问答题1. 尽管世界经济仍然面临风险和不确定性，但全球贸易和投资回暖，金融市场预期向好

问答题1. We travel more eagerly than ever, but fewer of us end up seeing things with our own eyes. Take yourself to any place of beauty, or any event that draws a crowd. Look around and you'll see a solemn-faced, dull eyed crowd with one arm collectively raised in religious devotion. Each hand clutches a phone and each phone functions as camera. People are focused intently upon their phone screens: even when only meters away, they fail to see with their own eyes. We do sometimes benefit from the film

问答题1. 在西方，家长告诉孩子“做事要用脑”、“别走神”；而中国人自古就“心之官则思”，到现在还说“心想事成”

问答题Directions: In this part of the test

问答题Directions: In this part of the test

填空题.Today I'm going to talk about the risk factors for cardiovascular disease. By cardiovascular disease, I mean 1 attacks, strokes, and peripheral vascular disease, also known as clots to the legs. Some of the risk factors are 2 i.e. the person at 3 can do something about them. Others are unalterable. Gender, age, 4 , and family history are the unalterable risk factors for cardiovascular disease. 5 are at a much higher risk than females. 6 appears to protect women from card

填空题.Cigarette smoking is the greatest preventable cause of illness and death in Britain. It is associated with around 110,000 1 and an estimated 50 million lost working days each year, and costs the National Health Service an estimated 2 for the treatment of related diseases, for example, heart disease, 3 . In addition, smoking by pregnant women can cause 4 in infants and other natal problems. The Government is following an active 5 supported by voluntary agreements with the toba

[此试题无题干]

{{B}}Part B Listening ComprehensionDirections: 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.{{/B}}

{{B}}Part A Spot DictationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear a passage and read the same passage with blanks in it. Fill in each of the blanks with the word or words you have heard on the tape. Write your answer in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. Remember you will hear the passage ONLY ONCE.{{/B}}

Robots came into the world as a literary device whereby the writers and film-makers of the early 20th century could explore their hopes and fears about technology, as the era of the automobile, telephone and aeroplane picked up its reckless jazz-age speed. Since moving from the page and screen to real life, robots have been a mild disappointment. They do some things that humans cannot do themselves, like exploring Mars, and a host of things people do not much want to do, like dealing with unexploded bombs or vacuuming floors. And they are very useful in bits of manufacturing. But reliable robots—especially ones required to work beyond the safety cages of a factory floor—have proved hard to make, and robots are still pretty stupid So although they fascinate people, they have not yet made much of a mark on the world That seems about to change. The dramatic growth in the power of silicon chips, digital sensors and high-bandwidth communications improves robots just as it improves all sorts of other products.

______

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]

These days companies might be keeping a close eye on costs and CEO pay, but execs are increasingly bingeing on corporate travel. Even as the commercial airlines have upgraded first- and business-class cabins and new premium-class-only carriers have emerged to attract business fliers, many executives consider private-jet use preferable to commercial flying because it can be more time-efficient while allowing for a personal touch in business. But as private jets increasingly clog the skies, airline groups and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are demanding that they take on more fiscal responsibility in the booming industry. For every airline aircraft in US skies there are now two corporate aircraft—that's 18,000 planes, up from 1,800 in 1970. Jeff Roberts, group president of CAE, a billion-dollar aviation simulation and training company, says that the past four years brought a 40% increase in the deliveries of business aircraft worldwide. The FAA forecasts that at least 9,000 new corporate jets will be delivered over the next decade, adding 10% more annual flying time compared with 3% for commercial jets. That provides an estimated $227 billion to corporate jet manufacturers, such as Bombardier, Embraer and Dassault. Roberts adds that the new very light jet category alone could account for up to 4,000 deliveries over the next 10 years. (Honda's first foray into the business jet market, the twin-engined advanced light jet, is expected to roll out in 2010.) An increased demand for corporate jets has also brought a need for more pilot training. By some estimates up to 20,000 new pilots for both corporate and commercial jets are needed globally each year to account for a disruption in the supply chain that occurred over the last five years. CAE provides training to pilots at 24 training centers worldwide, four of which are devoted exclusively to business-jet training. One such facility, the SimuFlite North East Training Center, opened last week in Whippany, N.J., and has six flight simulators for training on models from the Gulfstream 4 to the Rolls Royce of corporate jets, the Falcon 7X. Due to high demand, CAE plans to add six more simulators to that center, and will open its 25th training facility next year in Bangalore, India. At $15 million a pop, these simulators don't come cheap. Approved by the FAA (and sometimes also by the Joint Aviation Authorities in Europe), each simulator has digitized versions of the 85 largest airports in the world, runs on the equivalent processing power of 500 Xboxes and does everything the same model aircraft would do. Being able to safely navigate through low visibility and a ceiling of 800 ft. or to land smoothly after a fire in the left wing's engine prepares pilots for their first experience piloting an actual aircraft, which could be loaded with passengers. But as executive travelers and manufacturers laud the global corporate jet boom, the FAA, airline groups and commercial airlines are less enthused. They contend that not only do corporate jets add to traffic congestion in the airspace, but the six types of taxes that are built into commercial passengers' ticket prices effectively subsidize the aviation system and facilities used by corporate jets. By one estimate, various fees and taxes paid by commercial passengers have totaled $104 billion over the past decade. Corporate jets, on the other hand, pay only about 6% in taxes and fees for flying and for using the federal Air Traffic Control (ATC) system. "The airlines pay a disproportionate part of the system," says FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown. "Business jets are an important part of the general aviation category and under the current structure [they] don't pay for the financial system." Commercial airlines and their passengers pay about 95% of the taxes but only account for 73% of the costs of the air traffic system, according to FAA administrator Marion Blakey. The idea coming before Congress is to overhaul the current system in favor of satellite GPS technology and aviation-funding strategies that would also include a new user-fee system to bring the amount that corporate fliers contribute in line with their use of the ATC and airports. Some in the industry wonder, however, if this kind of corporate accountability will get off the ground.

