单选题[此试题无题干]
单选题Questions 11-15
I am one of the many city people who are always saying that given the choice we would prefer to live in the country away from the dirt and noise of a large city. I have managed to convince myself that if it weren"t for my job I would immediately head out for the open spaces and go back to nature in some sleepy village buried in the country. But how realistic is the dream?
Cities can be frightening places. The majority of the population lives in massive tower blocks, noisy, dirty and impersonal. The sense of belonging to a community tends to disappear when you live fifteen floors up. All you can see from your window is sky, or other blocks of flats. Children become aggressive and nervous--cooped up at home all day, with nowhere to play; their mothers feel isolated from the rest of the world. Strangely enough, whereas in the past the inhabitants of one street all knew each other, nowadays people on the same floor in tower blocks don"t even say hello to each other.
Country life, on the other hand, differs from this kind of isolated existence in that a sense of community generally binds the inhabitants of small villages together. People have the advantage of knowing that there is always someone to turn to when they need help. But country life has disadvantages too. While it is true that you may be among friends in a village, it is also true that you are cut off from the exciting and important events that take place in cities. There"s little possibility of going to a new show or the latest movie. Shopping becomes a major problem, and for anything slightly out of the ordinary you have to go on an expedition to the nearest large town. The city- dweller who leaves for the country is often oppressed by a sense of unbearable stillness and quiet.
What, then, is the answer? The country has the advantage of peace and quiet, but suffers from the disadvantage of being cut off. the city breeds a feeling of isolation, and constant noise batters the senses. But one of its main advantages is that you are at the centre of things, and that life doesn"t come to an end at half-past nine at night. Some people have found (or rather bought) a compromise between the two.. they have expressed their preference for the "quiet life" by leaving the suburbs and moving to villages within commuting distance of large cities. They generally have about as much sensitivity as the plastic flowers they leave behind--they are polluted with strange ideas about change and improvement which they force on to the unwilling original inhabitants of the villages.
What then of my dreams of leaning on a cottage gate and murmuring "morning" to the locals as they pass by. I"m keen on the idea, but you see there"s my cat, Toby. I"m not at all sure that he would take to all that fresh air and exercise in the long grass. I mean, can you see him mixing with all those hearty males down the farm? No, he would rather have the electric imitation-coal fire any evening.
单选题Questions 1 to 5 are based on the following conversation.
单选题On New Year's Day, 50,000 inmates in Kenyan jails went without lunch. This was not some mass hunger strike to highlight poor living conditions. It was an extraordinary humanitarian gesture: the money that would have been spent on their lunches went to the charity Food Aid to help feed an estimated 3.5 million Kenyans who, because of a severe drought, are threatened with starvation. The drought is big news in Africa, affecting huge areas of east Africa and the Horn. If you are reading this in the west, however, you may not be aware of it—the media is not interested in old stories. Even if you do know about the drought, you may not be aware that it is devastating one group of people disproportionately: the pastoralists. There are 20 million nomadic or semi-nomadic herders in this region, and they are fast becoming some of the poorest people in the continent. Their plight encapsulates Africa's perennial problem with drought and famine. How so? It comes down to the reluctance of governments, aid agencies and foreign lenders to support the herders' traditional way of life. Instead they have tended to try to turn them into commercial ranchers or agriculturalists, even though it has been demonstrated time and again that pastoralists are well adapted to their harsh environments, and that moving livestock according to the seasons or climatic changes makes their methods far more viable than agriculture in sub-Saharan dry-lands. Furthermore, African pastoralist systems are often more productive, in terms of protein and cash per hectare, than Australian, American and other African ranches in similar climatic conditions. They make a substantial contribution to their countries' national economies. In Kenya, for example, the turnover of the pastoralist sector is worth $800 million per year. In countries such as Burkina Faso, Eritrea and Ethiopia, hides from pastoralists' herds make up over 10 per cent of export earnings. Despite this productivity, pastoralists still starve and their animals perish when drought hits. One reason is that only a trickle of the profits goes to the herders themselves; the lion's share is pocketed by traders. This is partly because the herders only sell much of their stock during times of drought and famine, when they need the cash to buy food, and the terms of trade in this situation never work in their favour. Another reason is the lack of investment in herding areas. Funding bodies such as the World Bank and USAID tried to address some of the problems in the 1960s, investing millions of dollars in commercial beef and dairy production. It didn't work. Firstly, no one bothered to consult the pastoralists about what they wanted. Secondly, rearing