[此试题无题干]

Passage 1

On his 10-day trip to Asia this week, President George W. Bush is likely to get a polite reception for his ambitious agenda. He wants to rally allies to the war on terror, the confrontation with North Korea and the expansion of transpacific trade. He'll be asking Japan and China to allow their currencies to get stronger, so they will find it cheaper to buy more goods from struggling US manufacturers. Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese will say no outright, but they won't say yes, either. Below the polite ambiguities, something disturbing is happening, at least from an American viewpoint. For all its military power, political clout and economic might, America could be losing its influence in what is arguably the most dynamic region of the world. Big changes are happening in Asia, for which America's policies are increasingly out of step. Washington's preoccupations—the mess in Iraq, the jobless recovery and the escalating fiscal deficit at home—are not Asia's preoccupations. When Bush looks into the future, he sees an American Century with a troubled story line dominated by the fight against terror. When Asians look into the future, they see an Asian Century dominated by rising prosperity and the emergence of China, with terror a minor subplot.

{{B}}SECTION 3 TRANSLATION TESTDirections: Translate the following passage into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

Passage 1

For as long as multinational companies have existed—and some historians trace them back to banking under the Knights Templar in 1135—they have been derided by their critics as rapacious rich-world beasts. If there was ever any truth to that accusation, it is fast disappearing. While globalisation has opened new markets to rich-world companies, it has also given birth to a pack of fast-moving, sharp-toothed new multinationals that is emerging from the poor world. Indian and Chinese firms are now starting to give their rich-world rivals a run for their money. So far this year, Indian firms, led by Hindalco and Tata Steel, have bought some 34 foreign companies for a combined $10.7 billion. Indian IT-services companies such as Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services and Wipro are putting the fear of God into the old guard, including Accenture and even mighty IBM. Big Blue sold its personal-computer business to a Chinese multinational, Lenovo, which is now starting to get its act together. PetroChina has become a force in Africa, including, controversially, Sudan. Brazilian and Russian multinationals are also starting to make their mark. The Russians have outdone the Indians this year, splashing $11.4 billion abroad, and are now in the running to buy Alitalia, Italy's state airline. These are very early days, of course. India's Ranbaxy is still minute compared with a branded-drugs maker like Pfizer; China's Haier, a maker of white goods, is a minnow next to Whirlpool's whale. But the new multinationals are bent on the course taken by their counterparts in Japan in the 1980s and South Korea in the 1990s. Just as Toyota and Samsung eventually obliged western multinationals to rethink how to make cars and consumer electronics, so today's young thrusters threaten the veterans wherever they are complacent. The newcomers have some big advantages over the old firms. They are unencumbered by the accumulated legacies of their rivals. Infosys rightly sees itself as more agile than IBM, because when it makes a decision it does not have to weigh the opinions of thousands of highly paid careerists in Armonk, New York. That, in turn, can make a difference in the scramble for talent. Western multinationals often find that the best local people leave for a local rival as soon as they have been trained, because the prospects of rising to the top can seem better at the local firm.But the newcomers' advantages are not overwhelming. Take the difference in company ethics, for instance, which worries plenty of rich-world managers. They fear that they will engage in a race to the botto—with rivals unencumbered by the fine feelings of shareholders and domestic customers, and so are bound to lose. Yet the evidence is that companies harmonise up, not down. In developing countries (never mind what the NGOs say) multinationals tend to spread better working practices and environmental conditions; but when emerging-country multinationals operate in rich countries they tend to adopt local mores. So as those companies globalise, the differences are likely to narrow. Nor is cost as big an advantage to emerging-country multinationals as it might seem. They compete against the old guard on value for money, which depends on both price and quality. A firm like Tata Steel, from low-cost India, would never have bought expensive, Anglo-Dutch Corus were it not for its expertise in making fancy steel. This points to an enduring source of advantage for the wealthy companies under attack. A world that is not governed by cost alone suits them, because they already possess a formidable array of skills, such as managing relations with customers, polishing brands, building up know-how and fostering innovation. The question is how to make these count. Sam Palmisano, IBM's boss, foresees nothing less than the redesign of the multinational company. In his scheme, multinationals began when 19th-century firms set up sales offices abroad for goods shipped from factories at home. Firms later created smaller "Mini Me" versions of the parent company across the world. Now Mr. Palmisano wants to piece together worldwide operations, putting different activities wherever they are done best, paying no heed to arbitrary geographical boundaries. That is why, for example, IBM now has over 50,000 employees in India and ambitious plans for further expansion there. Even as India has become the company's second-biggest operation outside America, it has moved the head of procurement from New York to Shenzhen in China. As Mr. Palmisano readily concedes, this will be the work of at least a generation. Furthermore, rich-country multinationals may struggle to shed nationalistic cultures. IBM is even now trying to wash the starch out of its white-shirted management style. But today, General Electric alone seems able to train enough of its recruits to think as GE people first and Indians, Chinese or Americans second. Lenovo's decision to appoint an American, William Amelio, as its Singapore-based chief executive, under a Chinese chairman, is a hint that some newcomers already understand the way things are going.IBM's approach is possible only because globalisation is flourishing. Many of the barriers that stopped cross-border commerce have fallen. And yet, Mr. Palmisano's idea also depends on the fact that the terrain remains decidedly bumpy. Increasingly, success for a multinational will depend on correctly spotting which places best suit which of the firm's activities. Make the wrong bets and the world's bumps will work against you. And now that judgment, rather than tariff barriers, determines location, picking the right place to invest becomes both harder and more important. Nobody said that coping with a new brood of competitors was going to be easy. Some of today's established multinational companies will not be up to the task. But others will emerge from the encounter stronger than ever. And consumers, wherever they are, will gain from the contest.

