Experts estimate that somewhere between【B1】______and【B2】______of everything we communicate is nonverbal. Ways of nonverbal communication include【B3】______language(our posture and gestures), our 【B4】______ expressions, all the things that say something to the other person, not through【B5】______, but simply by how we present ourselves, how we move, our【B6】______contact, our tone of voice, and【C7】______. Nonverbal communication is【B8】______enough to study and understand in one's own 【B9】______, but it becomes extremely【B10】______when we are trying to understand how nonverbal communication functions in another culture. There's no【B11】______of nonverbal communication. A certain toss of a head, a certain【B12】______of the eye, or the physical 【B13】______between people: it's very easy to【B14】______these cues or to miss them altogether. The【B15】______are probably responsible for most【B16】______confusion. Something as simple as that can cause great confusion. To give a cross-cultural example from Japan, speaking the word "no" directly would be considered【B17】______. So whether one 【B18】______said "Well, maybe" meaning "Maybe yes!", or meaning "maybe not", had to do with, perhaps, whether he looked【B19】______, or uncomfortable when he said that. That's probably the most important lesson of nonverbal【B20】______I have learned.

Even as pharmaceutical companies poured a record amount of money into drug development in 2005, the industry's research drought grew worse. According to newly released statistics from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it approved only 20 new drugs, down from 36 in 2004. Only once in last 10 years has the number of newly approved drugs been lower than last year's figure. The dry spell in 2005 came even as spending on research by the industry reached a new high, passing $38 billion. And in a rarity, several major companies failed to win approval for a new drug invented in their own labs, including Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Johnson the number of drugs in Phase III has been flat at fewer than 400. "R&D statistics over the past decade have been disappointing," Merrill's analysts wrote in their report. Still, the analysts predicted that companies would continue to increase research spending and expand their pipelines of early-stage drugs.

Emma Way did not become a figure of contempt for British cyclists because she nudged Toby Hockley off his bicycle and into a hedge as she drove past him on a country lane on May 19. No, she achieved that infamy by confessing to her crime online. "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier," Way, 22, tweeted after the collision that left Hockley, 29, with a bruised body and the status of a martyr for Britain's cyclists. "I have right of way—he doesn't even pay road tax!" She ended with a hash tag popular with tweeting British motorists: bloody cyclists. It was the tweet heard around the roads of Britain and it.resulted in Way's being convicted in November of driving offenses, losing her job as a trainee accountant and acknowledging in court that the comment rated "11 out of 10" on the stupidity scale. In an interview on national television after her conviction, she noted that since the story broke, she had been cyberbullied and had received "malicious communications. " What she did not say was that she was sorry for knocking Hockley, a chef, off his bike. "I was quite angry at the mannerism of the cyclist on the road", she said. "My point of view is that he was on my side of the road—that's not the way you drive. " Way to stoke the fire, Ms. Way. By continuing to pin the blame for the incident on the cyclist, the young driver fell further into an already considerable chasm that divides modern Britain. The BBC last year featured an hourlong documentary—with lots of footage of raging cyclists and cab drivers—whose title explained the situation succinctly: War on Britain's Roads. It wasn't entirely an exaggeration: people are dying in this conflict between cyclists and drivers. London in November seemed like a particularly dangerous place for the two-wheeled combatants. Six cyclists were killed in less than two weeks, a mounting toll chronicled in increasingly mournful headlines. Six in a few days is a lot; the total killed this year in Britain's capital is 14. The deaths sparked a bout of public recrimination. When London's Mayor Boris Johnson, himself a cyclist, appeared less than sympathetic after the fifth death—he told a radio host that some of the dead cyclists "have taken decisions that really did put their lives in danger"—he was transformed from cycling champion to heartless pro-car politician and joined Way as a target of the particularly passionate fury that cyclists can muster. The anger has become political in Britain, as it has in many countries whose governments encourage citizens to cycle rather than drive to work, to lessen the impact on the environment and on traffic. Johnson has arguably done more than any previous politician for London cyclists, establishing a $ 1. 6 billion fund to make cycling safer in the city and appointing London's first cycling commissioner. Even though the number of cyclist deaths in London has been dropping steadily in the past two decades, the demand from cyclists for the city to adapt grows as the number of bikes on the road grows. As does the particularly passionate fury that cyclists can muster. Whether or not Johnson is right that some of the cyclists who died recently were breaking the law, all of us make a very personal decision about risking our lives by getting on our bikes. And we should know that when we ignore red lights to get ahead of the traffic, or get too close to trucks or buses because we feel it's our right to be there, then we are making a mistake even dumber than Emma Way's tweet. In the war of the cyclist vs. the driver, the driver will nearly always come out alive. Less so the cyclist.

