单选题The earth is witnessing an urban revolution, as people worldwide crowd into towns and cities. In 1800 only five percent of the world's population were urban dwellers; now the proportion has risen to more than forty-five percent, and by the year 2010 more people will live in towns and cities than in the countryside. Humanity will, for the first time, have become a predominantly urban species. Though the world is getting more crowded by the day, absolute numbers of population are less important than where people concentrate and whether these areas can cope with them. Even densities, however, tell us nothing about the quality of the infrastructure--roads, housing and job creation, for exampleor the availability of crucial services. The main question, then, is not how many people there are in a given area, but how well their needs can be met. Density figures have to be set beside measurements of weaith and employment, the quality of housing and the availability of education, medical care, clean water, sanitation and other vital services. The urban revolution is taking place mainly in the Third World, where it is hardest to accommodate. Between 1950 and 1985 the number of city dwellers grew more than twice as fast in the Third World as in industrialized countries. During this period, the urban population of the developed world increased from 477 million to 838 million, less than double; but it quadrupled in developing countries, from 286 million to 1.14 billion. Africa's urban population is racing along at five percent a year on average, doubling city numbers every fourteen years. By the turn of the century, three in every four LatinAmericans will live in urban areas, as will two in every five Asians and one in every three Africans. Developing countries will have to increase their urban facilities by two thirds by then, if they are to maintain even their present inadequate levels of services and housing. In 1940 only one out of every hundred of the world's people lived in a really big city, one with a population of over a million. By 1980 this proportion had already risen to one in ten. Two of the world's biggest cities, Mexico and Sao Paulo, are already bursting at the seams--and their populations are doubling in less than twenty years. About a third of the people of the Third World's cities now live in desperately overcrowded slums and squatter settlements. Many are unemployed, uneducated, undernourished and chronically sick. Tens of millions of new people arrive every year, flocking in from the countryside in what is the greatest mass migration in history. Pushed out of the countryside by rural poverty and drawn to the cities in the hope of a better life, they find no houses waiting for them, no water supplies, no sewerage, no schools. They throw up makeshift hovels, built of whatever they can find: sticks, fronds, cardboard, tarpaper, straw, petrol tins and, if they are lucky, corrugated iron. They have to take the land none else wants; land that is too wet, too dry, too steep or too polluted for normal habitation. Yet all over the world the inhabitants of these apparently hopeless slums show extraordinary enterprise in improving their lives. While many settlements remain stuck in apathy, many others are gradually improved through the vigour and cooperation of their people, who turn flimsy shacks into solid buildings, build school, lay out streets and put in electricity and water supplies. Governments can help by giving the squatters the right to the land that they have usually occupied illegally, giving them the incentive to improve their homes and neighborhoods. The most important way to ameliorate the effects of the Third World's exploding cities, however, is to slow down the migration. This involves correcting the bias most governments show towards cities and towns and against the countryside. With few sources of hard currency, though, many governments in developing countries continue to concentrate their limited development efforts in cities and towns, rather than rural areas, where many of the most destitute live. As a result, food production falls as the countryside slides ever deeper into depression. Since the process of urbanization concentrates people, the demand for basic necessities, like food, energy, drinking water and shelter, is also increased, which can exact a heavy toll on the surrounding countryside. High-quality agricultural land is shrinking in many regions, taken out of production because of overuse and mismanagement. Creeping urbanization could aggravate this situation, further constricting economic development. The most effective way of tackling poverty, and of stemming urbanization, is to reverse national priorities in many countries, concentrating more resources in rural areas where most poor people still live. This would boost food production and help to build national economies more securely. Ultimately, though, the choice of priorities comes down to a question of power. The people of the countryside are powerless beside those of the towns; the destitute of the countryside may starve in their scattered millions, whereas the poor concentrated in urban slums pose a constant threat of disorder. In all but a few developing countries the bias towards the cities will therefore continue, as will the migrations that are swelling their numbers beyond control.

单选题Phrase structure rules allow us to better understand______. (西安交大2008研)

单选题As the city has become increasingly ______ and polluted, there has been a growing realization that certain action is urgently needed.

单选题It is easy to take a watch______, but difficult to put it back together.