{{B}}C: Listening Translation{{/B}}

The number of people emigrating from Ireland is currently estimated at 30,000 annually. There is no doubt that the bulk of young Irish emigrants end up in London. And while some of their problems are unique to this generation, many of them work in the same jobs and live in the same conditions as endless previous generations of emigrants to Britain. While some Irish take their degrees to London and use them to get jobs in the burgeoning service industry, for many others who left school in their teens and experienced months, if not years, of unemployment their second act on reaching London is to sign on for social welfare. Their first, and most difficult, is finding somewhere to live. Social welfare benefits, when they include a rent allowance, are better in England. For a young unemployed man or woman, living at home with little or no unemployment assistance in Ireland, this can seem an attractive proposition, offering independence, a subsistence income and at least the hope of a job in a city where unemployment, while real, is a lot lower than in Ireland. Many young Irish emigrants go straight on the dole when they arrive in England. Some find jobs fairly quickly, others remain on the dole for months. Andrew Fox is living on the dole, and is also in receipt of housing benefit. And he is living in relative comfort, as he's staying in Conway House, the hostel for young Irish men run by the Catholic Church in Kilburn. This costs ￡50 a week for bed and breakfast, arid all the young men there spoke glowingly of the facilities it offers and the welcome they receive from staff. There was a 300 per cent increase in demand for places in this hostel in the first six months of last year. But those who get into Conway House are the lucky ones and there is a six month time limit on residence there. It has a capacity for just 300, a drop in the ocean, and thousands of young Irish emigrants live in squats across north London. The squats are empty houses, many of them owned by the local council. They may be being prepared for sale into the private sector. Sometimes the council boards up the windows or removes the stairs, and the electricity is usually cut off. The conditions vary widely in the squats, from those in houses which are in good condition and where the illegal tenants are painters and decorators and do the place up, to those in bad repair where the squatters live on mattresses on the floors in rooms lit only by candles. If they reconnect the electricity they face arrest and charges for stealing it. Loneliness as well as the need for practical help ensures that many Irish people stick together. One of the subjects discussed at a seminar on emigration in Kilburn was the trauma experienced by Irish emigrants, revealed in statistics which showed a disproportionately high number of Irish admissions to mental hospitals. One of the reasons for the sense of alienation was the sense of being foreigners in England and the hostility they experienced from many sections of the media and the police. Those who leave the country voluntarily are more likely to adapt well than those, in the majority, forced to do so out of economic necessity. Most of those who attended the seminar in Kilburn were in no doubt about the category they belonged to. "I love Ireland", says Andrew Fox. "I wouldn't have left it, only there was no work there. "

[此试题无题干]