{{B}}Part A Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in English. After you have heard each paragraph, interpret it into Chinese. Start interpreting at the signal.., and stop it at the signal...You may take notes while you are listening. Remember you will hear the passages ONLY ONCE. Now let us begin Part A with the first passage.{{/B}}

[此试题无题干]

______

BPart A Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in English. After you have heard each paragraph, interpret it into Chinese. Start interpreting at the signal.., and stop it at the signal...You may take notes while you are listening. Remember you will hear the passages ONLY ONCE. Now let us begin Part A with the first passage./B

I don't see a lot of TV commercials anymore, but those saccharine eHarmony ads featuring Natalie Cole trala-laing the blight-on-humanity song "This Will Be (An Everlasting Love)" have been unavoidable the last couple of years. The couples in the ads, many of them fed in the middle, seem to cling to each other with barely contained desperation, as though if they let go they will return to nights encumbered only by pints of ice cream for one and acres of Grey's Anatomy DVDs. So when I became single last year and started signing up with dating sites, I didn't even log on to eHarmony. It turns out that if I had, I would not have been welcome. One has two choices on the first page of eharmony. com: "Man seeking a woman" and "Woman seeking a man." In the first place, I'm not "seeking" anyone. One seeks a job. Unless you're a bounty hunter, you don't seek another person. For my part, I'd like to meet a nice guy. But the founder of eHarmony, Neil Clark Warren, has no interest in helping me meet a nice guy. Warren is a conservative Christian, a former recurring guest on James Dobson's radio show, a man who used the overweening right-wing group Focus on the Family to help promote eHarmony in its early days—and a man who apparently believes that gays are some kind of different species. Warren, a psychologist, told NPR's Terry Gross a couple of years ago that "I don't know exactly what the dynamics are [with gay couples]...We've done a deep amount of research on about 5,000 married people, but never on people who are same-sex. So we don't know how to do that, and we think the principles probably are different, and so we've never chosen to do it." He noted later in the interview that "same-sex marriage in this country is largely illegal at this time, and we do try to match people for marriage." Warren seems like a sweet guy in those ads, but this line of reasoning is transparently convenient: gays are just such an exotic and curious people, why, I could never understand them! And anyway their relationships are illegal—so best to ignore them completely. A class-action lawsuit was inevitable. It was filed yesterday by a lesbian from (naturally) the San Francisco Bay Area. She claims that eHarmony's no-gays policy is discriminatory under California law. The company replied that it might offer gay matching services in the future and denied that it discriminates. Which is silly: of course it discriminates, in the most basic sense of the term—it doesn't allow gays to use its site! Still, I think the lawsuit is a mistake, for two reasons: first, it once again casts gays in the role of victim. If you're wondering why kids still use "faggot" as a slur to mean weak and simpering, it's because gays too often whine about silly things like not being able to use a dating website for fat suburbanites. Second, and more important, gays manifestly do not need eHarmony. We already have too many dating sites. All of eHarmony's competitors—match.com and its offshoot chemistry.com; true.com; personals.aol.com; lavalife.com and so on—allow gays. There are also many gay sites like gay.com and connexion.org, some of which could easily be charged with reverse discrimination. For instance, please visit manhunt.net for a second. I just did, and the main page says there are "OVER 21,739 MEN ONLINE NOW!" Manhunt offers nothing for straight men. Maybe my heterosexual brother should file a class-action lawsuit. Recently eHarmony competitor chemistry.com produced a funny ad you should watch. The ad is smarmily self-serving, but it approaches eHarmony the right way: not with a lawsuit, but with ridicule.