单选题If you______your name and address on the card, we'll send the book to you as soon as it is retumed. A. go over B. fill inC. find out D. carry out

单选题{{B}}Part A{{/B}}{{B}}Directions:{{/B}} Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.{{B}}Text 1{{/B}} More surprising, perhaps, than the current difficulties of traditional marriage is the fact that marriage itself is alive and thriving. As Skolnick notes, Americans are a marrying people: Relative to Europeans, more of us marry and we marry at a younger age. Moreover, aster a decline in the early 1970s, the rate of marriage in the United States is now increasing. Even the divorce rate needs to be taken in this pro-marriage context: some 80 percent of divorced individuals remarry. Thus, marriage remains, by far, the preferred way of life for the vast majority of people in our society. What has changed more than marriage is the nuclear family. Twenty-five years ago, the typical American family consisted of a husband, a wife, and two or three children. Now, there are many marriages in which couples have decided not to have any children. And there are many marriages where at least some of the children are from the wife's previous marriage, or the husband's, or both. Sometimes these children spend all of their time with one parent from the former marriage; sometimes they are shared between the two former spouses. Thus, one can find the very type of family arrangement. There are marriages without children; marriages with children from only the present marriage; marriages with "full-time" children from the present marriage and "part-time" children from former marriages. There are step-fathers, step-mothers, half-brothers, and half-sisters. It is not all that unusual for a child to have four parents and eight grandparents! These are enormous changes from the traditional nuclear family. But even so, even in the midst of all this, there remains one constant: Most Americans spend most of their adult lives married.

单选题I am sorry to______ your feelings.

单选题She is a woman of______who has never abandoned her principles for the sake of her own benefits.(上海交通大学2007年试题)

单选题A historical novel may do more than mirror history; ______ future events.

单选题Unless I was ______ mistaken, there was. something wrong with Louise.

单选题He had never given a speech to so many people, so he felt ______. A. exciting B. stupid C. disappointed D. nervous

单选题The experiment with the photographs shows that_________.

单选题What is the author's attitude toward ousting the America's celebrity bosses?

单选题A new house______here by the end of the year.

单选题The waste pipe is blocked, try ______ it out with hot water, or just call the plumper to do it.(2006年中国矿业大学考博试题)

单选题Here in the U. S. a project of moving the government a few hundred miles to the southwest proceeds apace, under the supervision of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Apart from the usual highways and parks, Byrd has taken a special interest in transplanting pieces of federal agencies from metropolitan Washington to his home state. Strangely, Byrd's little experiment in de-Washingtonization has become the focus of outrage among the very people who are otherwise most critical of Washington and its ways. To these critics, it is the very symbol of congressional arrogance of power, isolation from reality, contempt for the voters, and so on, and demonstrates the need for term limits if not lynching. Consider the good-government advantages of (let's call it) the Byrd Migration. What better way to symbolize an end to the old ways and commitment to reform than physically moving the government? What better way to break up old bureaucracies than to uproot and transplant them, files and all? Second, spreading the government around a bit ought to reduce that self-feeding and self regarding Beltway culture that Washington-phobes claim to dislike so much. Of course there is a good deal of hypocrisy in this anti-Washington chatter. Much of it comes from politicians and journalists who have spent most of their adult lives in Washington and wouldn't care to live anywhere else. They are not rushing to West Virginia themselves, except for the occasional quaint rustic weekend. But they can take comfort that public servants at the Bureau of the Public Debt, at least, have escaped the perils of inside-the-Beltway insularity. Third, is Senator Byrd's raw spread-the-wealth philosophy' completely illegitimate? The Federal Government and government-related private enterprises have made metropolitan Washington one of the richest areas of the country. By contrast, West Virginia is the second poorest state, after Mississippi. The entire country's taxes support the government. Why shouldn't more of the country get a piece of it? As private businesses are discovering, the electronic revolution is making it less and less necessary for work to be centralized at headquarters. There's no reason the government shouldn't take more advantage of this trend as well. It is hardly enough, though, to expel a few thousand midlevel bureaucrats from the alleged Eden inside the Washington Beltway. Really purging the Washington Culture enough to satisfy its noisiest critics will require a mass exodus on the order of what the Khmer Rouge instituted when they took over Phnom Penh in 1975. Until the very members of the TIME Washington bureau itself are traipsing south along 1-95, their word processors strapped to their backs, the nation cannot rest easy. But America's would-be Khmer Rouge should give Senator Byrd more credit for showing the way.