单选题My children are looking forward to ______ a trip to Beijing next month.

单选题We'd like to______a table for five for dinner this evening. A. reserve B. prosperity C. sustain D. retain

单选题Communities in primitive areas where natural ______ is scarce must be resourceful in order to secure adequate nutrition. A. education B. competition C. sustenance D. agriculture

单选题Breast cancer is second only to skin cancer as the most common malignancy diagnosed in women in the United States. In 2001, about 192 200 new cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed and 40 200 women died of the disease. Only lung cancer accounts for more cancer deaths in women. The incidence of breast cancer has increased over the last 20 years. Although some of the increase can be attributed to changes in reproductive patterns, such as delayed childbearing and having fewer children, much of the rise is due to the increased detection of smaller, earlier-stage cancers with the widespread adoption of mammography screening in asymptomatic women. According to data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, incidence rates of tumors less than 2.0 cm in diameter more than doubled from 1980 to 1987, whereas rates of tumors greater than 3.0 cm decreased by 27%. In particular, incidence rates of in situ breast cancer have risen dramatically over the last 25 years. The annual increase in age-adjusted ductal carcinoma in situ incidence rates from 1983 to 1992 was 17.5%. Although the incidence of breast cancer has been increasing, there has been a decline in breast cancer mortality. Death rates decreased 1.6% annually between 1989 and 1995, then 3.4% annually between 1995 and 1998. This improvement in the mortality rate has been attributed to both mammography screening and improvements in breast cancer treatment. Breast cancer has a number of identifiable risk factors. Aside from a personal history of breast cancer, the most important risk factor in women is age. Between 1994 and 1998, 77% of new cases of breast cancer and 84% of breast cancer deaths occurred in women older than 50 years. Other non-modifiable risk factors include family history, age at birth of the woman's first child, early menarche, and late menopause. Potentially modifiable risk factors include alcohol consumption, use of postmenopausal hormones, and obesity after menopause. Although most breast cancer cases are sporadic, up to 10% are linked to genetic predisposition. Women with a family history of breast cancer, especially in a first-degree relative (i. e, mother, sister, or daughter), have an increased risk of breast cancer. In general, a "positive family history" of breast cancer confers a relative risk of 2.0 to3.0, with the degree of risk varying directly with the closeness of the relationship. Paternal and maternal relatives with breast cancer contribute similarly to the increased risk. Most women with a family history of breast cancer do not have a history striking enough to suggest the presence of an inherited breast cancer syndrome. In many cases, primary care physicians can readily distinguish between families with heritable cancers and those with several sporadic cases. Women at high risk of inherited breast cancers typically have several relatives with breast cancer diagnosed before age 45 to 50 and may also have a family history of bilateral breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or male breast cancer.

单选题W: My watch is not working.______.M: It' s ten past twenty.A. What time is it?B. What' s the time?C. What is time by your watch?D. What time is it by your watch?

单选题In Darrah's opinion, people should

单选题A major reason for conflict in the animal world is territory. The male animal (21) an area. The size of the area is sufficient to provide food for him, his (22) and their offspring. Migrating birds, for example, (23) up the best territory in the order of "first come, first (24) ." The late arrivals may acquire (25) territories, but less food is available, or they are too close to the (26) of the enemies of the species. (27) there is really insufficient food or the danger is very great, the animal will not (28) . In this way, the members of the species which are less fit will not have offspring. When there is conflict (29) . territory, animals will commonly use force, or a (30) of force, to decide which will stay and which will go. It is interesting to note, however, that animals seem to use (31) the minimum amount of force (32) to drive away the intruder. There is usually no killing. In the (33) of those animals which are capable of doing each other great harm, (34) is a system for the losing animal to show the winning animals that he (35) to submit. When he shows this, the (36) normally stops fighting. Animals (especially birds), which can easily escape from conflict seem to have (37) obstacle against killing, and equally no mechanism (38) submission. The losing bird simply flies away. However, if two doves are (39) in a cage, and they start fighting, they will continue to fight until one kills the other. We all think of the dove as a symbol of peace and, in its natural habitat, it is peaceful. But the "peace" mechanism does not (40) in a cage.

