单选题 Directions: In this section, you will read several passages. Each one is followed by several questions about it. You are to choose ONE best answer, (A), (B), (C), or (D), to each question. Answer all the questions following each passage on the basis of what is stated or implied in that passage and write the letter of the answer you have chosen, in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. The study of management is at a turning point. What began as the study of "best practice" among large manufacturing firms has grown to encompass specialized fields ranging from finance to government. As the subject matter has changed, so has the role played by its masters. Business schools and management consultants used to spend most of their time training the inexperienced, bringing them up to speed on case studies of "excellent" companies. Now they also create their own theories to challenge the wisdom of businessmen. And those theories have the power to change the ways in which even the best companies do business. The new scope and power of management theories have created an identity crisis. Are teachers of management like historians, distilling the wisdom of the world into a form that others can absorb and imitate? Or are they innovators, changing the world with their new theories and ideas? And, if they are to be innovators, what are to be the doctrine and dogma from which their theories spring? Bright management ideas abound, but two factors make it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. One is the "Hawthorne effect". Early in the twentieth century, managers at General Electric's Hawthorne plant began a study of how better lighting might increase productivity. They turned up the lights. Productivity went up. For exactitude, they also turned down the lights, expecting productivity to fall. It didn't; it went again. In fact, just about anything done to the Hawthorne workers increased productivity. They liked the attention. Given workers' ability to respond positively to extra attention—however abjectly lunatic and misguided—a fallback criterion for measuring the success of a management theory is profits. But here the past seven years of steady economic growth, combined with roaring bull markets, have shown virtually all business ideas in their kindest light. For the time being, professors themselves are left with great leeway to decide which ideas are worth teaching and which are best forgotten. But the perspectives from which they make such decisions are changing fast. Management schools first started cropping up in America at the tuna of the century. Their role was to mould a new type of top manager to run a new type of corporation: the diversified manufacturer. Paragon of the new breed of company was General Motors—as redesigned by Alfred Sloan, who also founded the Sloan School of Management at MIT. To tap economies of scale and scope GM was one of the first firms to organize management by function, creating a finance department, a marketing department, an engineering department and so on. This new organization, in turn, required a new breed of manager at the top—where the functional divisions came together—who could get the most out of the vast and specialized resources spread out beneath him. The new breed of magnate had to understand the various skills he commanded, from finance to manufacturing. Few had time to gain all that knowledge on shop—and trading-room-floors. The new managers also had to be able to translate their knowledge into a common language, which often meant the rows and columns of management accounting. And, because of the complexity of their empires, they had to be more conscious of the theory and practice of organization. In many ways, the logical culmination of this management philosophy was Harlod Geneen of ITT (MBA, Harvard). He created a vast conglomerate based on "management by numbers"—the idea that if one could read management accounts right, one could manage just about anything. But neither conglomerateers nor big manufacturers have had an easy time of late. Not only have economies shifted towards service industries, but the turbulence of recent years has encouraged the break-up of big firms into smaller chunks. Though the required "core" curriculum of most business schools still prepares graduates for life in a firm like GM, only a minority of MBAs now go into big manufacturing companies. Some of the best-publicized successors to Harold Geneen's manage-by-numbers philosophy have drifted into the mergers and acquisitions