______

{{B}}Part A Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in English. After you have heard each paragraph, interpret it into Chinese. Start interpreting at the signal.., and stop it at the signal...You may take notes while you are listening. Remember you will hear the passages ONLY ONCE. Now let us begin Part A with the first passage.{{/B}}

In the aftermath of the massacre at Virginia Tech University on April 16th, as the nation mourned a fresh springtime crop of young lives cut short by a psychopath's bullets, President George Bush and those vying for his job offered their prayers and condolences. They spoke eloquently of their shock and sadness and horror at the tragedy. The Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives called for a "moment of silence". Only two candidates said anything about guns, and that was to support the right to have them. Cho Seung-hui does not stand for America's students, any more than Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did when they slaughtered 13 of their fellow high-school students at Columbine in 1999. Such disturbed people exist in every society. The difference, as everyone knows but no one in authority was saying this week, is that in America such individuals have easy access to weapons of terrible destructive power. Cho killed his victims with two guns, one of them a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol, a rapid-fire weapon that is available only to police in virtually every other country, but which can legally be bought over the counter in thousands of gun-shops in America. There are estimated to be some 240m guns in America, considerably more than there are adults, and around a third of them are handguns, easy to conceal and use. Had powerful guns not been available to him, the deranged Cho would have killed fewer people, and perhaps none at all. The news is not uniformly bad: gun crime fell steadily throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. But it is still at dreadful levels, and it rose sharply again in 2005. Police report that in many cities it rose even faster in 2006. William Bratton, the police chief of Los Angeles, speaks of a "gathering storm of crime". Politicians on both sides, he says, have been "captured" by the vocal National Rifle Association (NRA). The silence over Virginia Tech shows he has a point. The Democrats have been the most disappointing, because until recently they had been the Party of gun control. In 1994 President Bill Clinton approved a bill banning assault weapons and the year before that a bill imposing a requirement for background checks. But Democrats believe they paid a high price for their courage: losing the House of Representatives in 1994 shortly after the assault-weapons ban, and then losing the presidency in 2000. Mr. Bush however, has done active damage. On his watch the assault-weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. New laws make it much harder to trace illegal weapons and require the destruction after 24 hours of information gathered during checks of would-be gun-buyers. The administration has also reopened debate on the second amendment, which enshrines the right to bear arms. Last month an appeals court in Washington, DC, overturned the capital's prohibition on handguns, declaring that it violates the second amendment. The case will probably go to the newly conservative Supreme Court, which might end most state and local efforts at gun control. No phrase is bandied around more in the gun debate than "freedom of the individual". When it comes to most dangerous products—be they drugs, cigarettes or fast cars—this newspaper advocates a more liberal approach than the American government does. But when it comes to handguns, automatic weapons and other things specifically designed to kill people, we believe control is necessary, not least because the failure to deal with such violent devices often means that other freedoms must be curtailed. Instead of a debate about guns, America is now having a debate about campus security. Americans are in fact queasier about guns than the national debate might suggest. Only a third of households now have guns, down from 54% in 1977. In poll after poll a clear majority has supported tightening controls. Very few Americans support a complete ban, even of handguns—there are too many out there already, and many people reasonably feel that they need to be able to protect themselves. But much could still be done without really infringing that right. The assault-weapons ban should be renewed, with its egregious loopholes removed. No civilian needs an AK-47 for a legitimate purpose, but you can buy one online for $379.99. Guns could be made much safer, with the mandatory fitting of child-proof locks. A system of registration for guns and gun-owners, as exists in all other rich countries, threatens no one but the criminal. Cooling-off periods, a much more open flow of intelligence, tighter rules on the trading of guns and a wider blacklist of those ineligible to buy them would all help. Many of these things are being done by cities or states, and have worked fairly well. But jurisdictions with tough rules are undermined by neighbours with weak ones. Only an effort at the federal level will work. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, has put together a coalition of no fewer than 180 mayors to fight for just that. Good luck to him.

