Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage:

　　It is hard to predict how science is going to turn out, and if it is really good science it is impossible to predict. If the things to be found are actually new, they are by definition unknown in advance. You cannot make choices in this matter. You either have science or you don't, and if you have it you are obliged to accept the surprising and disturbing pieces of information, along with the neat and promptly useful bits.

　　The only solid piece of scientific truth about which I feel totally confident is that we are profoundly ignorant about nature. Indeed, I regard this as the major discovery of the past hundred years of biology. It is, in its way, an illuminating piece of news. It would have amazed the brightest minds of the 18th century Enlightenment (啟蒙運動) to be told by any of us how little we know and how be wildering seems the way ahead. It is this sudden confrontation with the depth and scope of ignorance that represents the most significant contribution of the 20th century science to the human intellect. In earlier times, we either pretended to understand how things worked or ignored the problem, or simply made up stories to fill the gaps. Now that we have begun exploring in earnest, we are getting glimpses of how huge the questions are, and how far from being answered. Because of this, we are depressed. It is not so bad being ignorant if you are totally ignorant; the hard thing is knowing in some detail the reality of ignorance, the worst spots and here and there the not-so-bad spots, but no true light at the end of the tunnel nor even any tunnels that can yet be trusted.

　　But we are making a beginning, and there ought to be some satisfaction. There are probably no questions we can think up that can't be answered, sooner or later, including even the matter of consciousness. To be sure, there may well be questions we can't think up, ever, and therefore limits to the reach of human intellect, but that is another matter. Within our limits we should be able to work our way through to all our answers, if we keep at it long enough, and pay attention.

　　31. According to the author, really good science .

　　A) would surprise the brightest minds of the 18th century Enlightenment

　　B) will help people to make the right choice in advance

　　C) will produce results which cannot be foreseen

　　D) will bring about disturbing results

　　32. It can be inferred from the passage that scientists of the 18th century .

　　A) knew that they were ignorant and wanted to know more about nature

　　B) were afraid of facing up to the realities of scientific research

　　C) thought that they knew a great deal and could solve most problems of science

　　D) did more harm than good in promoting man's understanding of nature

　　33. Which of the following is NOT mentioned about scientists in earlier times?

　　A) They invented false theories to explain things they didn't understand.

　　B) They falsely claimed to know all about nature.

　　C) They did not believe in results from scientific observation.

　　D) They paid little attention to the problems they didn't understand.

　　34. What is the author's attitude towards science?

　　A) He is confident though he is aware of the enormous difficulties in scientific research.

　　B) He is doubtful because of the enormous difficulties in scientific research.

　　C) He is depressed because of the ignorance of scientists.

　　D) He is delighted because of the illuminating scientific findings.

　　35. The author believes that .

　　A) man can not solve all the problems he can think up because of the limits of human intellect

　　B) man can find solutions sooner or later to whatever questions concerning nature he can think up

　　C) sooner or later man can think up all the questions concerning nature and answer them

　　D) questions concerning consciousness are outside the scope of scientific research