问答题传统的中国画，不模仿自然，是以表现心灵抒发情性为主体的意象主义艺术。画中意象与书法中的文字一样，是一种适于抒写的极度概括抽象的象征符号，伴随着意象符号的是传统的程式表现技巧。古代的大师们创造着独自心中的意象及其程式，风格迥异，生机勃勃。后来，多数人惯于对古人程式的模仿，所作之画千人一面。这样的画作一泛滥，雅的不再雅，俗的则更俗。近代中国画仍然在庸俗没落的模式漩涡中进退两难。阿文与当今的有识同行一样，有志标新立异，寻找自我，建立起现代的属于自己的新意象、新格局，且一直背靠着这高雅的传统。

问答题Some people might want a "double tall skinny hazelnut decal latte", but Howard Schultz is not one of them. The chairman and "chief global strategist" of the Starbucks coffee chain prefers a Sumatra roast with no milk, no sugar and poured from a French press—the kind of pure coffee, in fact, favoured by those coffee snobs who sneer at Starbucks, not just for its bewildering variety of choice and flavours (55,000 different drinks, by the company"s count), but for its very ubiquity—over 10,500 locations around the world, increasing at a rate of five a day, and often within sight of each other. Starbucks knows it cannot ignore its critics. Anti-globalisation protesters have occasionally trashed its coffee shops; posh neighbourhoods in San Francisco and London have resisted the opening of new branches; and the company is a favourite target of internet critics, on sites like www. ihatestarbucks, com. Mr. Schultz is watchful, but relaxed: "We have to be extremely mindful and sensitive of the public"s view of things... Thus far, we"ve done a pretty good job." Certainly, as reviled icons of American capitalism go, Starbucks is distinctly second division compared with big leaguers like, say, McDonald"s. The reason, argues Mr. Schultz, is that the company has retained a "passion" for coffee and a "sense of humanity". Starbucks buys expensive beans and pays its growers—be they in Guatemala or Ethiopia—an average of 23% above the market price. A similar benevolence applies to company employees. Where other corporations seek to unload the burden of employee benefits, Starbucks gives all American employees working at least 20 hours a week a package that includes stock options ("Bean Stock") and comprehensive health insurance. For Mr Schultz, raised in a Brooklyn public-housing project, this health insurance—which now costs Starbucks more each year than coffee—is a moral obligation. At the age of seven, he came home to find his father, a lorry-driver, in a plaster cast, having slipped and broken an ankle. No insurance, no compensation and now no job. Hence what amounts to a personal crusade. Most of America"s corporate chiefs steer clear of the sensitive topic of health-care reform. Not Mr. Schultz. He makes speeches, lobbies politicians and has even hosted a commercial-free hour of television, arguing for reform of a system that he thinks is simultaneously socially unjust and a burden on corporate America. Meanwhile the company pays its workers" premiums, even as each year they rise by double-digit percentages. The goal has always been "to build the sort of company that my father was never able to work for." By this he means a company that "remains small even as it gets big", treating its workers as individuals. Starbucks is not alone in its emphasis on "social responsibility", but the other firms Mr. Schultz cites off the top of his head—Timberland, Patagonia, Whole Foods—are much smaller than Starbucks, which has 100,000 employees and 35m customers. Indeed, size has been an issue from the beginning. Starbucks was created in 1971 in Seattle"s Pike Place Market by three hippie-ish coffee enthusiasts. Mr. Schultz joined the company only in 1982. Inspired by a visit to Milan in 1983, he had envisaged a chain of coffee bars where customers would chat over their espressos and cappuccinos. Following his dream, Mr. Schultz set up a company he called "I1 Giornale", which grew to a modest three coffee bars. Then, somehow scraping together $3.8m ("I didn"t have a dime to my name"), he bought Starbucks from its founders in 1987. Reality long ago surpassed the dream. Since Starbucks went public in 1992, its stock has soared by some 6,400%. The company is now in 37 different countries. No doubt the coffee snobs will blanch at the prospect. Yet they miss three points. The first is that, thanks to Starbucks, today"s Americans are no longer condemned to drink the insipid, over-percolated brew that their parents endured. The second, less recognised, is that because Starbucks has created a mass taste for good coffee, small, family-owned coffee houses have also prospered (and no one has ever accused Starbucks, with its $4 lattes, of undercutting the competition). The most important point, however, is that Mr. Schultz"s Starbucks cultivates a relationship with its customers. Its stores sell carefully selected CD-compilations, such as Ray Charles"s "Genius Loves Company". Later this year the company will promote a new film, "Akeelah and the Bee", and will take a share of the profits. There are plans to promote books. Customers can even pay with their Starbucks "Duetto" Visa card. Short of some health scare that would bracket coffee with nicotine, there is no obvious reason why Starbucks should trip up, however ambitious its plans and however misconceived the occasional project. Mr. Schultz says: "I think we have the licence from our customers to do more." The key is that each Starbucks coffee house should remain "a third place", between home and work, fulfilling the same role as those Italian coffee houses that so inspired him 23 years ago.