departments of investment banks. Others have scattered across the world of business. If today's MBA can be said to have a typical career, he would begin in finance or consulting and end up founding a business. Business schools, meanwhile, encourage diversity by expanding the number of subjects which they teach. Though programs vary greatly, most MBA curricula can be divided roughly into three parts: a core curriculum of required subjects; a specialized subject that the MBA studies in greater depth; and the educational process itself, which emphasizes the sort of teamwork that MBAs will have to adopt in the real world. The core curriculum includes the facts and skills which every MBA must master. At most business schools it includes marketing (how to discover who might want to buy your product and why), finance (how to get and use capital), management accounting (how to keep financiers abreast of how you are doing), organization (how to create teams that work), manufacturing (how to tell people who make things what to do), and information technology (what computers can do). By the standards of any other graduate program, much of the core MBA is remarkably rudimentary. Business-school students are not expected to know what a bond is, or a share. Accounting courses do not take for granted even the basic principles of double-entry bookkeeping, let alone the basics of reading a balance sheet. Though the level of these courses is a humbling reminder of the lack of business education elsewhere—the average 18-year-old in America or Britain probably knows more about nuclear physics than about business—it can hardly justify MBAs high salaries and high-flying reputations. For that, MBAs must rely on their specialized studies and the sheer process of MBA instruction. Mr. David Norburn, head of the MBA program of London's Imperial College, is fond of ribbing his students and staff with the argument that his school might as usefully offer a "Masters of Advanced Plumbing" as an MBA. Much of the real value of an MBA, he argues, lies in recreating in MBA studies the feeling of working in business. Problems are structured so that they can be solved only by teams. Pressure is kept high. There is never enough time or information to reach definite conclusions, encouraging inspired guessing and "quality bluffing". And, at the end of the day, there is no pretence of sharing rewards equally among the team—an individual takes the best prizes. For employers, the best part of an MBA often lies in his specialized training. Given inflation into the technicalities of, say, bond trading or market analysis, an MBA can often go straight to work at a level which untrained colleagues may take a year or more to reach on the job. Better, he can bring new ideas to an organization; most home-grown experts cannot. So it is no surprise that some of the most frantic innovation in business schools is the fine- tuning of specialized curricula, and the introduction of new special subjects. The dean of the Stanford School of Business, Mr. Robert Jaedicke, has compiled a list of the new features proposed for tomorrow's MBAs. It includes: Globalization. As competition increasingly ignores national boundaries, so too must managers. That means that managers must be able to build teams which include various nationalities working side by side. Regulation. Governments and regulatory agencies from GATT to America's Food and Drug Administration—play a growing role in defining how businesses compete. Managers must be increasingly good at working with (or around) them. Ethics and social responsibility. Businesses have gradually assumed a broad social and political role. They are patrons of the arts. They have become embroiled in social and political change—e. g., in the controversy over apartheid in South Africa and, at home, in "affirmative action programmes" to promote minorities. That means that managers must become sophisticated about balancing their duties to shareholders with their social roles. How will business schools get all this new knowledge? Mr. Jaedicke, for one, plans to borrow it from other parts of his university. He is now trying to get political scientists interested in the problems of business and regulation. He wonders whether, in a few years, he might be recruiting moral philosophers to help businessmen sort out their ethics. Borrowing, he argues, is how management theory grows most healthily—witness the transformation that economists recruited by business schools in the 1960s have wrought on financial markets.

