Plowing through the New York Times on a recent Sunday， I read in the Metro Section that infertile couples in the market for smart-kid genes regularly place advertisements in the newspapers of their own Ivy League alma maters offering female undergraduates $7，500 for a donated egg. Before I could get that news comfortably digested， I came across an article in the Magazine section describing SAT prep courses for which parents spend thousands in the hope of raising their child's test scores enough to make admission to an Ivy League college possible. So how can people who have found a potential egg donor at an Ivy League college tell whether the donor carries genuine smart-kid genes or just pushy-parents genes?

　　The donor herself may not even be aware that such a distinction exists. After years of expensive private schooling and math tutors and tennis camps and SAT prep courses and letters of recommendation from important family friends， she's been told that， unlike beneficiaries of affirmative action， she got into an Ivy League college on pure merit.

　　Since it is probably safe to assume that people intent on securing high-priced Ivy League eggs are carrying some pushy-parents genes themselves， their joining forces with a donor who got into an Ivy League college by dint of her family's willingness to fork over 10 grand to an SAT prep course could result in a child with somewhere between a dose and a half and 2 1/2 doses of pushy-parents genes. Apparently the egg seekers aren't troubled by the prospect of having their grandchildren raised by this sort of person.

　　If you have any doubts about whether the dosages I cite are based on a thorough grounding in genetics and statistics and advanced microbiology， rest assured that I attended an Ivy League college myself. That was in the days， I'll admit， when any number of people were admitted to such institutions without having shown any evidence of carrying smart-kid genes even in trace elements. Somehow， m

　　most of these dimmer bulbs managed to graduate——every class needs a lower third in order to have an upper two-thirds——and somehow most of them are now millionaires on Wall Street.

　　One element many of them had going for them in the admissions process was that they were identified as “legacies”——the offspring of alumni. In Ivy League colleges， alumni children are even now admitted at twice the rate of other applicants. For that reason， egg seekers may not actually need genuine smart-kid genes for their children： after all， an applicant whose mother and father and egg donor were all alumni could be considered a triple legacy.

　　But how about the college-admission prospects of the grandchildren? As methods are perfected of enhancing a college application through increasingly expensive services——one young man mentioned in the magazine article had $25，000 worth of SAT preparation——it might become more important to have a parent who's a Wall Street millionaire than to have smart-kid genes. Maybe it would be prudent to add a sentence to those ads in college papers： “Preference given to respondents in the lower third of the class.”

　　注(1)：本文选自Time;01/25/99， p20;

　　注(2)：本文习题命题模仿对象为：1、2、3题模仿2000年真题text4 1-3题;4、5题分别模仿1999年真题text1第4题和text4第4题;

　　1. In the author‘s eyes， a female student from an Ivy League college is__________.

　　[A] an ideal egg donor

　　[B] not necessarily an intelligent person

　　[C] more influenced by her parents than by anything else

　　[D] more likely to carry smart-kid genes

　　2. According to the author， what may chiefly be the reason for the donor‘s admission in an

　　Ivy League college?

　　[A] her own merits

　　[B] the affirmative action

　　[C] her smart-kid genes

　　[D] her parents‘ efforts

　　3. Which of the following is true according to the author?

　　[A] American parents would send their children into an Ivy League college at any cost

　　[B] Ivy Leaguecolleges used to admit students who showed no sign of intelligence

　　[C] alumni children stand a better chance to be admitted than other applicants

　　[D]egg-seekers care nothing about the pushy-parents genes

　　4. The author‘s attitude towards the issue seems to be ____________.

　　[A] approving

　　[B] objective

　　[C] indifferent

　　[D] ironic

　　5. It could be inferred from the text that____________.

　　[A] wealth is more important than intelligence in application for Ivy League colleges

　　[B] Ivy League colleges are increasingly expensive

　　[C] egg-seekers can get better genes from millionaires

　　[D] the prospects of college-admission are gloomy

　　答案：B D C D A