问答题 Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in English. 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.

问答题

问答题What is British government's "tradable certificate"? Introduce briefly the dilemma the certificate is now faced with.

问答题[此试题无题干]

问答题 Today in the United States and the developed world, women are better off than ever before. But the blunt truth is that men still run the world. While women continue to outpace men in educational achievement, we have ceased making real progress at the top of any industry. Women hold around 14% of Fortune 500 executive-officer positions and about 17% of board seats, numbers that have barely budged over the last decade. This means that when it comes to making the decisions that most affect our world, our voices are not heard equally. It is time for us to face the fact that our revolution has stalled. A truly equal world would be one where women ran half of our countries and companies and men ran half of our homes. The laws of economics and many studies of diversity tell us that if we tapped the entire pool of human resources and talent, our performance would improve. Throughout my career, I was told over and over about inequalities in the workplace and how hard it would be to have a career and a family. I rarely, however, heard anything about the ways I was holding myself back. From the moment they are born, boys and girls are treated differently. Women internalize the negative messages we get throughout our lives—the messages that say it's wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men—and pull back when we should lean in. We must not ignore the real obstacles women face in the professional world, from sexism and discrimination to a lack of flexibility, access to child care and parental leave. But women can dismantle the internal barriers holding us back today. Here is one example of how women can lean in. In 2003, Columbia Business School professor Frank Flynn and New York University professor Cameron Anderson ran an experiment. They started with a Harvard Business School case study about a real-life entrepreneur named Heidi Roizen. It described how Roizen became a successful venture capitalist by using her "outgoing personality ... and vast personal and professional network ... [which] included many of the most powerful business leaders in the technology sector". Half the students in the experiment were assigned to read Heidi's story. The other half got the same story with just one difference—the name was changed from Heidi to Howard. When students were polled, they rated Heidi and Howard as equally competent. But Howard came across as a more appealing colleague. Heidi was seen as selfish and not "the type of person you would want to hire or work for". This experiment supports what research has already clearly shown, success and likeability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women. When a man is successful, he is liked by both men and women. When a woman is successful, people of both genders like her less. I believe this bias is at the very core of why women are held back. It is also at the very core of why women hold themselves back. When a woman excels at her job, both men and women will comment that she is accomplishing a lot but is "not as well liked by her peers". She is probably also "too aggressive", "not a team player", "a bit political"; she "can't be trusted" or is "difficult". Those are all things that have been said about me and almost every senior woman I know. The solution is making sure everyone is aware of the penalty women pay for success. Recently at Facebook, a manager received feedback that a woman who reported to him was "too aggressive". Before including this in her review, he decided to dig deeper. He went back to the people who gave the feedback and asked what aggressive actions she had taken. After they answered, he asked point-blank, "If a man had done those same things, would you have considered him too aggressive?" They each said no. By showing both men and women how female colleagues are held to different standards, we can start changing attitudes today.

问答题 The World Economic Forum in Davos "You're off to the World Economic Forum?" asked the Oxford economist, enviously. "How very impressive. They've never invited me." Three days later, I queued in the snow outside the conference center in Davos, standing behind mink coats and cashmere overcoats, watched over by Swiss policemen with machineguns. "Reporting press? You can't come in here. Side entrance, please." I stood in line again, this time behind Puffa jackets and Newsweek journalist, waiting to collect my orange badge. Once inside, I found that the seminar I wanted to go to was being held in a half-empty room. "You can't sit here. All seats are reserved for white badges. Coloured badges have to stand." An acquaintance invited me to a dinner he was hosting. "There are people I'd like you to meet." The green-badged Forum employee stopped me at the door. "This is a participants' dinner. Orange badges are not allowed." Then, later, reluctantly: "If you're coming in, please can you turn your badge around? Diners may be upset if they see you're a colour." "Why does anyone put up with being treated like this?" I asked a Financial Times correspondent. "Because we all live in hope of becoming white badges," he said, "Then we'll know what's really going on." A leading British businessman was wearing a white badge, but it bore a small logo on the top left. hand corner: GLT. "What is a GLT?" I asked. "Ah," he said, "well, it's a Davos club. I'm a Global Leader of Tomorrow." "That sounds very important," I said. "Yes," he said, "I thought so myself, until I bumped into the man who'd sponsored me, on the way to my first meeting. I asked him if he was coming, and he said, 'Oh no, dear boy, I don't bother with that any longer. I'm not a GLT any more; I'm an IGWEL.' 'What's an IGWEL?' I asked him. 'A member of the Informal Group of World Economic Leaders of Today,' he said." The World Economic Forum has employed a simple psychological truth—that nothing is more desirable than that which excludes us—to brilliant effect. Year after year, its participants apply to return, in the hope that this time they'll be a little closer to the real elite. Next year, they, too, might be invited to the private receptions for Bill Clinton, Kofi Anna or Bill Gates, instead of having to stand on the conference center's steps like teenage rock fans. It's the sheer concentration of individuals in possession of power, wealth or knowledge that makes the privately run Forum so desirable to its participants. The thousand chief executives who attend its annual meeting control, between them, more than 70 percent of international trade. Every year, they are joined by a couple of dozen presidents and prime ministers, by senior journalists, a changing selection of leading thinkers, academics and diplomats, and by rising stars of the business world. Access to the meeting is by invitation only, costs several thousand pounds a time for business participants, and is ruthlessly controlled.