单选题A.Millerwaslovedbyherparents.B.Millerwaslovedbyhersisters.C.Millerwaslovedbyherbrothers.D.Millerenjoyedahappylifeasachild.

单选题Questions 11-15 Yet the difference in tone and language must strike us, so soon as it is philosophy that speaks: that change should remind us that even if the function of religion and that of reason coincide, this function is performed in the two cases by very different organs. Religions are many, reason one. Religion consists of conscious ideas, hopes, enthusiasms, and objects of worship; it operates by grace and flourishes by prayer. Reason, on the other hand, is a mere principle or potential order, on which indeed we may come to reflect but which exists in us ideally only, without variation or stress of any kind. We conform or do not conform to it; it does not urge or chide us, not call for any emotions on our part other than those naturally aroused by the various objects which it unfolds in their true nature and proportion. Religion brings some order into life by weighting it with new materials. Reason adds to the natural materials only the perfect order which it introduces into them. Rationality is nothing but a form, an ideal constitution which experience may more or less embody. Religion is a part of experience itself, a mass of sentiments and ideas. The one is an inviolate principle, the other a changing and struggling force. And yet this struggling and changing force of religion seems to direct man toward something eternal. It seems to make for an ultimate harmony within the soul and for an ultimate harmony between the soul and all that the soul depends upon. Religion, in its intent, is a more conscious and direct pursuit of the Life of Reason than is society, science, or art, for these approach and fill out the ideal life tentatively and piecemeal, hardly regarding the goal or caring for the ultimate justification of the instinctive aims. Religion also has an instinctive and blind side and bubbles up in all manner of chance practices and intuitions; soon, however, it feels its way toward the heart of things, and from whatever quarter it may come, veers in the direction of the ultimate. Nevertheless, we must confess that this religious pursuit of the Life of Reason has been singularly abortive. Those within the pale of each religion may prevail upon themselves, to express satisfaction with its results, thanks to a fond partiality in reading the past and generous draughts of hope for the future; but any one regarding the various religions at once and comparing their achievements with what reason requires, must feel how terrible is the disappointment which they have one and all prepared for mankind. Their chief anxiety has been to offer imaginary remedies for mortal ills, some of which are incurable essentially, while others might have been really cured by well-directed effort. The Greed oracles, for instance, pretended to heal our natural ignorance, which has its appropriate though difficult cure, while the Christian vision of heaven pretended to be an antidote to our natural death--the inevitable correlate of birth and of a changing and conditioned existence. By methods of this sort little can be done for the real betterment of life. To confuse intelligence and dislocate sentiment by gratuitous fictions is a short-sighted way of pursuing happiness. Nature is soon avenged. An unhealthy exaltation and a one-sided morality have to be followed by regrettable reactions. When these come, the real rewards of life may seem vain to a relaxed vitality, and the very name of virtue may irritate young spirits untrained in and natural excellence. Thus religion too often debauches the morality it comes to sanction and impedes the science it ought to fulfill. What is the secret of this ineptitude? Why does religion, so near to rationality in its purpose, fall so short of it in its results? The answer is easy: religion pursues rationality through the imagination. When it explains events or assigns causes, it is an imaginative substitute for science. When it gives precepts, insinuates ideals, or remolds aspiration, it is an imaginative substitute for wisdom--I mean for the deliberate and impartial pursuit of all good. The condition and the aims of life are both represented in religion poetically, but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it possesses. Hence the depth and importance of religion becomes intelligible no less than its contradictions and practical disasters. Its object is the same as that of reason, but its method is to proceed by intuition and by unchecked poetical conceits.

单选题 {{B}}Questions 23—26{{/B}}

单选题

单选题 Questions 15～18

单选题Questions 16 to 20 are based on the following talk.

单选题 Questions 16～20 Whole families of musicians are not exactly rare. However, it is unusual to come across one that includes not only writers and performers of music, but also an instrument maker. When South Wales schoolteachers John and Hetty Watkins needed to get their ten-year-old son, Paul, a cello to suit his blossoming talents, they baulked at the costs involved. "We had a look at various dealers and it was obvious it was going to be very expensive," John says. "So I wondered if I could actually make one. I discovered that the Welsh School of Instrument Making was not far from where I lived, and I went along for evening classes once a week for about three years. " "After probably three or four goes with violins and violas, he had a crack at his first cello," Paul, now 28, adds. "It turned out really well. He made me another one a bit later, when he'd got the hang of it. And that's the one I used right up until a few months ago. " John has since retired as a teacher to work as a full-time craftsman, and makes up to a dozen violins a year—selling one to the esteemed American player Jaime Laredo was "the icing on the cake". Both Paul and his younger brother, Huw, were encouraged to play music from an early age. The piano came first: "As soon as I was big enough to climb up and bang the keys, that's what I did," Paul remembers. But it wasn't long before the cello beckoned. "My folks were really quite keen for me to take up the violin, because Dad, who played the voila, used to play chamber music with his mates and they needed another violin to make up a string trio. I learned it for about six weeks but didn't take to it. But I really took to the character who played the cello in Dad's group. I thought he was a very cool guy when I was six or seven. So he said he'd give me some lessons, and that really started it all off. Later, they suggested that my brother play the violin too, but he would have none of it. " "My parents were both supportive and relaxed," Huw says. "I don't think I would have responded very well to being pushed. And, rather than feeling threatened by Paul's success, I found that I had something to aspire to. " Now 22, he is beginning to make his own mark as a pianist and composer. Soon Paul will be seen on television playing the Ruggeri as the soloist in Elgar's Cello Concerto, which forms the heart of the second programme in the new series Masterworks. "The well-known performance history doesn't affect the way I play the work," he says. "I'm always going to do it my way. " But Paul won't be able to watch himself on television—the same night he is playing at the Cheltenham Festival. Nor will Huw, whose String Quartet is receiving its London premiere at the Wigmore Hall the same evening. John and Hetty will have to be diplomatic and energetic—if they are to keep track of all their sons' musical activities over the coming weeks.

