Does using a word processor affect a writer s style？ The medium usually does dosomething to the message after all， even if Marshall McLuhan s claim that the mediumsimply is the message has been heard and largely forgotten now. The question matters.Ray Hammond， in his excellent guide The Writer and the Word Processor （Coronet￡2.95 pp224）， predicts that over half of the professional writers in Britain and the USAwill be using word processors by the end of 1995. The best-known recruit is LenDeighton， from as long ago as 1968， though most users have only started since themicro-computer boom began in 1980.
Ironically word processing is in some ways psychologically more like writing inrough than typing， since it restores fluidity and provisionality to the text. The typist sdread of having to get out the Tippex， the scissors and paste， or of redoing the wholething if he has any substantial second thoughts， can make him consistently choose thesafer option in his sentences， or let something stand which he knows to be unsatisfactory or incomplete， out of weariness. In word processing the text is loosenedup whilst still retaining the advantage of looking formally finished.
This has， I think， two apparently contradictory effects. The initial writing canbecome excessively sloppy and careless， in the expectation that it will be corrected later.That crucial first inspiration is never easy to recapture though， and therefore， on theother hand， the writing can become over-deliberated， lacking in flow and spontaneity，since revision becomes a larger part of composition. However these are faults easier todetect in others than in oneself.
For most writers， word processing quite rapidly comes to feel like the ideal method（and can always be a second step after drafting on paper if you prefer）。 Most of thewriters interviewed by Hammond say it has improved their style （“immensely”， saysDeighton）。 Seeing your own words on a screen helps you to feel cool and detachedabout them.
Thus it is not just by freeing you from the labour of mechanical re-typing that aword processor can help you to write. One author （Terence Feely） claims it hasincreased his output by 400%. Possibly the feeling of having a reactive machine， whichappears to do things， rather than just have things done with it， accounts for this―yourslave works hard and so do you.
Are there no drawbacks？ It costs a lot and takes time to learn―“expect to loseweeks of work”， says Hammond， though days might be nearer the mark. Notoriously itis possible to lose work altogether on a word processor， and this happens to everybodyat least once. The awareness that what you have written no longer exists at all anywhere，is unbelievably enraging and baffling.
16. According to the first paragraph of the passage， what is the obvious change forprofessional writers in Britain and the USA？
(A) The style they are employing.
(B) The medium they are using.
(C) The way they are being recruited.
(D) The paper they are writing on.
17. Typing in the conventional manner, a writer may _____.
(A) choose to white more carefully
(B) make more mistakes
(C) become overcritical of his or her work
(D) have a lot of second thoughts
18. One effect of using a word processor may be that the ongoing revision of a text_____.
(A) is done with too little attention
(B) produces a sloppy effect
(C) is lacking in flow and spontaneity
(D) does not encourage one to pick up mistakes
19. It is claimed here that word processors create _____.
(A) a sense of power in the writer s mind
(B) a reluctance in the author to express himself or herself
(C) an illusion as if you were a servant of the machine
(D) a feeling of distance between a writer and his or her work
20. As far as learning to use a word processor is concerned, the author of the passage
mentions a number of drawbacks EXCEPT that _____.
(A) it takes time
(B) it is costly
(C) the user may rely too much on the machine
(D) the user may lose weeks of work
In almost all cases the soft parts of fossils are gone for ever but they were fittedaround or within the hard parts. Many of them also were attached to the hard parts andusually such attachments are visible as depressed or elevated areas， ridges， or grooves，smooth or rough patches on the hard parts. The muscles most important for theactivities of the animal and most evident in the appearance of the living animal arethose attached to the hard parts and possible to reconstruct from their attachments.Much can be learned about a vanished brain from the inside of the skull in which it waslodged.
Restoration of the external appearance of an extinct animal has little or noscientific value. It does not even help in inferring what the activities of the livinganimal were， how fast it could run， what its food was， or such other conclusions as areimportant for the history of life. However， what most people want to know about extinctanimals is what they looked like when they were alive. Scientists also would like toknow. Things like fossil shells present no great problem as a rule， because the hard partsare external when the animal is alive and the outer appearance is actually preserved inthe fossils.
Animals in which the skeleton is internal present great problems of restoration，and honest restorers admit that they often have to use considerable guessing. Thegeneral shape and contours of the body are fixed by the skeleton and by musclesattached to the skeleton， but surface features， which may give the animal its reallycharacteristic look， are seldom restorable with any real probability of accuracy. Thepresent often helps to interpret the past. An extinct animal presumably looked more orless like its living relatives， if it has any. This， however， may be quite equivocal. Forexample， extinct members of the horse family are usually restored to look somewhatlike the most familiar living horses―domestic horses and their closest wild relatives.It is， however， possible and even probable that many extinct horses were striped likezebras. Others probably had patterns no longer present in any living members of thefamily. If lions and tigers were extinct they would be restored to look exactly alike.No living elephants have much hair and mammoths， which are extinct elephants，would doubtless be restored as hairless if we did not happen to know that they hadthick， woolly coats. We know this only because mammoths are so recently extinct thatprehistoric men drew pictures of them and that the hide and hair have actually beenfound in a few specimens. For older extinct animals we have no such clues.
21. According to the passage, the soft part of fossilized animals _____.
(A) can always be accurately identified
(B) have usually left some traces
(C) can usually be reconstructed
(D) have always vanished without any trace
22. The muscles of a fossilized animal can sometimes be reconstructed because _____.
(A) they were preserved with the rest of the animal
(B) they were lodged inside the animal s skull
(C) they were hardened parts of the animal s body
(D) they were attached to the animal s skeleton
23. The reconstruction of a fossilized animal s external appearance is considered necessary in order to _____.
(A) satisfy popular curiosity
(B) answer scientific questions
(C) establish its activities
(D) determine its eating habits
24. The word “equivocal” (para. 3) means _____.
(A) equally important
(C) equally doubtful
25. The third paragraph of the passage deals with the difficulties of restoring the following fossilized animals EXCEPT _____.
(A) those which had complex internal structures
(B) those which had no external hard parts
(C) those which had fur-covered bodies
(D) those which had no living relatives