问答题The most important fact in Washington's failure on Thursday to be re-elected for the first time since 1947 to the U.N. Human Rights Commission is that it was America's friends, not its enemies, that engineered the defeat. After all, China and Cuba and other targets of U.S.-led criticism in the committee were always going to vote and lobby against Washington; the shock came in the fact that the European and other Western nations that traditionally ensured U.S. reelection turned their backs on Washington. Many traditional U.S. supporters clearly withdrew their votes to signal displeasure over U.S. unilateralism. They have been increasingly chagrined by Washington's tendency to ignore the international consensus on issues ranging from the use of land mines to the Kyoto climate change treaty. They are also critical of what they see as Washington's tendency to publicise the issue of human rights, using annual resolutions at the committee to denounce China or Cuba when that conforms to U.S. foreign policy objectives but for the same reason voting alone in defence of Israel when that country is in the dock over its conduct.

问答题

问答题我国政府强化了对外贸的控管，强化了商会这类中介机构的服务与协调功能。我们希望继续加强外贸体制的改革，使之逐渐走向竞争，并受到诸如关税、汇率和利率等法律和经济手段的制约。所有这些都应有助于加速中国外贸的国际化进程，为宏观经贸局面的形成创造一个较好的环境，通过促进商贸业、制造业、农业、技术产业和银行之间更为密切的合作，我们能够为国际市场提供更多、更好的出口产品。在这种情况下，中国自然会成为一个大市场。

问答题Concerns about the effects of television on children are a recurrent theme of public debate. Yet it is an area in which children"s voices are rarely heard. Too often parental and governmental anxiety has focused on the impact screen violence may have on young viewer"s behavior with little attention paid to children"s own emotional responses to the moving image. David Buckingham, a lecturer in media studies at the University of London"s Institute of Education, believes a more useful approach to understanding the role of television in children"s lives is to ask children about their own responses to horror films, "weepies", soap operas and news bulletins and to discuss with them how they make sense of what they see. Mr. Buckingham, a father of two boys aged five and nine, also believes it is important to understand how parents help or hinder their children"s understanding of television. In an attempt to throw new light on the issue, Mr. Buckingham interviewed 72 children aged six to 15 about their television viewing. The result is a refreshing book, Moving Images: Understanding Children"s Emotional Responses to Television, which is recommended reading for all media policymakers. The children displayed a sophisticated understanding of many of the conventions of television. Even the very youngest subjects knew that families in The Cosby Show or Roseanne are not "real" and were bale to recognize that programs obeyed certain rules whereby things are played for laughs or conflicts are easily resolved. Yet their interpretation of how realistic such programs are also depended on how they compared with their own family lives. "A key factor to emerge was the way they reacted differently to fact and fiction," Mr. Buckingham says. So much of the debate about television, particularly about the possible imitative effects of screen violence, focuses on fiction, such as horror films and thrillers. Mr. Buckingham discovered, however, that news and documentaries often produced more profound reactions. As part of the study he interviewed children who had seen Child"s Play 3, the "video nasty" which some newspapers speculated may have influenced the child killers of James Bugler in 1993. Many of the children who had watched the 18-rated film appeared to be seasoned horror film viewers who found it "scary" in parts but also enjoyable. Much of their pleasure appeared to come from its joking attitude to death. The children"s reaction to the media coverage of the Bugler case was quite different. Many said the press and television reports of the case had upset them a great deal; a number said they had cried or had been unable to sleep. In contrast to their view of Child"s Play, the children repeatedly related the events to their own experience. Many argued, nevertheless, that it was important for the Bugler coverage to be shown, not least as a warning. Mr. Buckingham believes these responses raise important issues that media commentators have virtually ignored. If there are questions to be asked about screen violence, perhaps the starting point should be to what extent does news coverage enable children to understand what they are seeing. "Often we see decontextualised images of suffering in the news and it is questionable how far children can understand what they are seeing," he says. One way of helping children to interpret what they see on television would be to integrate it into their education. "Media studies could be part of English lessons. English is the subject in schools that is most concerned with culture, but to narrow culture down to books is unrealistic. To pretend that television is not part of our culture is not to equip kids to deal with the modem world," he says. Parents also need education, he adds. Schools encourage parents to help their children to read at home, Mr. Buckingham says, and they should take similar steps to get parents to take part in their children"s television viewing. "It is accepted that parents will sit down and read books with their children, not just to help them to read, but to talk to them about the stories and about life in general. Similar things could be achieved with television, if only it was given the same status. " "There is a lot of cultural snobbery about television. Too often it is treated as a reward, a way of keeping kids quiet or as a focus of family battles over what programs children should be allowed to watch," Mr. Buckingham says. A more positive approach to television, might pay off. "The therapeutic and cathartic experiences of television gained through the vicarious experiences of watching somebody else"s life, for example, might be more effective if children didn"t just watch it but also talk about it with their parents," he says. Regulatory or censorship bodies, such as the Broadcasting Standards Council and the British Board of Film Classification, could take a lead by producing source material. The explosion of multi-channel television of new information technology such as video-on-demand and the Internet, will render the current system of censorship through broadcasting regulation and film and video classification totally unworkable. Eventually there will simply be too much material hitting our screens for the regulators to monitor effectively. Improving parents" and children"s ability to interpret what they see and to cope with their own emotions about it, will help to empower them to make informed decisions about television on their own behalf. Ultimately, it could be our best hope of enjoying, and retaining some control over, the multi-channel future.