One point three billion metric tons—that's how much food that we waste each year. Not an easy number to wrap one's head around. Try to imagine 143,000 Eiffel Towers stacked one on top of the other—together they'd weigh around 1. 3 billion tons. The sheer scale of the number makes it practically impossible to grasp, no matter how you come at it. Rendering the figure all the more unfathomable is the fact that alongside this massive wastage of food, 840 million people experience chronic hunger on a daily basis. Many millions more suffer from "silent hunger"—malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. For the more economically minded, here's another number: the economic cost of food wastage runs around $ 750 billion per annum. This is expressed in producer prices; if we were to consider retail prices and the wider impacts on the environment including climate change, the figure would be far higher. When food is lost or wasted, the energy, land and water resources that went into producing it are also squandered—while at the same time large amounts of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere during production, processing, and cooking. We simply cannot tolerate the wastage of 1. 3 billion tons of food per year—one-third of the world's annual food production. There's a lot that can be done. To begin with, food losses and waste need to be seen as a cross-cutting policy issue, rather than a lifestyle choice to be left in the hands of individual consumers and their consciences. The world needs to wake up to the need for policies on food waste and losses that look at all stages of the food chain, from production to consumption. Losses of food—on farms, during processing, transport and at markets—represent a thorn in the side of food security in most developing countries, where post-harvest losses can reach as high as 40 percent of production in some cases. Especially in these places, investment in infrastructure for transportation, storage, cooling and marketing of food is badly needed. Training farmers in best practices also has an important role to play. In developed countries, food retailing practices require a rethink. For example, rejection of food products on the basis of aesthetic concerns is a major cause of food waste. Some supermarkets have already begun relaxing standards on fruit appearance, selling "misshaped" items at reduced prices and helping raise awareness that "ugly does not mean bad. " More approaches like this, that find markets or uses for surplus food, are needed. Both businesses and households should monitor to see where and how they waste food and take corrective steps, because prevention of waste is even more important than recycling. Unlike the mindboggling figure of 1. 3 billion tons, these simple steps are easy enough to grasp—and within reach of each of us. The world has enough on its plate—food wastage is something we can all do something about now.

Since the end of World War II, a broad consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been a pillar of the international order. From global trade agreements to the European Union project: from the work of the Bretton Woods institutions to the removal of pervasive capital controls: from the vast expansion in foreign direct investment to major increases in the flow of people across borders, the overall direction has been clear. Driven by domestic economic progress, by technologies such as containerized shipping and the Internet that promote integration, and by legislative changes within countries and international agreements between countries, the world has gotten smaller and more closely connected. This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could have been hoped. We have not had a war between major powers. Global standards of living have risen faster than at any point in history. And material progress has coincided with even more rapid progress in combating hunger, empowering women, promoting literacy and extending life. A world that will have more smart phones than adults within a few years is a world in which more is possible for more people than ever before. Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. The four candidates for president of the United States all oppose the principal free-trade initiative of this period: the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump's proposals to wall off Mexico, abrogate trade agreements and persecute Muslims are far more popular than he is. The Brexit movement in Britain commands substantial support and could prevail. Whenever any aspect of the E. U. project is submitted to a popular referendum, it fails. Under pressure from a large influx of refugees, the European commitment to open borders appears to be crumbling. In large part because of political constraints, the growth of the international financial institutions has not kept pace with the growth of the global economy. One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. Everyone who loses a job because a factory moves abroad knows it: many who lose their jobs for local reasons blame globalization. But no one thanks international trade for the fact that their paycheck buys twice as much in clothes, toys and other goods as it otherwise would. Those who succeed as exporters tend to credit their own prowess, not international agreements. So there is certainly a case for our leaders and business communities to educate people about the benefits of global integration. But at this late date, with the trends moving the wrong way, it is hard to be optimistic about such efforts. The core of the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense— unfortunately not wholly unwarranted—that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites. They see the globalization agenda as being set by large companies that successfully play one country against another. They read the Panama Papers and conclude that globalization offers a fortunate few opportunities to avoid taxes and regulations that are not available to everyone else. And they see the kind of disintegration that accompanies global integration as local communities suffer when major employers lose out to foreign competitors. What will happen going forward? What should happen? Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing integration, hoping to win enough support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence of the U. S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. This will likely result in a hiatus from new global integration efforts and an effort to preserve what is already in place while relying on technology and growth in the developing world to drive any further integration. The historical precedents of two world wars are hardly encouraging about unmanaged globalization succeeding with neither a strong underwriter of the system nor strong global institutions. Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.