[此试题无题干]

中华民族是由56个民族组成的大家庭。自古以来，我国各族人民就劳动、生息、繁衍在祖国的土地上，共同为中华文明和建立统一的多民族国家贡献自己的才智。悠久的中华文化，成为维系民族团结和国家统一的牢固纽带。 中华文明经历了5000多年的历史变迁，始终一脉相承，代表着中华民族独特的精神标识，为中华民族生生不息、发展壮大提供了丰厚滋养。随着中国经济社会不断发展，中华文明也必将顺应时代发展焕发出更加蓬勃的生命力。

Labour is often accused of rushing through ill-considered laws whenever its appearance of competence is cracking. The mental-health bill, which came back to the House of Commons from the Lords this week, hardly fits this pattern. Discussions about a new law began nine years ago, not long after Michael Stone, who suffered from a personality disorder, killed a mother and her daughter with a hammer while they were walking down a lane in Kent. Since then the bill has been introduced, thrown out, brought back, re-worded and tinkered with. And yet it still sets the Mental Health Alliance, which represents 80 organisations that think the bill represents a sinister grab at civil liberties, against the government, which says that those who oppose it are guaranteeing a "right to suicide" by allowing patients of precarious stability to go untreated. Two questions are at the root of the conflict. The first is whether patients who are able to make decisions about their own treatment should sometimes be compelled to take medication. The second is whether people with illnesses that may not respond to treatment should be forced to try anyway. The answer to the question of how far the state should deprive people of their liberty for their own sake and for the sake of everyone else is likely to affect mental-health care not just in England (Scotland and Wales have different systems), but in the rest of Europe too, where England is seen as a model of how to look after the mentally ill. Sick people can be treated either in hospitals or outside them. Britain decided earlier than elsewhere that outside was better. Care in the community, as this is known, has meant a reduction in the number of beds in grim psychiatric hospitals from 150,000 in 1950 to 30,000 now. It was underfunded to begin with, and "the community" sometimes meant a flat next to a motorway rather than a cosy family home. But things have improved over the past ten years. Whereas other west European countries tend to have a single community mental-health team, England has three: one to go out and look for people who have a history of illness; another that concentrates on young people who have become ill for the first time; and a third to treat people at home. Matt Muijen, who studies different systems from his vantage point at the World Health Organisation, reckons that "England is ten years ahead of the rest of Europe". There are still plenty of problems. Lots of mentally-ill people end up behind bars: they constitute some 80% of female prisoners, according to the Howard League, a charity. And patients being cared for at home frequently fail to take their medicines, some of which can have unpleasant side effects. This often leads to a crisis, or worse: some 1,200 patients kill themselves each year. There is also a risk to others as schizophrenics, for example, account for 1% of the population and 5% of murders. When care at home breaks down,, the mentally ill go back to hospital and the cycle begins again. One of the bill's proposals, the introduction of Community Treatment Orders, aims at breaking it. A patient who is deprived of his liberty and taken into hospital, regains it on release. Under the government's plan, a psychiatrist would then assess the patient and decide if nurses should be given the power to try to make sure he takes the pills prescribed, sending him back to hospital if he does not. Each order would be reviewed by a tribunal each year. Doctors in most states in America and in Australia already have this power. Psychiatrists in Scotland gained it in 2005. But compelling patients to take medicines when they may be well enough to decide they do not want to makes doctors nervous. Some patients may prefer the ups and downs of their ill selves to their humdrum medicated versions. The provision in the bill for psychiatrists to supervise people with personality disorders that, unlike schizophrenia or depression, may not respond to treatment, is controversial too. Most psychiatrists are aware that the history of their profession includes a spell as gaolers to the awkward and the extraordinary and do not want to reprise that role. Yet the case for the bill is strong enough to sway some libertarians. For the choice is not between treating patients in institutions and allowing them to roam free, but between treating them in hospital or outside. If the latter is to be made to work, some of the compulsory features of hospitals may have to come into the home.

