阿摩線上測驗 登入

最新科目

最新試卷

115年 - 115 國家安全情報特種考試_三等_情報組(選試英文):國家安全相關法規(包括國家機密保護法、國家情報工作法、國家安全法、通訊保障及監察法、特種勤務條例)#140898(10題)

115年 - 115 國立屏東女中第一次教師甄試試題:化學科#140897(35題)

115年 - 115 國立屏東女中第一次教師甄試試題:公民科#140896(15題)

115年 - 115 警察特種考試_三等_行政警察人員、外事警察人員(選試英語)、刑事警察人員、公共安全人員、犯罪防治人員預防組、交通警察人員交通組、警察資訊管理人員、刑事鑑識人員、國境警察人員、警察法制人員、行政管理人員:警察專業英文#140895(21題)

115年 - 115 國家安全情報特種考試_三等_電子組(選試英文):工程數學#140894(24題)

115年 - 115 一般警察特種考試_二等_刑事警察人員電子監察組:電子學#140893(6題)

115年 - 115 國立屏東女中第一次教師甄試試題:歷史科#140892(10題)

115年 - 115 移民行政特種考試_二等_移民行政:行政法研究#140891(3題)

115年 - 115 移民行政特種考試_三等_移民行政一般組:移民執法與刑事法(包括刑法與刑事訴訟法)#140890(27題)

115年 - 115 移民行政特種考試_四等_移民行政:入出國及移民法規概要(包括入出國及移民法、人口販運防制法、國籍法、臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例、香港澳門關係條例)#140889(50題)

最新試題

最新申論題

最新課程

最新主題筆記

最新討論

1. 下列光學顯微鏡中何者能獲得最清晰及立體的細胞結構影像? (A)brightfield microscope(亮視野顯微鏡) (B)phase-contrast microscope(位相差顯微鏡) (C)fluorescence microscope(螢光顯微鏡) (D)confocal microscope(共軛焦顯微鏡)

3. 在細胞內膜系統中,下列何者為最常見的共同路徑? (A)高基氏體(Golgi)→溶解體(lysosome)→內質網(ER)→細胞膜(plasma membrane) (B)核膜(nuclear envelope)→溶解體→高基氏體→細胞膜 (C)內質網→葉綠體(chloroplasts)→粒腺體(mitochondrion)→細胞膜 (D)粗糙內質網(rough ER)→液泡(vesicles)→高基氏體→細胞膜

5. 下列何者不是轉錄因子(transcription factor)的 DNA 結合區(DNA-binding domain)常見的構形(motif)? (A)鋅指形(zinc finger) (B)六合體(hexamer) (C)白胺酸拉鍊(leucine zipper) (D)螺旋迴轉螺旋(helix-turn-helix)

43. (A) in addition to (B) as well as (C) due to (D) instead of

44. (A) originates from (B) pours into (C) fluctuates among (D) appears in

45. (A) legislators (B) instructors (C) conductors (D) manufacturers 以下是試卷內容的題目與選項: 請依下文回答第46題至第50題 Denver's public schools' three-year plunge from one of the nation's most carefully planned and promising examples of public-education transformation into a district led by a school board in disarray has multiple causes, and there's plenty of blame to spread around. Ultimately, however, it is the result of a concerted effort over more than a decade by organized and committed activists, local and national, who have opposed changing the governance and operation of school districts in any significant way. The politics of public education in Denver have grown increasingly in school systems across the country. What distinguishes the conflict over reform in Denver is how unrelated it is to student outcomes. While Denver's reforms have been far from perfect, they merit the national attention they've drawn. A growing body of evidence makes clear that outcomes for students in the city slowly yet significantly improved, including for students the district has historically failed to serve well. Yet as soon as Denver Public Schools took its initial steps toward reform less than two decades ago, an active opposition campaign arose, aimed not at moderating or improving the reforms, but at destroying them. In 2019, the election of three new anti-reform members to the Denver Board of Education flipped the board majority to that camp. Since the educational reform was launched in 2005, Denver's families and educators have embraced choice. The broad popularity of choice in Denver makes dismantling reform politically fraught for the board and its allies. In fact, the board has faced strong pushback from some parents and educators and has had to confront the complex reality of governing a district where choice, autonomy, and a focus on outcomes are now woven into the fabric of public education. But the union-supported board majority was determined to push ahead, and that meant cleaninghouse at the top. In fall 2020, Superintendent Susana Cordova resigned after less than two years on the job. Cordova is a Denver native and Denver Public Schools graduate who had spent most of her professional career working for the district. Cordova never got a chance to enact her own agenda. First, a teacher strike weakened her just weeks into her tenure. Next, the new board gave her no room to enact changes. Finally, softening the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic became the district's sole focus. Now that the pandemic's disruption is receding, the board appears poised to renew its efforts to roll back reform. It has a good chance of succeeding, because in November 2021, all four of the anti-reform candidates won, giving their side unanimous control.