单选题The newly employed waitress, a pretty young woman, slapped the manager on the cheek when he tried to kiss her.

单选题The ______ sections need retelling． A．one third B．first three C．first one D．one three

单选题The phrase "susceptible to" in Par

单选题Anyone who doubts that global financial markets control national economies need only look at the crisis facing the "tigers" of the Far East.

单选题When I returned home, I found the window open and a number of things ______. A. to steal B. stealing C. stolen D. missed

单选题A century ago, the immigrants from across the Atlantic included settlers and sojourners. Along with the many folks looking to make a permanent home in the United States came those who had no intention to stay, and who would make some money and then go home. Between 1908 and 1915, about 7 million people arrived while about 2 million departed. About a quarter of all Italian immigrants, for example, eventually returned to Italy for good. They even had an affectionate nickname, "uccelli di passaggio", birds of passage. Today, we are much more rigid about immigrants. We divide newcomers into two categories: legal or illegal, good or bad. We hail them as Americans in the making, or brand them as aliens to be kicked out. That framework has contributed mightily to our broken immigration system and the long political paralysis over how to fix it. We don"t need more categories, but we need to change the way we think about categories. We need to look beyond strict definitions of legal and illegal. To start, we can recognize the new birds of passage, those living and thriving in the gray areas. We might then begin to solve our immigration challenges. Crop pickers, violinists, construction workers, entrepreneurs, engineers, home health-care aides and physicists are among today"s birds of passage. They are energetic participants in a global economy driven by the flow of work, money and ideas. They prefer to come and go as opportunity calls them. They can manage to have a job in one place and a family in another. With or without permission, they straddle laws, jurisdictions and identities with ease. We need them to imagine the United States as a place where they can be productive for a while without committing themselves to staying forever. We need them to feel that home can be both here and there and that they can belong to two nations honorably. Accommodating this new world of people in motion will require new attitudes on both sides of the immigration battle. Looking beyond the culture war logic of right or wrong means opening up the middle ground and understanding that managing immigration today requires multiple paths and multiple outcomes, including some that are not easy to accomplish legally in the existing system.

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} Most human beings actually decide before they think. When any human being executive, specialized expert, or person in the street—encounters a complex issue and forms an opinion, often within a matter of seconds, how thoroughly has he or she explored the implications of the various courses of action? Answer: not very thoroughly. Very few people, no matter how intelligent or experienced, can take inventory of the many branching possibilities, possible outcomes, side effects, and undesired consequences of a policy or a course of action in a matter of seconds. Yet, those who pride themselves on being decisive often try to do just that. And once their brains lock onto an opinion, most of their thinking thereafter consists of finding support for it. A very serious side effect of argumentative decision making can be a lack of support for the chosen course of action on the part of the "losing" faction. When one faction wins the meeting and the others see themselves as losing, the battle often doesn't end when the meeting ends. Anger, resentment, and jealousy may lead them to sabotage the decision later, or to reopen the debate at later meetings. There is a better way. As philosopher Aldous Huxley said, "It isn't who is right, but what is right, that counts. " The structured-inquiry method offers a better alternative to argumentative decision making by debate. With the help of the Internet and wireless computer technology, the gap between experts and executives is now being dramatically closed. By actually putting the brakes on the thinking process, slowing it down, and organizing the flow of logic, it's possible to create a level of clarity that sheer argumentation can never match. The structured-inquiry process introduces a level of conceptual clarity by organizing the contributions of the experts, then brings the experts and the decision makers closer together. Although it isn't possible or necessary for a president or prime minister to listen in on every intelligence analysis meeting, it's possible to organize the experts' information to give the decision maker much greater insight as to its meaning. This process may somewhat resemble a marketing focus group ; it's a simple, remarkably clever way to bring decision makers closer to the source of the expert information and opinions on which they must base their decisions.

单选题If you______the instructions strictly, there wouldn" t be so much trouble now.

单选题The ______ British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking once said in an interview that heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. A. imposing B. lofty C. prominent D. eminent

单选题The drunken couple did nothing to keep the flat clean and tidy and hived in the utmost ______.

单选题A: I"d like to speak to the manager, please. B: ______

单选题"Nightingales Prize" is for ______.A. playersB. actorsC. doctorsD. nurses

单选题What is true about the Philadelphia Public Ledger and the Baltimore Sun?

单选题You should have been more______ with that customer; I'm sure that selling him the watch was a possibility.

单选题{{B}}Passage Two{{/B}} To paraphrase 18th century statesman Edmund Burke, "all that is needed for the triumph of a misguided cause is that good people do nothing. One such cause now seeks to end biomedical research because of the theory that animals have rights ruling out their use in research. Scientists need to respond forcefully to animal rights advocates, whose arguments are confusing the public and thereby threatening advances in health knowledge and care. Leaders of the animal rights movement target biomedical research because it depends on public funding, and few people understand the process of health care research. Hearing allegations of cruelly to animals in research settings, many are perplexed that anyone would deliberately harm an animal. For example, a grandmotherly woman staffing an animal rights booth at a recent street fair was distributing a brochure that encouraged readers not to use anything that opposed immunizations, she wanted to know if vaccines come from animal research. When assured that they do, she replied, "Then I would have to say yes." Asked what will happen when epidemics return, she said, "Don't worry, scientists will find some way of using computers." Such well-meaning people just don's understand. Scientists must communicate their message to the public in a compassionate, understandable way in human terms, not in the language of molecular biology. We need to make clear the connection between animal research and a grandmother's hip replacement, a father's bypass operation a baby's vaccinations, and even a pet's shots. To those who are unaware that animal research was needed to produce these treatments, as well as new treatments and vaccines, animal research seems wasteful at best and cruel at worst. Much can be done. Scientists could "adopt" middle school classes and present their own research. They should be quick to respond to letters to the editor, lest animal rights misinformation go unchallenged and ac quire a deceptive appearance of truth. Research institutions could be opened to tours, to show that laboratory animals receive humane care Finally, because the ultimate stakeholders are patients, the health research community should actively recruit to its cause not only well-known personalities such as Stephen Cooper, who has made courageous statements about the value of animal research, but all who receive medical treatment. If good people do nothing there is a real possibility that an uninformed citizenry will extinguish the precious embers of medical progress.