单选题Can you spot a good marriage? I was pretty sure I could, starting with my own. My husband and I rarely argued, we had similar careers, and we shared common interests. So nobody was more surprised than we were when our 17-year marriage ended in divorce. It turns out I had been judging my marriage by the wrong standards-as most of us do. In one famous study, researchers asked therapists, married couples, and others to watch videotaped conversations of ten couples and try to identify the relationships that had broken up. Even the therapists guessed wrong half the time. Luckily, scientists have identified some simple but powerful indicators that can help you recognize marital strife long before your relationship hits the skids. For instance, a couple go hiking on their first date. They marry, and years later, the wife tells this story: "We got terribly lost that day. It took us hours to find our way back, but we laughed about how neither of us had a good sense of direction. After that, we knew not to plan another hiking trip!" Another wife might tell it a different way: "He lost the map, and it took hours to find our way back. After that, I never wanted to go hiking again." The keeper marriage? The one in which the positive is accentuated and the problems laughed off. Research shows that it"s not what you say but how you say it: Your emphasis will correctly predict the success or failure of your marriage about 90 percent of the time. To size up your relationship, ask yourself these questions. Do you: Avoid arguments? Studies show it"s a mistake to judge a relationship by the amount of time you argue, especially early on. When I was first married, I felt lucky that my husband and I rarely fought. A University of Washington study of newlywed couples appeared to confirm my belief: It showed that couples who argued relatively little were happier than combative ones. When the same couples were checked three years later, however, those with an early history of bickering were more likely to have found stability in their marriages, whereas couples who prided themselves on their equanimity were in troubled relationships or already divorced. Of course, violence or verbal abuse is never acceptable. Roll your eyes? This seemingly harmless gesture is a clear sign of marital discord. The same researchers at the University of Washington found that eye rolling, even when accompanied by a laugh or smile, indicates some degree of contempt—poison to a relationship. "This kind of sarcastic gesture doesn"t clearly state an objection, which makes it difficult for the other person to respond," says Janice Kiecolt-Glaser at the Ohio State University College of Medicine. "The obvious first step is to stop the behavior. But the second is to explore the reasons behind it." Duck decisions? I often deferred to my husband when it came to making weekend or vacation plans. Later I realized our social life didn"t reflect my favourite activities—a relationship red flag. Psychologist Howard Markman, a professor at the University of Denver, agrees. It"s risky for your relationship when one of you controls the social agenda, he says.