单选题1 It was a normal day in the life of the American Red Cross in Greater New York. First, part of a building on West 140th Street, in Harlem, fell down. Beds tumbled through the air, people slid out of their apartments and onto the ground, three people died, and the Red Cross was there, helping shocked residents find temporary shelter, and food and clothing. Then it was back downtown for that evening's big fund-raiser, the Eleventh An nual Red Cross Award Dinner Dance, at the Pierre. "That's why I have bad hair to night," Said Christopher Peake, a Red Cross spokesman who had spent much of the day at the Harlem scene, in the drizzling rain. He was now in a tuxedo, and actually his hair didn't look so bad, framed by a centerpiece of tulips and jonquils, and perhaps improved by subdued lighting from eight crystal chandeliers. Definitely not having a bad-hair night was Elizabeth Dole, the wife of Senator Robert Dole and the president of the American Red Cross. President Dole has chestnut-colored Re publican hair, which was softly coifed, and she was wearing a fitted burgundy velvet eve ning suit ( "Someone made it for me! I love velvet!" she exclaimed, in her enthusiastic, Northern Carolina hostess voice) and sparkling drop earrings. Of course, she hadn't been standing in the rain in Harlem; she had just flown up on the three-o'clock shuttle from Washington. Dole is extremely pretty, with round green eyes and a full mouth and a direct personality. She tilts her head attentively when she listens. She was the recipient of the evening's award; previous award winners have included Alice Tully, Princess Yasmin Aga Khan and, most recently, Brooke Astor. Not exactly a sequence at the end of which you would expect to find Elizabeth Dole, but award givers are famous for having political instincts as well as philanthropic ones. Surrounded by the deep-blue swags and golden draperies of the ballroom were more than thirty-five dinner tables set with groupings of candles and floral centerpieces and Roy al Doulton china, American Express was there. So were Bristol-Myers Squibb; Coopers Lybrand; the New York Life; ...and Price Waterhouse. The actress Arlene Dahi, with her rather red hair and her bearded husband, presided over one table. Otherwise, it was a typical, faceless, captain-of-industry fund raiser (No models! No stars! ), of which there seems to be at least one every night in New York City. It was not a society night, but still the evening raised four hundred and thirty thousand dollars.

单选题After a run of several thousand years, it is entirely fitting that 2000 will be marked as the year the tide turned against taxation. Clay tablets recall the taxes of Hammurabi in the Babylon of 2000BC, but the practice is certainly older. People in power have always tried to divert some of the proceeds of economic activity in their own direction. Lords took feudal dues from their vassals; landowners took tolls from merchants; gangsters took protection money from small businesses; governments took taxes from their citizens. Despite the different names, the principle has remained constant: those who do not produce take resources from those who do, and spend it on altogether different things. The tide is turning because of the convergence of several factors, in the first place, taxes are becoming harder to collect. Capital is more mobile than ever, and inclined to fly from places that tax to places that do not. Governments do not move their boundaries and jurisdictions as rapidly as companies can change locations. Attempts to establish trans-national tax powers are almost certainly, ably doomed by international competition to attract economic activity. Many businesses will choose to stay out of reach. The global economy and the Internet mean that purchases can now cross frontiers. People buy books, clothes, and cars from abroad, and any finance minister who likes to tax these items find his tax base diminishing. It is not only capital and goods which are harder to pin down. Even wages are crossing frontiers. The rise of the service sector means that many income-generating activities can take place across frontiers, causing yet more headaches for overstretched public treasuries. Furthermore, the pace of electronic, hard-to-trace activity is accelerating. No less important has been the rise of political resistance. The past quarter-century has been marked by a movement led in Britain and America itself in California's famous tax-cutting referendum Proposition 13, but saw its fullest expression in the Thatcher and Reagan tax cuts of the 1980's. Britain's Tories entered office in 1979 with the top rate of income tax at 98%, and left office 18 years later with a top rate of 40%. Indeed, their Labour opponents became electable only after a firm promise not to raise it again. The plain fact is that electorates these days will not stand for it. They recognize, correctly, that governments spend their money less carefully and less efficiently than they can spend it themselves. One of the greatest uses of tax money is to provide pensions. And here a revolution--as important and pervasive as privatization--is sweeping the world. Fully-funded personal pension plans, based on individual savings, are sweeping away the poorly funded public pensions promised by governments. The latter take taxes from the young to support the old. The former invest savings from the young to support themselves when old.

单选题If I had had enough time, I ______ my work.

单选题Student journalists artaught how to be when writing in a limited space.

单选题The boys often used to throw a stone or two at the glasshouse because ______.

单选题The manager promised to keep me ______ of how the project was going on. A. be informed B. informed C. inform D. informing

单选题The post-World War Ⅱ baby ______ resulted in a 43 percent increase in the number of teenagers in the 1960s and 1970s.

单选题This procedure describes how suggestions for improvements to the systems are

单选题Hackers can do this because ______.