问答题After nearly a year of emotional arguments in Congress but no new federal laws, the national debate over the future of human cloning has shifted to the states. Six states have already banned cloning in one form or another, and this year alone 38 anti-cloning measures were introduced in 22 states. The resulting patchwork of laws, people on all sides of the issue say, complicates a nationwide picture already clouded by scientific and ethical questions over whether and how to restrict cloning or to ban it altogether. Since 1997, when scientists announced the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, the specter of cloned babies, infants that are in essence genetic carbon copies of adults, has loomed large in the public psyche and in the minds of lawmakers. Today, there is widespread agreement that cloning for reproduction is unsafe and should be banned. Now, the debate has shifted away from the ethics of baby-making and toward the morality of cloning embryos for their cells and tissues, which might be used to treat diseases. The controversy pits religious conservatives and abortion opponents, who regard embryos as nascent human life, against patients" groups, scientists and the biotechnology industry.

问答题After years of fierce lobbying and months of secrecy, Beijing unveiled five mascots for the 2008 Olympics on Friday, opening a marketing blitz that is expected to reap record profits. In an elaborate, nationally televised gala at a Beijing sports arena to mark the 1,000-day countdown until the Games, senior Chinese leaders introduced the mascots—cartoon renditions of a panda, fish, Tibetan antelope, swallow and the Olympic flame, each one the color of one of the Olympic rings. The animals were introduced as Bei Bei, Jing Jing, Huan Huan, Ying Ying and Ni Ni—which, put together, translates to "Beijing welcomes you!" A plethora of real and mythic creatures were among the candidates considered by Chinese leaders, Olympic officials and design specialists over the past year. Among those that didn"t make the cut were the dragon and a magical monkey out of Chinese folklore. The choice, the subject of lively media speculation for months, has been a secret since it was finalized three months ago.

问答题Directions: 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.

问答题1.Passage 1

问答题

问答题

问答题If you’ve ever been on a jury, you might have noticed that a funny thing happens the minute you get behind closed doors. Everybody starts talking about themselves. They say what they would have done if they had been the plaintiff or the defendant. Being on a jury reminds me why I can’t tolerate talk radio. We Americans seem to have lost the ability to talk about anything but our own experiences. We can’t seem to generalize without stereotyping or to consider evidence that goes against our own experience. I heard a doctor on a radio show talking about a study that found that exercise reduces the incidence of Alzheimer’s. And caller after caller couldn’t wait to make essentially the opposite point: “Well, my grandmother never exercised and she lived to 95.” We are in an age summed up by the saying: “I experience, therefore I’m right.” Historically, the hallmarks of an uneducated person were the lack of ability to think critically, to use deductive reasoning to distinguish the personal from the universal. Now that seems an apt description of many Americans.

问答题Which developed economies will gain most from the emerging economies" new economic muscle? Conventional wisdom has it that America"s economy is coping much better than Europe"s with competition from emerging economies, thanks to its flexible labor and product markets. According to this view, Europe is having a tough time dealing with globalization, burdened by high minimum wages, extensive job protection, high taxes and generous welfare benefits. But conventional wisdom may have got it wrong. Since 1997 employment in the euro area has grown slightly faster than in America. Over the past decade, European firms have been much more successful than America"s in holding down unit labor costs and thus remaining competitive. And since 2000 the euro area"s share of world export markets has risen slightly to 1770, whereas America"s share has slumped from 14% to 10X. Thus, by many measures of competitiveness, Europe appears to be coping better with the emerging economies than America.

