The discussion on the economic collaboration between the United States and the European Union may be eclipsed by the recent growing trade friction.
He was accompanied by his faithful friend and secretary, Mr. William Minns, （ ）.
The professor could hardly find sufficient grounds （ ）his arguments in favor of the new theory.
The clown’s performance was so funny that the audience, adults and children alike, were all thrown into convulsions.
Though the doctors tried everything, they couldn’t save him from the deep （ ）wound.
On June 26, 2000, two scientific teams announce at the White House that they had deciphered virtually the entire human genome, a prodigious feat that involved determining the exact sequence of chemical units in human genetic material. An enthusiastic President Clinton predicted a revolution in “the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases”.Now, 10 years later, a sobering realization has set in. Decoding the genome has led to stunning advances in scientific knowledge and DNA-processing technologies but it has done relatively little to improve medical treatments or human health.To be fair, many scientists at the time were warning that it would be a long, slow slog to reap clinical benefits.And there have been some important advances, such as powerful new drugs for a few cancers and genetic tests that can predict whether people with breast cancer need chemotherapy. But the original hope that close study of the genome would identify mutations or variants that cause diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’ s and heart ailments—and generate treatments for them—has given way to realization that the causes of most diseases are enormously complex and not easily traced to a simple mutation or two.In the long run, it seems likely that the genomic revolution will pay off. But no one can be sure. Even if the genetic roots of some major diseases are identified, there is no guarantee that treatments can be found. The task facing science and industry in the coming decades is at least as challenging as the original deciphering of the human genome.1.Back in the year 2000, what was exciting about the deciphered genome?2.Clinically, according to the passage, the prophecy ten years later （ ）.3.From our disappointment we have to realize that （ ）.4.It can be concluded from the passage that （ ）.5.The writer's tone in the passage is （ ）.