单选题Most of us raised to think about history in the traditional way would read an account of a Revolutionary War battle written by an American historian in 1944 and ask, if we asked anything at all, "Is this account accurate?" or "What does this battle tell us about the 'the spirit of the age' in which it was fought?" In contrast, a new historicist would read the same account of that battle and ask, "What does this account tell us about the political agendas and ideological conflicts of the culture that produced and read the account in 1944?" New historical interest in the battle itself would produce such questions as, "At the time in which it was fought, how was this battle represented(in newspapers, magazines, tracts, government documents, stories, speeches, drawings, and photographs)by the American colonies or by Britain(or by European countries), and what do these representations tell us about how the American Revolution shaped and was shaped by the cultures that represented it?" As you can see, the questions asked by traditional historians and by new historicists are quite different, and that's because these two approaches to history are based on very different views of what history is and how we can know it. Traditional historians ask, "What happened?" and "What does the event tell us about history?" In contrast, new historicists ask, "How has the event been interpreted?" and "What do the interpretations tell us about he interpreters?" For most traditional historians, history is a series of events that have a linear, causal relationship: event A caused event B; event B caused event C; and so on. Furthermore, they believe we are perfectly capable, through objective analysis, of uncovering the facts about historical events, and those facts can sometimes reveal the spirit of the age, that is, the world view held by the culture to which those facts refer. Indeed, some of the most popular traditional historical accounts have offered a key concept that would explain the world view of a given historical population, such as the Renaissance notion of the Great Chain of Being the cosmic hierarchy of creation, with God at the top of the ladder, human beings at the middle, and the lowliest creatures at the bottom—which has been used to argue that the guiding spirit of Elizabethan culture was a belief in the importance of order in all domains of human life. You can see this aspect of the traditional approach in history classed that study past events in terms of the spirit of an age, such as the Age Reason or the Age of Enlightenment, and you can see it in literature classes that study literary works in terms of historical periods, such as the Neoclassical, Romantic, or Modernist periods. Finally, traditional historians generally believe that history is progressive, that the human species is improving over the source of time, advancing in its moral, cultural, and technological accomplishments. New historicists, in contrast, don't believe we have clear access to any but he most basic facts of history. We can know, for example, that George Washington was the first American president and that Napoleon was defeated Waterloo. But our understanding of what such facts mean, of how they fit within the complex web of competing ideologies and conflicting social, political, and cultural agendas of the time and place in which they occurred is, for new historicists, strictly a matter of interpretation, not fact. Even when traditional historians believe they are sticking to the facts, the way they contextualize those facts(including which facts are deemed important enough to report and which are left out)determines what story those facts will tell. From this perspective, there is no such thing as a presentation of facts; there is only interpretation. Furthermore, new historicists argue that reliable interpretations are, for a number of reasons, difficult to produce. The first and most important reason for this difficulty, new historicists believe, is the impossibility of objective analysis. Like all human beings, historians live in a particular time and place, and their views of both current and past events are influenced in innumerable conscious and unconscious ways by their own experience within their own culture. Historians may believe they're objective, but their own views of what is right and wrong, what is civilized and uncivilized, what is important and unimportant, an the like, will strongly influence the ways in which they interpret events. For example, the traditional view that history is progressive is based on the belief, held in past by many Anglo-European historians, that the sol-called "primitive" cultures of native peoples are less evolved than, and therefore inferior to, the so-called "civilized" Anglo-European cultures. As a result, ancient cultures with highly developed art forms, ethical codes, and spiritual philosophies, such as the tribal cultures of Native Americans and Africans, were often misrepresented as lawless, superstitious, and savage. Another reason for the difficulty in producing reliable interpretations of history is its complexity. For new historicists, history cannot be understood simply as a linear progression of events. At any given point in history, any given culture may be progressing in some areas and regressing in other. And any two historians may disagree about what constitutes progress and what doesn't, for these terms are matters of definition. That is, history isn't an orderly parade into a continually improving future, as many traditional historians have believed. It's more like an improvised dance consisting of an infinite variety of steps, following any new route at any given moment, and having no particular goal or destination. Individuals and groups may have goals, but human history does not. Similarly, while events certainly have causes, new historicists argue that those causes are usually all multiple, complex, and difficult to analyze. One cannot make simple causal statements with any certainty. In addition, causality is not a one-way street from cause to effect. Any given event whether it be a political election or a children's cartoon show is a product of its culture, but it also affects that culture in return. In other words, all events including everything from the creation of an art work, to televised murder thai, to the persistence of or change in the condition of the poor are shaped by and