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

问答题If you go to Europe, you'll find that many city centers have been turned into pedestrian precincts and the cars been almost banned.

问答题

问答题Questions 4～6 You may have read news reports saying that America's Main Streeters want revenge on Wall Street for the financial meltdown and recession and mortgage foreclosures and lost life savings. That hardly makes fields like finance and insurance hazardous to be in, though. You're much, much likelier to get killed in other lines of work. Recently released Department of Labor data show that fishermen (and fisherwomen) and other workers in fishing-related professions were the most likely to die on the job in 2008. Of 39,000 fishing workers in the nation, 50 were killed, a rate of 128.9 per 100,000 full-time workers. Rough seas, unpredictable deadly weather and isolation during emergencies all make the job more unsafe than any other. It' s no wonder that the industry' s perils have given rise to a popular documentary TV series, Deadliest Catch, and a best-selling book and hit Hollywood film, The Perfect Storm. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Census of Fatal Occupation Injuries counted 5,071 fatal work injuries in 2008. That was 7.6% fewer than in 2007, and 13% less than in 2006, which marked a five-year high for workplace fatalities. That's the good news in the numbers. Logging workers and aircraft pilots have the second and third deadliest jobs. Eighty-two loggers died last year from work injuries, some of them caused by falling trees and malfunctioning cutting equipment. Ninety aircraft pilots died in crashes and other accidents. Transportation incidents are the most common cause of fatalities, overall. This year, 40.5% of the worker deaths, 2,053 of them, were transportation-related. More than half were highway incidents, which have been the most common killer every year since the Labor Department started tracking workplace fatalities in 1992. Equipment-and objects-related injuries came in a distant second, accounting for 923 fatalities, or 18.2%. While putting in 57% of the total hours worked by Americans, men made up 92.7% of the workplace fatalities. The relatively few women killed were more likely to die from on-the-job homicide, though. 26% of the female workplace deaths were murders, compared with only 9% of the male deaths. "For several occupations with high fatality rates, including truck drivers and farmers, and several industries with high fatality rates, like construction and mining, men constitute a much larger part of the total employment," Stephen Pegula, an economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, explains. "In addition, women are often employed in occupations and industries, like trade and leisure/hospitality, where homicides are more prevalent. " The construction industry suffered the largest number of deaths. Its fatality rate per 100,000 full-time workers was only 9.6, less than a 10th of that of people in fishing, but that added up to 969 deaths in 2008, no less than 19.1% of all U. S. workplace fatalities. What about those Wall Streeters? People in finance and insurance actually had the lowest fatality rate of any occupation—0.3 deaths per 100,000 full-time workers, or just 24 people across the nation. Top 5 America's Deadliest Jobs 1. Fishers and Related Fishing Workers The Job: Capture aquatic animals in large quantities. The Dangers: Extreme weather, large equipment, drowning The Fatality Rate *: 128.9 Total Fatalities in 2008: 50 * per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers 2. Logging Workers The Job: Cut down and trim trees for sale and transport. The Dangers: Falling trees, cutting equipment, difficult terrain The Fatality Rate *: 115.7 Total Fatalities in 2008: 82 * per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers 3. Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers The Job: Operate planes and helicopters. The Dangers: Testing equipment, emergency response, crashes The Fatality Rate*: 72.4 Total Fatalities in 2008: 90 * per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers 4. Structural Iron and Steel Workers The Job: Mold, set and handle metal construction materials. The Dangers: Heights, heavy materials, welding The Fatality Rate *: 46.4 Total Fatalities in 2008: 36 * per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers 5. Farmers and Ranchers The Job: Grow and cultivate livestock and crops. The Dangers: Heavy machinery. The Fatality Rate * : 39.5 Total Fatalities in 2008: 317 * per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers1.Describe briefly the top 3 deadliest jobs in America in 2008.