livestock took precedence over human progress. The policies and strategies of international development agencies more or less mirrored the thinking of their colonial predecessors. They were based on two false assumptions, that pastoralism is primitive and inefficient, which led to numerous failed schemes aimed at converting herders to modern ranching models; and that Africa's dry-lands can support commercial ranching. They cannot. Most of Africa's herders live in areas with unpredictable weather systems that are totally unsuited to commercial ranching. What the pastoralists need is support for their traditional lifestyle. Over the past few years, founders and policy-makers have been starting to get the message. One example is intervention by governments to ensure that pastoralists get fair prices for their cattle when they sell them in times of drought, so that they can afford to buy fodder for their remaining livestock and cereals to keep themselves and their families alive (the problem in African famines is not so much a lack of food as a lack of money to buy it). Another example is a drought early-warning system run by the Kenyan government and the World Bank that has helped avert livestock deaths. This is all promising, but more needs to be done. Some African governments still favour forcing pastoralists to settle. They should heed the latest scientific research demonstrating the productivity of traditional cattle-herding. Ultimately, sustainable rural development in pastoralist areas will depend on increasing trade, so one thing going for them is the growing demand for livestock products, there will likely be an additional 2 billion consumers worldwide by 2020, the vast majority in developing countries. To ensure that pastoralists benefit, it will be crucial to give them a greater say in local policies. Other key tasks include giving a greater say to women, who play critical roles in livestock production. The rich world should pay proper attention to the plight of the pastoralists. Leaving them dependent on foreign food aid is unsustainable and will lead to more resentment, conflict, environmental degradation and malnutrition. It is in the rich world's interests to help out.
单选题
The timing of market entry is critical
to the success of a new product. A company has two alternatives: it can compete
to enter a new product market first—otherwise known as "pioneering"—or it can
wait for a competitor to take the lead, and then follow once the market has been
established. Despite the limitations of existing research, nobody denies that
there are advantages to being a pioneering company. Over the years, there has
been a good deal of evidence to show a performance advantage for
pioneers. For many new products, customers are initially unsure
about the contribution of product characteristics and features to the products'
value. Preferences for different characteristics and their desired levels are
learned over time. This enables the pioneering company to shape customer
preferences in its favour. It sets the standard to which customers refer in
evaluating followers' products. The pioneering product can become the classic or
"original" product for the whole category, opening up a flood of similar
products onto the market, as exemplified by Walkman and Polaroid.
The pioneering product is a bigger novelty when it appears on the market,
and is therefore more likely than those that follow to capture customer and
distributor attention. In addition, a pioneer's advertising is not mixed up with
competitors' campaigns. Even in the long term, followers must continue to spend
more on advertising to achieve the same effect as pioneers. The pioneers can set
standards for distribution, occupy the best locations or select the best
distributors, which can give them easier access to customers. For example, in
many US cities the coffee chain Starbucks, as the first to market, was able to
open coffee bars in better known locations than its competitors. In many
industrial markets, distributors are not keen to take on second and third
products, particularly when the product is technically complex or requires large
inventories of spare parts. "Switching costs" arise when
investments are required in order to switch to another product. For example,
many people have developed skills in using the traditional "qwerty" keyboard.
Changing to the presumably more efficient "dvorak" keyboard would require
relearning how to type, an investment that in many cases would exceed the
expected benefits in efficiency. Switching costs also arise when the quality of
a product is difficult to assess. People who live abroad often experience a
similar "cost" when simple purchase decisions such as buying detergent,
toothpaste or coffee suddenly become harder because the trusted brand from home
is no longer available. Pioneering products have the first chance to become this
trusted brand. Consequently, the companies that follow must work hard to
convince customers to bear the costs and risks of switching to an untried brand
of unknown quality. Unlike other consumer sectors, the value to
customers of many high technology products relies not only on their features but
also on the total number of users. For example, the value of a videophone
depends on the number of people using the same or a compatible system. A pioneer
obviously has the opportunity to build a large user base before competitors
enter the market. This reduces followers' ability to introduce differentiated
products. There are other advantages of a large user base, such as the ability
to share computer files with other users. Thus, software companies are often
willing to give away products to build the market quickly and set a
standard.