BA: Spot DictationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear a passage and read the same passage with blanks in it. Fill in each of the blanks with the word or words you have heard on the tape. Write your answer in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. Remember you will hear the passage ONLY ONCE./B

Educators have known for 30 years that students perform better when given one-on-one tutoring and mastery learning—working on a subject until it is mastered, not just until a test is scheduled. Success also requires motivation, whether from an inner drive or from parents, mentors or peers. Will the rise of massive open online courses(MOOCs)quash these success factors? Not at all. In fact, digital tools offer our best path to cost-effective, personalized learning. I know because I have taught both ways. For years Sebastian Thrun and I have given artificial-intelligence courses at Stanford University and other schools; we lectured, assigned homework and gave everyone the same exam at the same time. Each semester just 5 to 10 percent of students regularly engaged in deep discussions in class or office hours; the rest were more passive. We felt there had to be a better way. So, in the fall of 2011, we tried something new. In addition to our traditional classroom, we created a free online course open to anyone. On our first try, we attracted a city's worth of participants— about 100,000 engaged with the course, and 23,000 finished. Inspired by Nobel laureate Herbert Simon's comment that "learning results from what the student does and thinks and only from what the student does and thinks," we created a course centered on the students doing things and getting frequent feedback. Our "lectures" were short(two- to six-minute)videos designed to prime the attendees for doing the next exercise. Some problems required the application of mathematical techniques described in the videos. Others were open-ended questions that gave students a chance to think on their own and then to hash out ideas in online discussion forums. Our scheme to help make learning happen actively, rather than passively, created many benefits akin to tutoring—and helped to increase motivation. First, as shown in a 2013 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, frequent interactions keep attention from wandering. Second, as William B. Wood and Kimberly D. Tanner describe in a 2012 Life Sciences Education paper, learning is enhanced when students work to construct their own explanations, rather than passively listening to the teacher's. That is why a properly designed automated intelligent tutoring system can foster learning outcomes as well as human instructors can, as Kurt van Lehn found in a 2011 meta-analysis in Educational Psychologist. A final key advantage was the rapid improvement of the course itself. We analyzed the junctures where our thousands of students succeeded or failed and found where our course needed fine-tuning. Better still, we could capture this information on an hour-by-hour basis. For our class, human teachers analyzed the data, but an artificial-intelligence system could perform this function and then make recommendations for what a pupil could try next to improve—as online shopping sites today make automated recommendations for what book or movie you might enjoy. Online learning is a tool, just as the textbook is a tool. The way the teacher and the student use the tool is what really counts.

峨眉山下，伏虎寺旁，有一种蝴蝶，比最美丽的蝴蝶可能还要美丽些，是峨眉山最珍贵的特产之一。 当它阖起两张翅膀的时候，像生长在树枝上的一张干枯了的树叶。谁也不去注意它，谁也不会瞧它一眼。 它收敛了它的花纹，图案，隐藏了它的粉墨、色彩，逸出了繁华的花丛，停止了它翱翔的姿态，变成了一张憔悴的，干枯了的，甚至不是枯黄的，而是枯槁的，如同死灰颜色的枯叶。 它这样伪装，是为了保护自己。但是它还是逃不脱被捕捉的命运。不仅因为它的美丽，更因为它那用来隐蔽它的美丽的枯槁与憔悴。