shape the culture in which they emerge. In a similar manner, our subjectivity, or selfhood, is shaped by and shapes the culture into which we were born. For most new historicists, our individual identity is not merely a product of society. Neither is it merely a product of our own individual will and desire. Instead, individual identity and its cultural milieu inhabit, reflect, and define each other. Their relationship is mutually constitutive(they create each other)and dynamically unstable. Thus, the old argument between determinism and free will can't be settled because it rests on the wrong question: "Is human identity socially determined or are human beings free agents?" For new historicism, this question cannot be answered because it involves a choice between two entities that are not wholly separate. Rather, the proper question is, "What are the processes by which individual identity and social formations—such as political, educational, legal, and religious institutions and ideologies—create, promote, change each other?" For every society constrains individual thought and action within a network of cultural limitations while it simultaneously enables individuals to think and act. Our subjectivity, than, is a lifelong process of negotiating our way, consciously and unconsciously, among the constraints and freedoms offered, at any given moment in time, by the society in which we live. Thus, according to new historicists, poser does not emanate from the top of the political and socioeconomic structure. According to French philosopher Michel Foucault, whose ideas have strongly influenced the development of new historicism, power circulates in all directions, to and from mall social levels, at all time. And the vehicle by which power circulates is a never-ending proliferation of exchange(1)the exchange of material goods through such practices as buying and selling, bartering, gambling, taxation, charity, and various forms of theft;(2)the exchange of people through such institutions as marriage, adoptions, kidnapping, and slavery; and(3)the exchange of ideas through the various discourses a culture produces. A discourse is a social language created by particular cultural conditions at a particular time and place, and it expresses a particular way of understanding human experience. For example, you may be familiar with the discourse of white supremacy, the discourse of ecological awareness, the discourse of Christian fundamentalism, and the'like. Although the word discourse has roughly the same meaning as the word ideology, and the two words are often used interchangeably, the word discourse draws attention to the role of language as the vehicle of ideology. From a new historicist perspective, no discourse, by itself, can adequately explain the complex cultural dynamics of social power. For there is no monolithic(single, unified, universal)spirit of an age, and there is no adequate totalizing explanation of history(an explanation that provides a single key to all aspects of a given culture). There is, instead, a dynamic unstable interplay among discourses: they are always in a state of flux, overlapping and competing with one another(or, to use new historical terminology, negotiating exchanges of power)in any number of ways at any given point in time. Furthermore, no discourse is permanent. Discourses wield power for those in charge, but they also stimulate opposition to that power. This is one reason why new historicists believe that the relationship between individual identity and society is mutually constitutive: on the whole, human beings are never merely victims of an oppressive society, for they can find various ways to oppose authority in their personal and public live. For new historians, even the dictator of a small country doesn't wield absolute power on his own. To maintain dominance, his power must circulate in numerous discourses, for example, in the discourse of religion(which can promote belief in the "divine right" of kings or in God's love of hierarchical society), in the discourse of science(which can support the reigning elite in terms of a theory of Darwinian "survival of the fittest"), in the discourse of fashion(which can promote the popularity of leaders by promoting copycat attire, as we saw when Hehru jackets wee popular and when the fashion world copied the style of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy), in the discourse of the law(which can make it treasonous offense to disagree with a ruler's decisions), and so on. As these examples suggest, what is "right", "natural," and "normal" are matters of definition. Thus, in different cultures at different points in history, homosexuality has been deemed abnormal, normal, criminal, or admirable. The same can be said of incest, cannibalism, and women's desire for political equality. In fact, Michel Foucault ahs suggested that all definitions of "insanity, crime", and sexual "perversion" are social constructs by means of which ruling powers maintain their control. We accept these definitions as "natural" only because they are so ingrained in our culture.Justas definitions of social and anti-social behavior promote the power of certain individuals and groups, so do particular versions of historical events. Certainly, the whitewashing of General Guster's new infamous military campaigns against Native Americans served the desire of the white American power structure of his day to obliterate Native American peoples so that the government could seize their lands. And that same whitewashing continued to serve the white American power structure for many a decade beyond Guster's time, for even those who had knowledge of Guster's misdeeds deemed it unwise to air America's dirty historical laundry, even in front of Americans. Analogously, had the Nazi won World War II, we would all be reading a very different account of the war, and of the genocide of millions of Jews, than the accounts we read in American history books today. Thus, new historicism views historical accounts as narrative, as stories, that are inevitably biased according to the point of view, conscious or unconscious, of those who them .The more unaware historians are of their biases that is, the more "objective" they think they are the more those biases are able to control their narratives. Tell whether the following statements are True or False according to the text. Write True or False only.