that's not just a problem for governments — it’s a problem for everyone. We have very little evolutionary experience of making decisions on behalf of the far future. Governments are actually more willing to take a long-term view than the people who elect them. What's your take on the GM-foods* ruckus? The people who could really have done things differently are people like Monsanto*, who would be the first to admit that, in the long run, it would have been better to have focused on [products for] the consumer instead of the farmer... Some newspapers felt that an anti-GM-foods campaign was a good campaign to run, and so a certain lopsidedness in the presentation thus carried. At the same time, there were no [GM] products on the shelves that people wanted to buy. With nothing to buy and with the shadow of [mad cow's disease] over everything, common sense suggests that you just don't have any of it [GM foods]. Should we continue developing GM foods? This is a technology which, if used sensibly, and if used, as the first wave of it was not, to the benefit of consumers in the developed and developing worlds, has the capacity to do things that are good not just for consumers but for the environment as well. Simply turning away from it when there is the potential that a second wave of products will produce really useful things, particularly in developing countries, is to my mind, while understandable, a rather conscienceless attitude. You have no worries about the genes moving from GM crops into the environment? What [scientists] have conventionally done is shuffle together a tenth of the genome between [crops] that are relatively close. Now we're bringing in single genes, but from relatively further away in terms of evolution. That worries me less because the more we learn, the more we realize how many genes are shared widely anyhow and how much of evolutionary history consists of things hopping around. Yes, of course some of these genes will get transferred just as things do now. They don't create any particular problems. The things that are being offered as credible worries are superweeds - defined as something which is resistant to a particular herbicide - and that's a ridiculous worry. People genuinely concerned about the environment will be aware that we already have many serious ongoing problems with invading species. We've got real problems with nasty invaders like rhododendrons round the coast paths; they don't have to be GM. What role should the Royal Society take in such heated debates? In a very complicated world where many things don't operate in a tidy linear way, you need the best science to tell you whether an action will have the desired consequence. Motives come from passions and values. But in looking at the actions, you've got to abandon those feelings and ask very passionless questions. A lot of the best-intentioned people arc not very good at doing that, because their values get muddily entwined with views about how the world works. Arc you good at being passionless? Yeah. Commentary The Crafoord Prize was established in 1980 by Holger Crafoord, the inventor of the artificial kidney. The aim of the prize is to reward and promote basic research in scientific disciplines that fall outside the categories of the Nobel Prize (mathematics, geoscience, bioscience, and astronomy). The prize is currently $500,000 US and is intended to fund further research by the prize winner. The Royal Society - an independent body that promotes the natural sciences, including mathematics and all applied aspects such as engineering and medicine, located in London. Chaos Theory - a theory describing the complex and unpredictable motion or dynamics of systems as varied as electric circuits, measles outbreaks, lasers, electrical brain activity and even economic systems, such as the stock exchange. GM-Foods - foodstuffs containing genetically modified products. Monsanto - one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical and agricultural products companies, founded in 1901. In the 1990s it began aggressive development of genetically altered foods. In 1999 public concern over genetically modified foods prompted Monsanto to curb some of its bioengineering activities. Word combinations  the spread of AIDS civil servants measured discussion in the long run genuinely concerned insofar as it is possible crackpot opinion conscienceless attitude to operate in a linear way credible worry invading species passionless questions global extinction unintended adverse consequences dissident and cautionary voices to carry lopsidedness on behalf of the future anti-science backlash to take a long-term view to shuffle together to transfer genes ongoing problems heated debate to be/get muddily entwined with Vocabulary notes 1. issue - n; v. (n): 1) topic for discussion or of general concern, e.g. This issue requires a more careful consideration. 2) a legal matter in a dispute between two parties, e.g. The point at issue was the guardianship of the children. |