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.