问答题

问答题 It's a safe bet that the millions of Americans who have recently changed their minds about global warming—deciding it isn't happening, or isn't due to human activities such as burning coal and oil, or isn't a serious threat—didn't just spend an intense few days poring over climate-change studies and decide, holy cow, the discrimination of continuous equations in general circulation models is completely wrong! Instead, the backlash (an 18-point rise since 2006 in the percentage who say the risk of climate change is exaggerated, Gallup found this month) has been stoked by scientists' abysmal communication skills, plus some peculiarly American attitudes, both brought into play now by how critics have spun the "Climategate" e-mails to make it seem as if scientists have pulled a fast one. Scientists are lousy communicators. They appeal to people's heads, not their hearts or guts, argues Randy Olson, who left a professorship in marine biology to make science films. "Scientists think of themselves as guardians of truth," he says. "Once they have spewed it out, they feel the burden is on the audience to understand it" and agree. That may work if the topic is something with no emotional content, such as how black holes form, but since climate change and how to address it make people feel threatened, that arrogance is a disaster. Yet just as smarter-than-thou condescension happens time after time in debates between evolutionary biologists and proponents of intelligent design (the latter almost always win), now it's happening with climate change. In his 2009 book, Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, Olson recounts a 2007 debate where a scientist contending that global warming is a crisis said his opponents failed to argue in a way "that the people here will understand". His sophisticated, educated Manhattan audience groaned and, thoroughly insulted, voted that the "not a crisis" side won. Like evolutionary biologists before them, climate scientists also have failed to master "truthiness" (thank you, Stephen Colbert), which their opponents—climate deniers and creationists—wield like a shiv. They say the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change is a political, not a scientific, organization; a climate mafia (like evolutionary biologists) keeps contrarian papers out of the top journals; Washington got two feet of snow, and you say the world is warming? There is less backlash against climate science in Europe and Japan, and the U.S. is 33rd out of 34 developed countries in the percentage of adults who agree that species, including humans, evolved. That suggests there is something peculiarly American about the rejection of science. Charles Harper, a devout Christian who for years ran the program bridging science and faith at the Templeton Foundation and who has had more than his share of arguments with people who view science as the Devil's spawn, has some hypotheses about why that is. "In America, people do not bow to authority the way they do in England," he says. "When the lumpenproletariat are told they have to think in a certain way, there is a backlash," as with climate science now and, never-endingly, with evolution. (Harper, who studied planetary atmospheres before leaving science, calls climate scientists "a smug community of true believers". ) Another factor is that the ideas of the Reformation—no intermediaries between people and God; anyone can read the Bible and know the truth as well as a theologian—inform the American character more strongly than they do that of many other nations. "It's the idea that everyone has equal access to the divine," says Harper. That has been extended to the belief that anyone with an Internet connection can know as much about climate or evolution as an expert. Finally, Americans carry in their bones the country's history of being populated by emigrants fed up with hierarchy. It is the American way to distrust those who set themselves up—even justifiably—as authorities. Presto: climate backlash. One new factor is also at work: the growing belief in the wisdom of crowds (Wikis, polling the audience on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire). If tweeting for advice on the best route somewhere yields the right answer. Americans seem to have decided, it doesn't take any special expertise to pick apart evolutionary biology or climate science. My final hypothesis: the Great Recession was caused by the smartest guys in the room saying, trust us, we understand how credit default swaps work, and they're great. No wonder so many Americans have decided that experts are idiots.

问答题知识和技术创新是人类经济、社会发展的重要动力源泉。中国将致力于建设国家创新体系，通过营造良好的环境，推进知识创新、技术创新和体制创新，这是中国实现跨世纪发展的必由之路。 中国政府支持科学家为了国家需求和科学发展开展基础研究，尊重科学家独特的敏感和创造精神，鼓励他们进行“好奇心驱动的研究”。在未来50年甚至更长的时期里，中国的发展将在很大程度上依赖于今天基础研究和高技术研究的创新成就，依赖于这些研究所必然孕育的优秀人才。