In early June, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—the club of the world's wealthy and almost wealthy nations—released a 208-page document perversely titled Pensions at a Glance. Inside is a rundown of how generous OECD members are to their burgeoning ranks of retirees. The US is near the bottom, with the average wage earner able to count on a government-mandated pension for just 52.4% of what he got (after taxes) in his working days—and higher-income workers even less. But the picture at the other end of the scale (dominated by Continental Europe) is misleading. Most of these governments haven't put aside money for pensions. As the ranks of retirees grow and workforces do not, countries will have to either renege on commitments or tax the hides off future workers. What the OECD data seem to suggest is that you can run a retirement plan that's fiscally sound but stingy, or you can make big promises that will eventually go sour. The US fits mostly in the former category—for all the gnashing of teeth about Social Security, its funding problems are modest by global standards. But is that really the choice? Actually, no. At least one country appears to have found a better way. In the Netherlands—"the globe's No. 1 pensions country," says influential retirement-plan consultant Keith Ambachtsheer—the average retiree can count on a pension equal to 96.8% of his working income. Ample money is set aside to fund pensions, and it is invested prudently but not timidly. Companies contribute to employees' accounts but aren't stuck with profit-killing obligations if their business shrinks or the stock market tanks. The Dutch have steered a middle way between irresponsible Continental generosity and practical Anglo-American stinginess. They have also, to lapse into pension jargon, split the difference between DB and DC plans. In a defined-benefit (DB) plan, workers are promised a retirement income, and the sponsor—usually a corporation or government—is on the hook to provide it. In a defined-contribution (DC) plan, the worker and sometimes the employer set aside money and hope it will be enough. The big problem with DB is that sponsors are prone to lowball or ignore the true cost. In the US, where corporate pensions provide a key supplement to Social Security, Congress has felt the need to pass multiple laws aimed at preventing companies from underfunding them. In response, some companies spent billions shoring up their funds; many others simply stopped offering pensions. Just since 2004, at least 66 big companies have frozen or terminated their DB plans, estimates Barclays Global Investors. Corporate DB has given way to individual DC plans like the 401 (k) and IRA, But these put too much responsibility on the shoulders of individual workers. Many don't save enough money, and those who do set aside enough earn returns that are on average much lower than those of pension funds. The Netherlands, like the US, has long relied on workplace pensions to supplement its government plan. The crucial difference is that these pensions were mandatory. Smaller employers had to band together to make a go of it, and industry-wide funds became standard. Run more as independent cooperatives than as captive corporate divisions, the Dutch funds were less prone to underfunding than their US counterparts. When they nonetheless ran into financial trouble in 2002 after the stock market crashed and interest rates sank, the country came up with a unique response. The Dutch funds are now no longer on the hook for providing a set income in retirement no matter what happens to financial markets—that is, they've gone DC—but they didn't shunt everything to individual workers. Risks are shared by all the members of a pension fund, and the money is managed by professionals. Pension consultant Ambachtsheer argues that this "collective DC" is just what the US needs. Many companies here are improving 401 (k)s to give employees more guidance, and there's talk in Washington of supplementing (not supplanting) Social Security with near mandatory retirement accounts. But even those changes would fall well short of going Dutch. Countries don't always set aside enough money to pay for the pensions they promise.

[此试题无题干]

春节是我国民问最隆重、最热闹的一个传统节日。春节时，家家户户都要做充足的准备。节前十天左右，人们就开始忙碌着采购年货，为小孩子们添置新衣新帽，准备过年时穿。另外，节前人们会在家门口贴上红纸写成的春联，屋里张贴色彩鲜艳、寓意吉祥的年画，窗户上贴着窗花，门前挂上大红灯笼或贴“福”字。“福”字还可以倒贴，路人一念福倒了，也就意味着福气到了。