问答题People now sleep about 20% less than they did a century ago. One 2010 poll of 1000 Americans found 36% are drowsy or fall asleep when they are driving, and 29% become very sleepy at work.

问答题In 1965, America’s big companies had a hell of a year. The stock market was booming. Sales were rising briskly, profit margins were fat, and corporate profits as a percentage of G.D.P. were at an all-time high. Almost half a century later, some things look much the same: big American companies have had a hell of a year, with the stock market soaring, margins strong, and profits hitting a new all-time high. But there’s one very noticeable difference. In 1965, C.E.O.s at big companies earned, on average, about twenty times as much as their typical employee. These days, C.E.O.s earn about two hundred and seventy times as much. 从第二段开头的the huge gap可以看出第一段讲的是两种经济状况之间的差距。这里也正好是第一题的定位：The author makes a comparison between today’s America with that of 1965______.既然第二段追究的是这种gap的原因，那么答案就在第一段结尾处：今天的CEO-雇员的收入差距比大大增加了。 That huge gap between the top and the middle is the result of a boom in executive compensation, which rose eight hundred and seventy-six per cent between 1978 and 2011, according to a study by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. In response, we’ve had a host of regulatory reforms designed to curb executive pay. The latest of these is a rule, unveiled by the S.E.C. last month, requiring companies to disclose the ratio of the C.E.O.’s pay to that of the median worker. The idea is that, once the disparity is made public, companies will be less likely to award outsized pay packages. Faith in disclosure has been crucial to the regulation of executive pay since the nineteen-thirties, when companies were first required to reveal those figures. More recently, rules have made companies detail the size and the structure of compensation packages and have enforced transparency about the kinds of comparisons they rely on to determine salaries. The business press, meanwhile, now rigorously tracks executive pay. The result is that shareholders today know far more about C.E.O. compensation than ever before. There’s only one problem: even as companies are disclosing more and more, executive pay keeps going up and up. 这一段开头黑体部分为我们提示了一个关键字：disclosure. 由此可以看出本文的话题是从收入差距说开去，转向CEO的收入披露机制。 This isn’t a coincidence: the drive for transparency has actually helped fuel the spiralling salaries. For one thing, it gives executives a good idea of how much they can get away with asking for. A more crucial reason, though, has to do with the way boards of directors set salaries. As the corporate-governance experts Charles Elson and Craig Ferrere write in a recent paper, boards at most companies use what’s called “peer benchmarking.” They look at the C.E.O. salaries at peer-group firms, and then peg their C.E.O.’s pay to the fiftieth, seventy-fifth, or ninetieth percentile of the peer group—never lower. This leads to the so-called Lake Wobegon effect: every C.E.O. gets treated as above average. With all the other companies following the same process, salaries ratchet inexorably higher. “Relying on peer-group comparisons, the way boards do, mathematically guarantees that pay is going to go up,” Elson told me. 本段讲到越是披露高管们的收入，他们就越能要求更高的收入。 On top of this, peer-group comparisons aren’t always honest: boards can be too cozy with C.E.O.s and may tweak the comparisons to justify overpaying. A recent study by the labor economist Ron Laschever shows that boards tend to include as peers companies that are bigger than they are and that pay their C.E.O.s more. The system is also skewed by so-called “leapfroggers,” the few C.E.O.s in a given year who, whether by innate brilliance or by dumb luck, end up earning astronomical salaries. Those big paydays reset the baseline expectations for everyone else. 