单选题Questions 21～25 While other members of my team explored the wreck of a small Greek merchant ship that sank off the Turkish coast more than 2,400 years ago, I hovered above them in a submarine. One diver, an archaeologist, placed an amphora, or two-handled jar, inside a lifting basket. Another vacuumed sediment from the site by fanning sand into the mouth of a nearly vertical pipe. Two more were taking measurements, carefully, but of necessity quickly, for at this depth each diver had only 20 minutes to complete the morning's assigned task. Any longer, and they would require lengthy medical treatment, to avoid the divers' ailment known as the bends. In four decades of diving on shipwrecks, I' d been too engrossed in carrying out similar tasks to think of the families whose loved ones may have disappeared long ago. I had always concentrated on the technical features of my trade. I had stopped diving regularly 15 years before this exploration, turning over the bulk of the underwater work to a younger generation, but I continue to make inspection dives on most wrecks we excavate. This was not just any wreck. Although I've been involved in uncovering the remains of much older ships, and of more than a hundred ancient shipwrecks along the Turkish coast. I had never even seen a wreck from the fifth century BC. Preliminary photographs of the cargo dated it to the third quarter of the century, during the Golden Age of classical Greece. Athens, then as now the major city in Greece, controlled an empire stretching from one side of the Aegean Sea to the other. None of this would have been possible without naval might and maritime commerce. During our three-year exploration of the wreck we excavated examples of nearly every type of jar that the classical Greeks made for wine or water. Many types might have been used as tableware by the ship's crew, but they were far in excess of what would have been required. We concluded therefore that they must have been cargo. We also discovered in the seabed two marble discs, which we guessed were the ship's eyes. It has long been known from vase paintings that classical Greek ships—like those from other cultures—had eyes to give them life or help them see their way through the waves. Although warships were known to have had naturalistic marble eyes attached to them, most scholars assumed that the eyes on more modest merchant ships were depicted as simple circles painted onto the sides of the vessel. Did the sailors who depended on these eyes for safety survive the ship's last voyage? They could have lived through the actual sinking. The ship was less than a hundred yards from land when it sank, so they might have swum towards the shore. And we know from Greek literature that some ships had lifeboats. But proximity to land and having lifeboats are no guarantee of safety. Even if some had swum to shore, it's hard to imagine that many managed to crawl up on the exposed and sharp rocks while being smashed by waves like those that almost certainly sank their ship.

单选题A.Theyareinterestedinotherkindsofreading.B.Theyareactiveinvoluntaryservices.C.Theytendtobelowineducationandinincome.D.Theyliveinisolatedareas.

单选题{{B}}Statements{{/B}}{{B}}Directions:{{/B}} In this part of the test, you will hear several short statements. These statements will be spoken {{B}}ONLY ONCE,{{/B}} and you will not find them written on the paper; so you must listen carefully. When you hear a statement, read the answer choices and decide which one is closest in meaning to the statement you have heard. Then write the letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your {{B}}ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

单选题Questions 1-5 In the case of mobile phones, change is everything. Recent research indicates that the mobile phone is changing not only our culture, but our very bodies as well. First, let"s talk about culture. The difference between the mobile phone and its parent, the fixed-line phone, you get whoever answers it. This has several implications. The most common one, however, and perhaps the thing that has changed our culture forever, is the "meeting" influence. People no longer need to make firm plans about when and where to meet. Twenty years ago, a Friday night would need to be arranged in advance. You needed enough time to allow everyone to get from their place of work to the first meeting place. Now, however, a night out can be arranged on the run. It is no longer "see you there at 8", but "text-me around 8 and we"ll see where we all are". Texting changes people as well. In their paper, "Insights into the Social and Psychological Effects of SMS Text Messaging", two British researchers distinguished between two types of mobile phone users: the "talkers" and the "texters"--those who prefer voice to text message and those who prefer text to voice. They found that the mobile phone"s individuality and privacy gave texters the ability to express a whole new outer personality. Texters were likely to report that their family would be surprised if they were to read their texts. This suggests that texting allowed texters to present a self-image that differed from the one familiar to those who knew them well. Another scientist wrote of the changes that mobiles have brought to body language. There are two kinds that people use while speaking on the phone. There is the "speakeasy": the head is held high, in a self-confident way, chatting away. And there is the "spacemaker": these people focus on themselves and keep out other people. Who can blame them? Phone meetings get cancelled or reformed and camera-phones intrude on people"s privacy. So, it is understandable if your mobile makes you nervous. But perhaps you needn"t worry so much. After all, it is good to talk.

单选题

单选题Questions 15—18

单选题Questions 1 to 5 are based on the following conversation.

单选题 Directions: In this part of the test there will be some short talks and conversations. After each one, you will be asked some questions. The talks, conversations and questions will be spoken ONLY ONCE. Now listen carefully and choose the right answer to each question you have heard and write the letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. Questions 1 to 5 are based on the following conversation.

单选题Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following interview.