Three (51)______years ago Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit made his (52)______thermometer in his home town of Danzig (Now Gdansk in Poland). The thermometer was filled with (53)______ and completely sealed, but it was not much use without some sort of (54)______to measure the temperature.
One story (55)______that, during the winter of 1708--1709, Fahrenheit took a measurement of 0 degrees as the coldest temperature outdoors--which would now read as minus 17.8℃. Five years (56)______he used mercury instead of alcohol for his (57)______, and made a top reference point by measuring his own body temperature as 90 degrees. Soon afterwards he became a glassblower, (58)______allowed him to make thinly blown glass tubes that could be marked up with more points on the scale and so (59)______accuracy.
Eventually he took the (60)______point of his temperature scale from a reading made in ice, water and salt, and a top point made from the boiling point of water. The scale was recali
A. enlarge
B. add up
C. increase
D. promote
Three (51)______years ago Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit made his (52)______thermometer in his home town of Danzig (Now Gdansk in Poland). The thermometer was filled with (53)______ and completely sealed, but it was not much use without some sort of (54)______to measure the temperature.
One story (55)______that, during the winter of 1708--1709, Fahrenheit took a measurement of 0 degrees as the coldest temperature outdoors--which would now read as minus 17.8℃. Five years (56)______he used mercury instead of alcohol for his (57)______, and made a top reference point by measuring his own body temperature as 90 degrees. Soon afterwards he became a glassblower, (58)______allowed him to make thinly blown glass tubes that could be marked up with more points on the scale and so (59)______accuracy.
Eventually he took the (60)______point of his temperature scale from a reading made in ice, water and salt, and a top point made from the boiling point of water. The scale was recali
A. alcohol
B. mercury
C. sand
D. salt
| Three years ago, researchers announced the discovery
of human genes that were capable of turning ordinary cells into malignant ones.
The news met with some skepticism. Experts asked how a single gene could cause
such a dramatic change. Why does cancer take years or even decades to develop if
it is caused by such a simple and direct process In last week’s issue of the,
three research teams answered those questions by setting forth a new model for
understanding the role of oncogenes in cancer. Each group found that it does in fact take more than a single gene to produce cancer in normal cells. Teams at M. I. T and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, N. Y. , reported that they could induce cancer in normal rat cells only by inserting at least two types of oncogene into the cells. "A single oncogene produced some changes, A. was caused by normal cells B. sometimes resulted from internal actions of the victim’s own body C. was a hereditary disease D. was a form of malignancy 我来回答: 提交
|