段首句是主题句：高管们可能还会想方设法隐瞒自己高增长的收入。 This isn’t just an American problem. Elson notes that, when Canada toughened its disclosure requirements, executive salaries there rose sharply, and German studies have found something similar. Nor is it primarily a case of boards being helplessly in thrall to a company’s executives. Boards are far more independent of management than they used to be, and it’s notable that a C.E.O. hired from outside a company—who therefore has no influence over the board—typically gets twenty to twenty-five per cent more than an inside candidate. The real issues are subtler, though no less insidious. Some boards, in the face of much evidence to the contrary, remain convinced of what Elson calls “superstar theory”: they think that C.E.O.s can work their magic anywhere, and must be overpaid to stay. In addition, Elson said, “if you pay below average, it makes it look as if you’d hired a below-average C.E.O., and what board wants that?” 这个问题并不局限于美国，而是国际化的。 Transparent pricing has perverse effects in other fields. In a host of recent cases, public disclosure of the prices that hospitals charge for various procedures has ended up driving prices up rather than down. And the psychological causes in both situations seem similar. We tend to be uneasy about bargaining in situations where the stakes are very high: do you want the guy doing your neurosurgery, or running your company, to be offering discounts? Better, in the event that something goes wrong, to be able to tell yourself that you spent all you could. And overspending is always easier when you’re spending someone else’s money. Corporate board members are disbursing shareholder funds; most patients have insurance to foot the bill. 收入披露在其他领域中也会引起一系列不良反应。 Sunlight is supposed to be the best disinfectant. But there’s something na?ve about the new S.E.C. rule, which presumes that full disclosure will embarrass companies enough to restrain executive pay. As Elson told me, “People who can ask to be paid a hundred million dollars are beyond embarrassment.” More important, as long as the system for setting pay is broken, more disclosure makes things worse instead of better. We don’t need more information. We need boards of directors to step up and set pay themselves, instead of outsourcing the job to their peers. The rest of us don’t get to live in Lake Wobegon. C.E.O.s shouldn’t, either. 本文得出的结论是，SEC的规则的潜台词是，完全披露收入将会是各大公司不愿提高高管的薪水。

问答题Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 5 sentences in English. 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.

问答题Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in Chinese. After you have heard each passage, interpret it into English. Start interpreting at the signal...and stop it at the signal... you may take notes while you"re listening. Remember you will hear the passages only once. Now, let"s begin Part B with the first passage.

问答题LONDON—Down in the mall, between the fast-food joint and the bagel shop, a group of young people huddles in a flurry of baggy combat pants, skateboards, and slang. They size up a woman teetering past wearing DKNY, carrying Time magazine in one hand and a latte in the other. She brushes past a guy in a Yankees" baseball cap who is talking on his Motorola cell phone about the Martin Scorsese film he saw last night. It"s a standard American scene—only this isn"t America, it"s Britain. US culture is so pervasive, the scene could be played out in any one of dozens of cities. Budapest or Berlin, if not Bogota or Bordeaux. Even Manila or Moscow. As the unrivaled global superpower, America exports its culture on an unprecedented scale. From music to media, film to fast food, language to literature and sport, the American idea is spreading inexorably, not unlike the influence of empires that preceded it.