中华文明是世界古代文明中始终没有中断、连续五千多年发展至今的文明。中华民族在漫长历史发展中形成的独具特色的文化传统，深深影响了古代中国，也深深影响着当代中国。现时代中国强调的以人为本、与时俱进、社会和谐、和平发展，既有着中华文明的深厚根基，又体现了时代发展的进步精神。 中华文明历来注重以民为本，尊重人的尊严和价值。早在千百年前，中国人就提出“民唯邦本，本固邦宁”、“天地之间，莫贵于人”，强调要利民、裕民、养民、惠民。今天，我们坚持以人为本，就是要坚持发展为了人民、发展依靠人民、发展成果由人民共享，关注人的价值、权益和自由，关注人的生活质量、发展潜能和幸福指数，最终是为了实现人的全面发展。

{{B}}Part B Listening and TranslationTask 1 Sentence TranslationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear 5 English sentences. You will hear the sentences ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each sentence, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

The way Americans plan for retirement is about to change—again. At the urging of President Obama, the Department of Labor is backing a rule that would alter who can offer financial advice on retirement funds. On its face, the idea seems superfluous: the rule, which would go into effect next year, requires that individuals providing advice on retirement savings put their clients' interests ahead of their own. Isn't that what people hire advisers to do in the first place? "Anyone can call themselves a financial adviser," says David Certner, legislative policy director at AARP, the lobbying organization for seniors. Many consumers believe all financial advisers operate under uniform codes like doctors or lawyers. "But people don't understand that there are different types, and they can act against your interest and in their own," says Certner. There are two standards brokers have to adhere to. There's the fiduciary standard, which requires financial advisers—registered investment advisers and those appointed under existing law— to offer financial advice that takes their clients' best interests into consideration. But there's also a less stringent "suitability" standard, which gives advisers leeway to offer advice that works for their client but can also help them earn a higher commission or some other financial incentive. According to the Department of Labor, that loophole causes Americans to lose out on making an additional $ 17 billion on their investments every year. They stakes have grown as the nature of retirement has shifted. Over the past four decades, for example, there has been a sharp decrease in the number of employer- provided retirement-benefit plans, or pensions, and a steep rise in the number of employees setting aside their own funds in 401(k)and 403(b)plans and individual retirement accounts, or IRAs. As a consequence, Americans have grown to rely more heavily on financial advisers and planners who can help them navigate the confusing or stress-inducing process of saving for retirement. According to a survey conducted by the Certified Financial Planners Board, which licenses fiduciary financial planners in the U. S. , 40% of Americans now work with a financial adviser to secure their retirement, up from 28% in 2010. At the Garrett planning network, a national financial-planning firm, advisers often share stories from clients who found themselves on the receiving end of bad retirement advice. During an exchange last spring, one adviser recalled encountering a woman who was about to retire and had asked a nonfiduciary adviser for advice about her $ 1 million 401(k)rollover. She was advised to invest in an annuity and a trust, a move that earned her adviser a tidy 7 % sales commission. Sheryl Garrett, founder of the Garrett Planning Network, claims her advisers see that kind of behavior all the time. Under the Department of Labor rule, which is expected to be finalized in early 2016, the standard will shift toward the consumer. Anyone offering financial advice on retirement accounts would be required to adhere to the fiduciary standard. The rule marks the biggest change to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which established minimum standards for pension plans, in 40 years. But many, including Republicans in Congress, argue that the Department of Labor's rule is unworkable and will put unnecessary burdens on small-business owners. Because of how it governs IRAs and employer-provided plans, they argue, the rule would make it hard for small-business owners to help their employees get financial advice. They also say the change will adversely impact lower- and middle-income Americans, the same investors who are the most at risk. "All sides in this debate agree that advisers should work in their clients' best interests. But Americans' best interest will not be served by a regulatory scheme that directs small businesses and people to advisers too costly for Main Street America," Dirk Kempthorne, president and chief executive of the American Council of Life Insurers, wrote to the Washington Post. The Department of Labor found that insufficient or nonexistent investment advice led owners of IRAs and other retirement accounts to lose out on $ 114 billion in 2010. The split over the rule has fallen along party lines. Perhaps not surprisingly, harsh rhetoric on both sides has followed. The Republican-led Congress has drafted a bill that would block the Department of Labor from implementing the new rule. Obama has issued a veto threat. Either way, a great deal is at stake. Says Garrett: "When people have more faith and trust in our industry, they' 11 start investing more. "