单选题Questions 19-22
单选题[此试题无题干]
单选题
单选题Questions 6 to 10 are based on the following news.
单选题[此试题无题干]
单选题Questions 19-22
单选题According to the writer, most people have a desire to ______.
单选题The purpose of the American court system is to protect the rights of the people. According to American law, if someone is accused of a crime, he or she is considered innocent until the court proves that the person is guilty. In other words, it is the responsibility of the court to prove that a person is guilty. It is not the responsibility of the person to prove that he or she is innocent.
In order to arrest a person, the police have to be reasonably sure that a crime has been committed. The police must give the suspect the reasons why they are arresting him and tell him his rights under the law. Then the police take the suspect to the police station to "book" him. "Booking" means that the name of the person and the charges against him are formally listed at the police station.
The next step is for the suspect to go before a judge. The judge decides whether the suspect should be kept in jail or released. If the suspect has no previous criminal record and the judge feels that he will return to court rather than run away — for example, because he owns a house and has a family — he can go free. Otherwise, the suspect must put up bail. At this time, too, the judge will appoint a court layer to defend the suspect if he can"t afford one.
The suspect returns to court a week or two later. A lawyer from the district attorney"s office presents a case against the suspect. This is called a hearing. The attorney may present evidence as well as witnesses. The judge at the hearing then decides whether there is enough reason to hold a trial. If the judge decides that there is sufficient evidence to call for a trial, he or she sets a date for the suspect to appear in court to formally plead guilty or not guilty.
At the trial, a jury of 12 people listens to the evidence from both attorneys and hears the testimony of the witnesses. Then the jury goes into a private room to consider the evidence and decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime. If the jury decides that the defendant is innocent, he goes free. However, if he is convicted, the judge sets a dale for the defendant to appear in court again for sentencing. At this time, the judge tells the convicted person what his punishment will be. The judge may sentence him to prison, order him to pay a fine, or place him on probation.
The American justice system is very complex and sometimes operates slowly. However, every step is designed to protect the rights of the people. These individual rights are the basis, or foundation, of the American government.
单选题Recruiters say that candidates who can give examples of work they have done as members of a successful team are in as strong a position as those who can point to significant individual achievement. Indeed, too much of the latter may suggest that the person concerned is not a "team player"—one of the more serious failings in the book of management.
The importance of being a team player is a side effect of the increasing interaction across departments and functional divides. Instead of pushing reports, paperwork and decisions around the organisation, "teams provide a dynamic meeting place where ideas can be shared and expertise more carefully targeted at important business issues", says Steve Gardner, in his book Key Management Concepts. He adds, "Globalization has added a further dimension to teamwork. Multinational teams now study policy decisions in the light of their impact on the local market."
But is teamworking being overdone? "Some managers are on as many as seven or eight different teams", says Dr. Cathy Bandy, a psychologist who recently ran a conference on the subject, "They take up so much time that managers can"t get on with core tasks". Forming teams and having meetings have, she says, become an end in itself, almost regardless of purpose. There is also the danger of an unhealthy desire to keep the team going after the work has been done. "People feel the need to belong, and team membership can provide a kind of psychological support." The idea behind teamworking is that, when the right group of people is brought together, a "force" develops which is greater than the sum of their individual talents. This is often true in sport, where good players can reach unexpected heights as members of an international team. However, few business situations have as clear a set of objectives, or as clear criteria of success or failure, as winning a match.
"In business, everyone needs to be clear about what the challenge is and whether a team is the right way of approaching it", says Steve Gardner." Unfortunately, people focus instead on who the members of the team should be and what roles they are to play" Dr. Bandy agrees. "There is always a danger that teams can turn into committees," she says. "In a lot of situations, one or two individuals would be much more effective."
So what makes a successful team? There are some general qualities that have been identified. Steve Gardner recommends that in every team there should be someone who is good at researching ideas and another who is good at shooting down impractical ones. There should be those who can resolve the tensions that naturally occur in a team and others who are focused on getting the job done. Also, providing a clear and achievable target at the outset is the best way of ensuring that the team will move on to greater things.
单选题
Questions
27-30
单选题
Questions 11 to 15 are based on
the following interview.
单选题
单选题As soon as the exam was over, the students all went their ______ ways. A. homely B. perspective C. respective D. relative
单选题
单选题