问答题School bullying is quite common in most schools. According to the American Psychological Association, approximately 40% to 80% of school-age children experience bullying at some point during their school careers. Regardless of the grade level, socioeconomic environment, gender and religion, bullying can happen to anyone. Teachers need to have a certain level of awareness of this issue. This starts with understanding the three forms of bullying: physical, verbal and emotional. Physical bullying is any unwanted physical contact between the bully and the victim. It is the most identifiable form of all. Verbal bullying is any injurious language or statement that causes the victim"s emotional suffering. Emotional bullying is any form of bullying that causes damages to a victim"s emotional well-being. The consequence of school bullying might be horrible. It is a major cause of school shootings. School shooters that died or committed suicide left behind evidence that they had been bullied. Therefore, enough attention should be given and practical measures should be taken by the school administration to address this issue.

问答题

问答题{{B}} Directions:{{/B}}{{I}} 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.{{/I}}

问答题

问答题Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 5 sentences in English. 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.

问答题豫园是上海著名的古典园林，已有400多年的历史。花园设计独特，具有明清两代南方的建筑艺术的风格。园内共有40余景，景色自然迷人，亭台楼阁、假山池塘和谐对称、协调均衡，其布局之精致自古闻名江南。 　豫园原为明代一位大官的私家花园，始建于1559年，直到20年后才建成。此后曾几经变迁，屡遭摧残。所幸的是，从1949年上海解放时，园内的主要景点尚完好无损。从1956年开始，豫园经过多次修缮，重现其昔日光彩。

问答题 Go to the mall these days and it's hard not to feel as if you're being messed with, which is why J. C. Penney's recent not-going-to- take-it-anymore ad rings true. You may have seen it. consumer upon consumer screaming "No!" as coupons flood out of a mailbox, crowds mass before dawn for a Black Friday-esque sale and store windows are stocked with items that are now 62% off. Too bad you bought them at full price, sucker. The ad is staged and exaggerated, but the frustrations are real. To be a shopper—and not walk away screaming—is to come to grips with the reality that unless you are using shopbots and taking on bargain hunting as a full-time job, as some have, you are almost never going to get the lowest price. So when Penney's newly appointed CEO, Ron Johnson, declared in mid-January that most of the original prices in his store have long been "fake" and inflated, the only surprising thing was that he had the guts to admit it. More surprising. Johnson said he was going to make changes. Instead of facing infinite discounts and promotions—there were 590 different "sales" at Penney alone in 2011—the department store's shoppers will now see just three price categories. One will represent discounted seasonal items that change monthly. Another is clearance merchandise marked down on the first and third Fridays of each month. But the majority of goods will be offered every day at 40% or 50% less than the prices Penney used to charge. In retail parlance that's called EDLP, as in "everyday low price". It's a radical shift for a promotional department store like Penney. The "fair and square" makeover also includes a new logo, store upgrades and in-store boutiques that will feature fewer brands. The big discount chains Walmart and Target have long staked out EDLP, but mostly we live in a promotional, markdown world. And all those Sunday circulars, flash deals and holiday sales events—which seemed more intense than ever last year—have turned shopping into retail combat. According to the management-consulting firm A.T. Kearney, more than 40% of the items we bought last year were on sale. That's up from 10% in 1990. Penney has been a notorious discounter, with nearly three-quarters of revenue coming from goods sold at 50% or more off list price—whatever that is—and less than 1% from fullprice merchandise. If anyone is equipped to transform Penney, it's the new CEO. Johnson joined the retailer in November, arriving from Apple, where for the past decade he presided over the computer company's huge retail success. Apple loves price maintenance and loathes heavy discounting and sales gimmicks. Johnson believes Penney's customers will appreciate pricing clarity, not to mention sleeping in. "I don't think customers like having to come to a store between 8 and 10 a.m. on a Sunday in order to get the best price on swimwear," he said. But iPads are not underwear or makeup. "My intuition is that, in the long run, the changes won't be effective," says Kit Yarrow, consumer psychologist and author of Gen BuY: How Tweens, Teens and Twenty-Somethings Are Revolutionizing Retail. "A discount gives shoppers the incentive to buy today. Without that, there's no sense of urgency for people to purchase things that, frankly, they probably don't need." Today's consumers respond well to transparency, though, and to businesses that admit their mistakes. The success of the Domino's "We Were Wrong" campaign is Exhibit A. So Penney's disavowal of marketing games should build customer trust. At least initially, the slashing of all list prices should also boost sales. But what happens when the novelty wears off and nothing seems special about everyday prices? By then, Johnson hopes, J. C. Penney will be a place that shoppers love because they like the merchandise and atmosphere, and they won't fret about doing better elsewhere.