问答题

问答题

问答题There is not much to choose between men. They are all a hotchpotch of greatness and littleness, of virtue and vice, of nobility and baseness. Some have more strength of character, or more opportunity, and so in one direction or another give their instincts freer play, but potentially they are the same. For my part, I do not think I am any better or any worse than most people, but I know that if I set down every action in my life and every thought that has crossed my mind, the world would consider me a monster of depravity. The knowledge that these reveries are common to all men should inspire one with tolerance to oneself as well as to others. It is well also if they enable us to look upon our fellows, even the most eminent and respectable, with humor, and if they lead us to take ourselves not too seriously.

问答题几十年来，中国绿色革命推广种植的几种高产作物，虽然解决了十多亿人口的吃饭问题，但却付出了极其高昂的代价：生态环境的恶化、生物多样性的丧失，这应引起我们的高度警觉和重视。因此，历史不应再继续重演，对于农业可持续发展战略的研究，只能是在对中国国情有一个明确认识和正确判断的基础之上，有选择地借鉴和运用来自外部世界的理论和方法，在理论构筑上有所创新、研究手段上有所突破，从而才有可能建立起具有中国特色的农业可持续发展战略理论。

问答题______

问答题历史雄辩地说明，中美之间建立在平等互利基础上的劳动分工是最为合理和实用的国际关系。中国物美价廉的制成品源源不断地走上美国超级市场的货架，而美国的农产品、高新技术产品，连同跨国公司的资本和技术，滚滚不息地涌进中国内地。中国人民以其勤劳的双手，增进了美国的福祉，促使其产业升级换代；而北美这块广袤而又富饶的土地，也以其精华滋润促进了中国的现代化进程。经贸合作是两国能够找到共同语言的最佳领域。以谋求共同利益来减少或淡化意识形态差异和利益冲突，过去是、今后更是双方寻求和平共处的必由之路。