When Enoch Powell, a Conservative MP, gave a speech in 1968 calling for an end to immigration, he received so many letters of support that the Royal Mail had to assign him a special van, which made several deliveries a day. Race relations in Britain have since improved, in part thanks to laws passed at the end of the 1960s that criminalised racial discrimination. Laws against other types of discrimination followed. Gay, disabled, old, female—most conditions are covered. But what looks like unfair treatment is often hard to distinguish from the choices made by individuals. The Equalities Review, a semi-independent report that came out on February 28th, shows this all too clearly. The review matters more than many of its kind because it will guide Britain's new super anti-discrimination agency when it begins life later this year. Britain relies not only on its laws to prevent unfair treatment but also on specific bodies charged with enforcing them. People need not bring discrimination cases against palaeolithic employers on their own, or club together to bring class-action suits; government-funded organisations sponsor their cases through employment tribunals. The three main quangos, which cover race, disability and sex discrimination, will in October become the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, under the guidance of Trevor Phillips. In a presentation to an all-party parliamentary group last year, Mr. Phillips wryly predicted that this new arrangement would bring "universal happiness" some time in 2009. In fact the best of all possible worlds may slowly be coming about without the help of the new agency, if a separate report released this week by Richard Berthoud and Morten Blekesaune of the Institute for Social and Economic Research(ISER) at Essex University is right. The Equalities Review suggests that mothers with young children trail the pack in terms of employment; but a far bigger proportion of them are working than 30 years ago. Women are paid less than men, but the main reason is not that potential employers see an oversized handbag stuffed with nappies and ask the next candidate to come through, but that time out of the workforce reduces wages later on. Bangladeshi and Pakistani women have low levels of employment. But this may reflect a cultural preference for women to stay at home (which plenty of them break) rather than covert racism. As for the oldies, the ISER report shows that the chances of someone aged between 50 and 60 being in work have picked up a bit since the late 1990s. The one group that has made no progress at all is the disabled, a broad category that includes anyone with a "limiting longstanding illness". They are the hardest to help, due to a combination of time spent out of work, which sometimes means getting stuck on incapacity benefit, and the fact that people with severe disabilities, simply cannot do some sorts of work. That makes the job of Mr. Phillips and his new organisation harder. The "long-term strategies, with phased targets" that the review calls for will count for little if the wrongs they are designed to right arise from individual choices, unequal results at school, spotty employment histories—or, indeed, from the condition that often underlies all of these: poverty. Undeterred, Mr. Phillips argues for changes in the law to permit positive discrimination where it benefits the public. When he was head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Mr. Phillips says, he had to prevent London's police force from running a programme to recruit black officers, which would have been illegal. He also exasperated intelligence officials by asking how they could seek to hire more Muslims without breaking the law. Mr. Phillips reckons that it might occasionally be necessary to discriminate in favour even of whites. One of the review's findings is that boys from poor white families are "probably the single group most likely to be shut out of higher education in future decades". Mr. Phillips thinks universities where most of the students are from ethnic minorities and disproportionately female should, for example, be allowed to seek out white boys. As discrimination goes, the notion sounds relatively benign—but out of such good intentions come perverse results.

Bluetooth is the newest kid on the technology block, and it holds a lot of promise for the assistive technology industry. Named for a 10th Century King of Denmark who unified the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway, Bluetooth is a shot-range wireless communication specification that promises to improve and increase electronic access to a number of environments by overcoming some of the obstacles typical of current technology. Bluetooth technology will enable devices to communicate and transfer data wirelessly and without the line-of-site issues of infra red technology. So how does it work? Bluetooth devices search each other out within their given operational range. Unlike devices that are wired together, Bluetooth devices do not have to e of the capabilities or properties of the devices to which they will connect beforehand. Bluetooth devices have a built-in mechanism that lets each device identify itself as well as its capabilities as it connects into this new Bluetooth network. This dynamic network does have a controlling device that designates itself as the master for the connection. Its programming and the capabilities necessary for the given task determine whether or not a device can be a master. For example, a cell phone may act as a master device when connecting to a headset, an ATM, or an information kiosk. However, the same cell phone or headset may act as a slave device to the information kiosk, now acting as the master device, broadcasting emergency evacuation information. The cell phone and kiosk can function in either capacity depending on the required function and their programming.