{{B}}Part A Note-taking And Gap-fillingDirections: In this part of the test you will hear a short talk. You will hear the talk ONLY ONCE. While listening to the talk, you may take notes on the important points so that you can have enough information to complete a gap-filling task on a separate ANSWER BOOKLET. You will not get your ANSWER BOOKLET until after you have listened to the talk.{{/B}}

{{B}}SECTION 2 READING TESTDirections: 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 tile letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

One thing is clear after the tragic death of Freddie Gray, the young African-American man who was fatally injured while in police custody in Baltimore last month: we cannot fix the problems of economic justice in this country without addressing racial justice. The deck is stacked against low-income Americans—African American and Latinos in particular. As a newly released report from a pair of Harvard academics has found, just being born in a poor part of Baltimore—or Atlanta, Chicago, or any number of other urban areas—virtually ensures that you'll never make it up the socioeconomic ladder. Boys from low income households who grow up in the kind of beleaguered, mostly minority neighborhoods like the one Gray was from will earn roughly 25% less than peers who moved to better neighborhoods as children. So much for the American Dream. This has big implications. Income inequality is shaping up to be the key economic issue of the 2016 campaign. If you have any doubt, consider that both Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, who declared their candidacies in the past few weeks, are already staking out positions. Clinton billed herself as the candidate for the "everyday American," calling for higher wages and criticizing bloated CEO salaries. Meanwhile, Rubio said he wants the Republican—which, he said, is portrayed unfairly as "a party that doesn't care about the lower class" —to remake itself into "the champion of the working class. " What neither candidate has done yet is directly connect the recent spate of violence to the fact that the economic ladder no longer works for a growing number of Americans. Raising the federal minimum wage is just a first step. As Thomas Piketty showed in his best-selling book on inequality, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, creating a system of capitalism that more equitably distributes wealth is our biggest challenge now. A few extra dollars an hour will help minimum-wage workers(a group in which minorities are overrepresented), but it won't address deeper economic inequality. And as a growing body of research from outfits like the Brookings Institution has shown, more inequality means less opportunity. As Brookings senior fellow Isabel Sawhill puts it, "When the rungs on the ladder are farther apart, it's harder to climb up them. " The dirty secret of America in 2015 is that the wealth gap between whites and everyone else is far worse than most people would guess. A 2014 study by Duke University and the Center for Global Policy Solutions, found that the median amount of liquid wealth(assets that can easily be turned into cash)held by African-American households was $ 200. For Latino households it was $ 340. The median for white households: $23,000. One reason for the difference is that a disproportionate number of nonwhites, along with women and younger workers of all races, have little or no access to formal retirement-savings plans. Another is that they were hit harder in the mortgage crisis, in part because housing is where the majority of Americans, especially nonwhites, keep most of their wealth, In this sense, the government's policy decision to favor lenders over homeowners in the 2008 bailouts favored whites over people of color. That's bad news for a country that will be "majority minority" by 2043, according to Maya Rockeymoore, president of the Center for Global Policy Solutions. The U. S. economy continues to be stuck in a slow, volatile recovery. Lack of consumer demand driven by stagnant or falling wages, and decreased opportunity for many Americans, is what many economists believe behind the paltry growth. Given that 70% of the U. S. economy is driven by consumer demand, it's a problem that will eventually affect everyone's bottom line, rich and poor. How to fix it? We need to think harder about narrowing the gap between those at the bottom and the top. If most people, especially lower-income individuals and minorities, keep the bulk of their wealth in housing, we should rethink lending practices and allow for a broader range of credit metrics(which tend to be biased toward whites)and lower down payments for good borrowers. Rethinking our retirement policies is crucial too. Retirement incentives work mainly for whites and the rich. Minority and poor households are less likely to have access to workplace retirement plans, in part because many work in less formal sectors like restaurants and child care. Another overdue fix: we should expand Social Security by lifting the cap on payroll taxes so the rich can contribute the same share of their income as everyone else. Doing both would be a good first step. But going forward, economic and racial fairness can no longer be thought of as separate issues.