问答题Robots have been the stuff of science fiction for so long that it is surprisingly hard to see them as the stuff of management fact. A Czech playwright, Karel Capek, gave them their name in 1920 (from the Slavonic word for "work"). An American writer, Isaac Asimov, confronted them with their most memorable dilemmas. Hollywood turned them into superheroes and supervillains. When some film critics drew up lists of Hollywood's 50 greatest good guys and 50 greatest haddies, the only character to appear on both lists was a robot, the Terminator. It is time for management thinkers to catch up with science-fiction writers. Robots have been doing menial jobs on production lines since the 1960s. The world already has more than 1m industrial robots. There is now an acceleration in the rates at which they are becoming both cleverer and cheaper: an explosive combination. Robots are learning to interact with the world around them. Their ability to see things is getting ever closer to that of humans, as is their capacity to ingest information and act on it. Tomorrow's robots will increasingly take on delicate, complex tasks. And instead of being imprisoned in cages to stop them colliding with people and machines, they will he free to wander. America's armed forces have blazed a trail here. They now have no fewer than 12,000 robots serving in their ranks. Peter Singer, of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, says mankind's 5,000-year monopoly on the fighting of war is breaking down. Recent additions to the battlefield include tiny "insects" that perform reconnaissance missions and giant "dogs" to terrify foes. But the civilian world cannot he far behind. Who better to unclog sewers or suck up nuclear waste than these remarkahle machines? The Japanese have made surprisingly little use of robots to clear up after the recent earthquake, given their world leadership in this area. They say that they had the wrong sort of robots in the wrong places. But they have issued a global call for robotic assistance and are likely to put more robots to work shortly. As robots advance into the service industries they are starting to look less like machines and more like living creatures. The Paro (made by AIST, a Japanese research agency) is shaped like a baby seal and responds to attention. Honda's robot, ASIMO, is humanoid and can walk, talk and respond to command. Until now executives have largely ignored robots, regarding them as an engineering rather than a management problem. This cannot go on: robots are becoming too powerful and ubiquitous. Companies may need to rethink their strategies as they gain access to these new sorts of workers. Chinese certainly need to rethink their human-resources policies--starting by questioning whether they should have departments devoted to purely human resources. The first issue is how to manage the robots themselves. Asimov laid down the basic rule in 1942: no robot should harm a human. This rule has been reinforced by recent technological improvements: robots are now much more sensitive to their surroundings and can be instructed to avoid hitting people. But the Pentagon's plans make all this a bit more complicated: many of its robots will be, in essence, killing machines. A second question is how to manage the homo side of homo-roho relations. Workers have always worried that new technologies will take away their livelihoods. That worry takes on a particularly intense form when the machines come with a human face: Capek' s play that gave robots their name depicted a world in which they initially brought lots of benefits hut eventually led to mass unemployment and discontent. Now, the arrival of increasingly humanoid automatons in workplaces, in an era of high unemployment, is bound to provoke a reaction. So, companies will need to work hard to persuade workers that robots are productivity- enhancers, not just job-eating aliens. They need to show employees that the robot sitting alongside them can be more of a helpmate than a threat. Audi has been particularly successful in introducing industrial robots because the carmaker asked workers to identify areas where robots could improve performance and then gave those workers jobs overseeing the robots. Employers also need to explain that robots can help preserve manufacturing jobs in the rich world. These two principles--don't let robots hurt or frighten people--are relatively simple. Robot scientists are tackling more complicated problems as robots become more sophisticated. They are keen to avoid hierarchies among rescue-robots (because the loss of the leader would render the rest redundant). So they are using game theory to make sure the robots can communicate with each other in egalitarian ways. They are keen to avoid duplication between robots and their human handlers. So they are producing more complicated mathematical formulae in order that robots can constantly adjust themselves to human intentions. This suggests that the world could be on the verge of a great management revolution: making robots behave like humans rather than the 20th century's preferred option, making humans behave like robots.1.Why does the author mention the Czech playwright Karel Capek and the American writer Isaac Asimovg, What is the relationship between science fiction and robot?

问答题

问答题One criticism levelled at such studies is that it is difficult to tell if mobile phones are promoting growth, or growth is promoting the adoption of mobile phones, as people become able to afford them. It is easy to imagine ways in which mobile phones could stimulate economic activity-- they make up for poor infrastructure by substituting for travel, allow price data to be distributed and enable traders to engage with wider markets, and so on. Furthermore, phones do this without the need for government intervention. Mobile phone networks are built by private companies, not governments or charities, and are economically self-sustaining. Mobile operators build and run them because they make a profit doing so, and fishermen, carpenters and porters are willing to pay for the service because it increases their profits. The resulting welfare gains are indicated by the profitability of both the operators and their customers. All governments have to do is to issue licenses to operators, establish a clear and transparent regulatory framework and then wait for the phones to work their economic magic.

问答题

问答题我的技艺，我的头脑，我的心灵，我的身体，若不善加利用，都将随着时间的流逝而迟钝、腐朽、甚至死亡。我的潜力无穷无尽，脑力、体能稍加开发，就能超过以往的任何成就。从今天开始，我就要开发潜力。 我不再因昨日的成绩沾沾自喜，不再为微不足道的成绩自吹自擂。我能做得比已经完成的更好。我的出生并非最后一个奇迹，为什么自己不能再创奇迹呢？ 我不是随意来到这个世上的。我生来应为高山，而非草芥。从今往后，我要竭尽全力成为群峰之巅。将我的潜能发挥到最大限度。