{{B}}Task 2 Passage TranslationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 English passages. You will hear the passages ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each passage, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. You may take notes while you are listening.{{/B}}

Spring in Japan this year heralds a rash of more than 1,000 local elections across the country: on April 8th some 13 out of Japan's 47 prefectures hold gubernatorial elections, including Tokyo, Hokkaido in the north and Fukuoka in the south. Nearly every prefecture elects a new assembly on the same day. On April 22nd mayoral and municipal-assembly elections take place, along with two closely watched by-elections for the House of Councilors, the upper house of the Diet (national parliament). The results will give a clue about the prospects for the country's governing coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito when they attempt to keep their majority in crucial upper-house elections in July. A strengthened majority then would be a welcome boost for Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister who has seen his popularity slump since he came to office six months ago. Defeat would put Mr. Abe's future in question. The governor's race in Tokyo has a motley collection of candidates that include an inventor who has photographed and analysed every meal he has eaten for the past 35 years. It is seen as the bellwether election. Officially, the LDP does not endorse the two-term incumbent, Shintaro Ishihara. Nor does the opposition Democratic Party of Japan openly back his main challenger, Shiro Asano, a former governor of Miyagi prefecture. Tokyo has many independent-minded voters, and the candidates think that party ties put them off. Yet both parties are putting their organisations behind their respective men. Defeat for Mr. Ishihara would be a blow for Mr. Abe. Mr. Ishihara, at 74, has offended plenty of constituencies in his long political career. The affronted include: foreigners of every stripe; women beyond child-bearing age, who he says are a drain on the country; schoolteachers who resent his insistence on flag-raising ceremonies each morning; and urban crows whose extermination he ordered after being pecked by one. Yet plenty of Tokyo folk take his straight-talking style as a mark of integrity, even if his clean reputation has recently been tainted by an expenses scandal and whiffs of nepotism. The governor's latest obsession is perhaps his most divisive. He passionately wants to bring the Olympic games back to Tokyo in 2016, arguing that they will do wonders for the city's infrastructure, prosperity and international reputation. Opponents say that Tokyo, whose 1964 Olympics represented a coming-out party for Japan after the devastation of war, no longer has anything to prove with such a costly proposition. Health care, pensions and schooling are the pressing issues. Most contenders for the governorship, including Mr. Asano, oppose the Olympics bid. Caught up in this debate is the future of the Tsukiji fish market, the world's biggest, with 2,000 tonnes of seafood passing through each day. It is hugely popular with overseas and Japanese visitors, and its gritty verve stands in contrast to many of the capital's sanitised routines. But Mr. Ishihara wants to move the market to Toyosu wharf, on reclaimed land three kilometres (two miles) further out in Tokyo bay. Tsukiji will then become the site for a giant Olympics media centre. Tsukiji was built as the replacement for the fish market that had stood at central Nihonbashi for over 300 years until a huge earthquake in 1923. Hideji Otsuki, the market's city-appointed boss, says that it is now outdated, having been built for rail freight. Today's giant refrigerated lorries have difficulty squeezing in. Meanwhile, the three-wheeled motorised carts used to move boxes of fish about the narrow alleys are forever bumping into each other. Many market traders oppose the move. Katsuji Takeda, the owner of a sushi business, says that at a stroke the "Tsukiji brand" will be destroyed. City managers proposing the move, he says, are bureaucrats who confuse a sterile distribution centre with the social and commercial vitality of a true market. Opposition has recently grown further over the toxic benzene that contaminates the soil at the new site. Tokyo Gas, the utility whose land it was, is removing 2m (6.6 feet) of topsoil, and 2.5m of fresh soil is going on top, but environmentalists say that an earthquake or a tidal surge would bring the benzene straight back up to the surface again. Even Mr. Ishihara has agreed to put off a decision about the move until experts have been heard. Still Mr. Ishihara—backed by construction companies drooling over the Tsukiji site, so close to the fashionable heart of Tokyo—seems to be ahead in the election race. Few doubt what will happen to the fish market if he wins. An irony for visiting journalists looking for good stories in 2016: the last visible link with an earlier Tokyo might have made a good story, and they will find themselves literally sitting on it.