问答题Directions: Read the following passages and then answer IN COMPLETE SENTENCES the questions which follow each passage. The BBC is to offer staff contracts to some of its biggest names in a U-turn after months of accusations that it is enabling tax avoidance. These will be offered mainly to highly paid individuals who it had previously made to set up personal service companies. Those affected face pay cuts of up to 40 percent because the BBC will become liable for national insurance contributions among other employment costs. Lord Patten of Barnes, Chairman of the BBC Trust, said yesterday that he hoped other public sector organizations would follow the BBC's lead. The Times revealed in July that Jeremy Paxman was among a number of presenters furious that they had been subjected to questions about their integrity as a result of being asked to set up personal service companies. Such arrangements can save individuals thousands of pounds as they pay corporation tax of 21 percent rather than income tax at up to 50 percent. The BBC avoids employers' national insurance payments of 13.8 percent by paying people as freelancers. However, if the Revenue decides that a worker is in reality an employee it can chase the BBC for the back tax. The corporation is considering a report it commissioned from Deloitte after criticism of its tax affairs by MPs. It is understood to have concluded that some individuals paid through service contracts should become staff. Last week it emerged in a report by MPs that the BBC was paying 1,500 presenters, musicians and actors through private companies. The cross-party Public Accounts Committee said that this was a "staggeringly inappropriate" way of paying staff. Margaret Hodge, its chairwoman, said that paying regular contributors through service companies gave rise to "suspicions of complicity in tax avoidance". The committee found that the BBC issued 25,000 contracts to freelance contributors. Out of these, 4,500 contributors were paid through personal service companies. Lord Patten said: "It's undoubtedly the case that some freelancers will be put on the payroll. I am sure that we will also want more regular information going to the Revenue on service companies so that they can be absolutely clear about the tax liability. And we may wish, frankly, to go further than that. If we do ... I hope other public sector organisations will do the same." He admitted that the BBC had not given enough clarity about tax arrangements of its workforce but denied that the BBC had ever "connived at tax dodging". He said the BBC had asked its freelance workers to set up personal service companies "in order to avoid the licence fee-payer having to be liable for unpaid taxes by people being paid in that way". A BBC source said the decision to take people on to staff had been made because it was "a publicly funded organisation and sometimes, whether or not you're breaking any laws, you have to reflect public feeling". "This proposal will be cost neutral," the source said. "If you're a freelancer paid by a service company now the very high likelihood is that your pay would go down, but you would get the benefits of a pension, holiday and sick pay." Mike Warburton, director of tax at accountants Grant Thornton, calculated that the extra costs of paying national insurance, holiday pay, sick pay and pension contributions could cost the BBC an extra 40 percent. A presenter paid ￡100,000 through a personal service company would have to accept a salary of ￡60,000 to join the staff. Mr. Warburton said: "To do it on a cost neutral basis seems a sensible approach. Licence fee-payers would presumably not want the BBC saddled with extra costs." A BBC spokesman said the corporation could not comment on the Deloitte report. "The review of these arrangements is ongoing and we will report back to the BBC Trust later this autumn," he said.

Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following interview.

Questions 16 to 20 are based on the following talk.