问答题The effect of governmental expenditures on the total economy varies with both the level of utilization of labor and capital in the economy at the time of the expenditure, and the segment of the economy which receives the expenditure. If the economy as a whole or the segment of the economy which is the focus of the expenditure is operating at capacity or close to capacity, then the expenditure's major effects will tend to be inflationary, and will not generate much employment of capital and labor. If the economy or sector is operating at much less than full employment, the expenditure will produce a genuine (non-inflationary) rise in the GNP. A true measure of the effect of governmental increase in the amount of money made available, then, is not the simple dollar value of the initial injection but the cumulative effect of this injection through spending and re-spending. In the optimum case the initial expansion of income flow could be great enough to produce tax revenues in excess of the original "deficit spending" or the "tax cut", so that deficits are not only smaller than the increased GNP but are recouped. In Keynesian economics the fundamental point of government policy clearly is not budget-balancing but spending in the event of unused productive capacity and unemployment. Spending increases productivity. This productivity resulting from federal spending has overwhelmed the older economic myths of the balanced budget where government is conceived of as just another business firm.

问答题Questions 7～10 In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s. Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress. Since the end of 1999, stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange have lost an average of 0.5% a year thanks to the twin bear markets this decade. The period has provided a lesson for ordinary Americans who used stocks as their primary way of saving for retirement. Many investors were lured to the stock market by the bull market that began in the early 1980s and gained force through the 1990s. But coming out of the 1990s, the best calendar decade in history with a 17.6% average annual gain, stocks simply had gotten too expensive. Companies also pared dividends, cutting into investor returns. And in a time of financial panic like 2008, stocks were a terrible place to invest. The decline edges out the 0.2% decline stocks suffered during the Depression years of the 1930s, which up until now held the title of worst decade. And it is worse than other decades with financial panics, such as in 1907 and 1893. Even the 1970s, when a bear market was coupled with inflation, wasn't as bad as the most recent period. The S＆P 500 lost 1.4% after inflation during that decade. That is especially disappointing news for investors, considering that a key goal of investing in stocks is to increase money faster than inflation. "This decade is the big loser." said Mr. Jones. For investors counting on stocks for retirement plans, the most recent decade means many have fallen behind retirement goals. Many financial plans assume a 10%0 annual return for stocks over the long term, but over the last 20 years, the S＆P 500 is registering 8.2% annual gains. Should stocks average 10% a year for the next decade, that would lift the 30-year average return to only 8.8%, said North Carolina State's Mr. Jones. It is even worse news for those who started investing in 2000; a 10% return a year would get them up to only 4.4% a year. There were ways to make money in U. S. stocks during the last decade. But the returns paled in comparison with those posted in the 1990s. Of the 30 stocks today that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average, only 13 are up since the end of 1999, and just two, Caterpillar Inc. and United Technologies Corp., doubled over the 10-year span. So what went wrong for the U.S. stock market? For starters, it turned out that the old rules of valuation matter. "We came into this decade horribly overpriced," said Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of money managers GMO LLC. In late 1999, the stocks in the S＆P 500 were trading at about an all-time high of 44 times earnings, based on Yale professor Robert Shiller's measure, which tracks prices compared with 10-year earnings and adjusts for inflation. That compares with a long-run average of about 16. Buying at those kinds of values, "you'd better believe you're going to get dismal returns for a considerable chunk of time," said Mr. Grantham, whose firm predicted 10 years ago that the S＆P 500 likely would lose nearly 2% a year in the 10 years through 2009. Despite the woeful returns this decade, stocks today aren't a steal. The S＆P is trading at a price-to-earnings ratio of about 20 on Mr. Shiller's measure. Mr. Grantham thinks U.S. large-cap stocks are about 30% overpriced, which means returns should be about 30% less than their long-term average for the next seven years. That means returns of just 1.6% a year before adding in inflation. Another hurdle for the stock market has been the decline in dividends that began in the late 1980s. Over the long term, dividends have played an important role in helping stocks achieve a 9.5% average annual return since 1926. But since that year, the average yield on S＆P 500 stocks was roughly 4%. This decade it has averaged about 1.8%, said North Carolina State's Mr. Jones. That difference "doesn't sound like much," said Mr. Jones, "but you've got to make it up through price appreciation. " Unless dividends rise back toward their long-term averages, Mr. Jones thinks investors may need to lower expectations. Rather than the nearly 10% a year that has been the historical average, stocks may be good for only about 7%.1.Why does Mr. Jones say "This decade is the big loser"? (Para.5)

问答题