【答案解析】{{B}}[参考范文]{{/B}} Through ages, wealth or position has been widely accepted as a sign of success, in ancient China, for example, the greatest ambition of scholars was to pass the imperial examination, a gateway to high position and prosperity. Even today, Chinese parents are eager to send their children to university with the hope that they may one day become somebodies. But, is wealth or position, in the last analysis, a sign of success? In ancient times when a hereditary system was in force, the successor to a title was usually born rich and powerful. But can we say he was successful because of his wealth and position? Many rulers in the past dynasties, who enjoyed the tremendous riches of an empire and lived in the lap of unvelievable luxury came to rack and ruin because of the misuse of their positions. However, there is no lack of examples, in which success can be measured with money and position. Poor people work their way up to the top positions of big business firms; young geniuses with little schooling become great inventors through their efforts and contributions; heads of state-owned enterprises win honor for vitalizing a company which is on the verge of bankruptcy; managers of township and village factories start from scratch and develop their works into a business group. No one can deny that they are really successful people. Conversely, we also see many people who are very successful in their particular fields, but who are poor and powerless. Quite a number of great names are among them. Madame Curie, for example, she succeeded in her career but remained poor all her life. Beethoven, one of the music masters in the world, was never rich in spite of his fame, not to mention Schubert, another musical genius, who died almost a beggar. From all we have discussed we now can come to the conclusion that wealth or position is not necessarily a sign of success. It all depends on the nature of success itself and on the circumstances in which wealth or position is won.