It's widely known that more than half of all corporate mergers and acquisitions end in failure. Like many marriages, they are often fraught with irreconcilable cultural and financial differences. Yet M&A activity was up sharply in 2013 and reached pre-recession levels this year. So why do companies keep at it? Because it's an easy way to make a quick buck and please Wall Street. Increasingly, business is serving markets rather than markets serving business, as they were originally meant to do in our capitalist system. For a particularly stark example, consider American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer's recent bid to buy British drugmaker AstraZeneca. The deal made little strategic sense and would probably have destroyed thousands of jobs as well as slowed research at both companies.(Public outcry to that effect eventually helped scuttle the plan.)Rut it would have allowed Pfizer to shift its domicile to Britain, where companies pay less tax. That, in turn, would have boosted share prices in the short term, enriching the executives paid in stock and the bankers, lawyers and other financial intermediaries who stood to gain about half a billion dollars or so in fees from the deal. Pfizer isn't alone. Plenty of firms engage in such tax wizardry. This kind of short-term thinking is starting to dominate executive suites. Besides tax avoidance. Wall Street's marching orders to corporate America include dividend payments and share buybacks, which sap long-term growth plans. It also demands ever more globalized supply chains, which make balance sheets look better by cutting costs but add complexity and risk. All of this hurts longer-term, more sustainable job and value creation. As a recent article on the topic by academic Gautam Mukunda in the Harvard Business Review noted, "The financial sector's influence on management has become so powerful that a recent survey of chief financial officers showed that 78% would give up economic value and 55% would cancel a project with a positive net present value—that is, willingly harm their companies—to meet Wall Street's targets and fulfill its desire for 'smooth' earnings. " Some of this can be blamed on the sheer size of the financial sector. Many thought that the economic crisis and Great Recession would weaken the power of markets. In fact, it only strengthened finance's grip on the economy. The largest banks are bigger than they were before the recession, while finance as a percentage of the economy is about the same size. Overall, the industry earns 30% of all corporate profit while creating just 6% of the country's jobs. And financial institutions are still doing plenty of tricky things with our money. Legendary investor Warren Buffett recently told me he's steering well clear of exposure to commercial securities like the complex derivatives being sliced and diced by major banks. He expects these "weapons of mass destruction" to cause problems for our economy again at some point. There's a less obvious but equally important way in which Wall Street distorts the economy: by defining "shareholder value" as short-term returns. If a CEO misses quarterly earnings by even a few cents per share, activist investors will push for that CEO to be fired. Yet the kinds of challenges companies face today—how to shift to entirely new digital business models, where to put operations when political risk is on the rise, how to anticipate the future costs of health, pensions and energy— are not quarterly problems. They are issues that will take years, if not decades, to resolve. Unfortunately, in a world in which the average holding period for a stock is about seven months, down from seven years four decades ago, CEOs grasp for the lowest-hanging fruit. They label tax-avoidance schemes as "strategic" and cut research and development in favor of sending those funds to investors in the form of share buybacks. All of this will put American firms at a distinct disadvantage against global competitors with long-term mind-sets. McKinsey Global Institute data shows that between now and 2025, 7 out of 10 of the largest global firms are likely to come from emerging markets, and most will be family owned businesses not beholden to the markets. Of course, there's plenty we could do policy-wise to force companies and markets to think longer term—from corporate tax reform to bans on high-speed trading to shifts in corporate compensation. But just as Wall Street has captured corporate America, so has it captured Washington. Few mainstream politicians on either side of the aisle have much interest in fixing things, since they get so much of their financial backing from the Street. Unfortunately for them, the fringes of their parties—and voters—do care.

I firstly【B1】______ to write the letter when the producer called because FOOC was about other people's【B2】______ and【B3】______. But the producer【B4】______ so I just started to write. In writing I spoke not just about becoming a【B5】______, but also about my own【B6】______, about loss and the failure of【B7】______, about the pain of different【B8】______I had met along the roads of war, and how alcohol had taken my father from me... There was just one 【B9】______ of the letter. Much has happened in the nearly【B10】______ years since the letter was broadcast. I eventually came to live in【B11】______. And I found myself gradually becoming lost in alcohol. For me it went from being the【B12】______,【B13】______ presence to a self-destructive【B14】______. Listening back now I see that at the time, he inhabited my life as a【B15】______, a paradoxical【B16】______, far from me, yet always there... I was lucky to【B17】______ in time. When I read the letter now, I see a young father about to start out on the greatest【B18】______ of his life. He doesn't know that yet, of course. But that child will be the【B19】______ of him, the 【B20】______ of him.

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]