BTalks and ConversationsDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear several short talks and conversations. After each of these, you will hear a few questions. Listen carefully because you will hear the talk or conversation and questions ONLY ONCE, when you hear a question, read the four answer choices and choose the best answer to that question. Then write the letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET./B

Today, about a third of America's millennials still live with their parents, earning us the irksome epithet "boomerang generation". We're hanging out in our parents' basements rather than marrying and starting legally recognized unions of our own. Marriage rates have skidded downward, with a little more than a quarter of 18- to 35-year-olds ball-and-chained in 2012. Partly as a result, more than half of the country is presently single. To some, this arrested development is evidence of a prolonged adolescence and a rejection of self-sufficiency, perhaps encouraged by indulgent "helicopter parenting." According to a recent survey, about three quarters of America's young adults consider millennials to be "responsible" and "hard-working," while just half of older adults agree. If character isn't the issue, perhaps it's misplaced preferences: We millennials have set aside the ideals of an "ownership society" in favor of the hippy-dippy values of a "sharing economy. " We rent, borrow or share our textbooks, cars and even dinner leftovers, so why would we bother buying a home or permanently attaching ourselves to a single romantic partner? Recent data, though, suggest that these standard, American dream-style signposts still retain an incredibly strong hold over young people's desires and aspirations. What's changed is that basic goals such as getting married, having a secure job and owning a home have drifted further out of reach.

Napoleon was wrong when he dismissed the British as a nation of shopkeepers (and hence unfit to defeat France in war). Compared with France, Britain in the 1790s already had a bigger manufacturing base, a higher income per head and hence a tax base wide enough to pay for 22 years of conflict that led to the emperor's Waterloo. Indeed, the demand for ships and munitions, created by the long war against France, boosted British industry. Two centuries later, however, the little Corsican may have a point. This week ICI, the company that once symbolised British industry, became the target of a takeover bid from Akzo Nobel, a Dutch competitor. Meanwhile, Britain's Tesco supermarket group is boldly expanding into America and other foreign markets in a bid to overtake France's Carrefour (sorry, Monsieur l'Empereur) to become the world's second-biggest retailer behind Wal-Mart. Britain has a much more open economy than America, measured by foreign trade or capital flows. Indeed, there could be no greater testimony to its health than the unsentimental ability to let one-time national champions float quietly off into another's embrace. Imperial Chemical Industries was born on the liner Aquitania in the mid-Atlantic when four British chemical barons of the 1920s agreed to combine forces. But the company started coming apart in the 1990s. It balked at buying Glaxo to become a world-class drugs company. Funking as predator, it became prey itself. Prodded by the threat of a hostile break-up bid from Lord Hanson, a corporate raider at the height of his powers, ICI floated off its drugs division, now AstraZeneca. As it moved upmarket, ICI became progressively less imperial, less chemical and less industrial. It paid too much for Unilever's specialty chemicals business and struggled to pay down the debt it incurred by selling its commodity petrochemicals operations at just the wrong point in the cycle. Its giant petrochemicals complex on Teesside—once the very symbol of British manufacturing strength—was sold to some Americans and now belongs to a Saudi company. Such sell-offs go almost without comment now in Britain. When investors from Dubai snapped up P its mobile arm has already been taken by Spain's Telefonica. Likewise BAE Systems (no longer British Aerospace) sees its future in America, perhaps in the belly of a beast named Boeing, Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin. In most countries that would count as a litany of failure. But just as Britain led the world into industrialisation, so now Britain is leading it out. Today you can still find a few British engineers and scientists making jet engines and pharmaceuticals—and doing rather well at it. But many more are cooking up algorithms for hedge funds and investment banks—where in many cases they add more value. The economy has boomed these past 15 years, as manufacturing has been left behind and London has become the world's leading international financial centre. Britain's deficit in manufactured goods is hitting record highs. But so are the capital inflows. All those foreign investors have brought a lot, too. Nissan's car factory in Sunderland, for instance, is one of its finest anywhere. If foreigners think they can manage British factories or finances better than the natives can, they are welcome.

[此试题无题干]

Good afternoon, folks. Today's topic is "Try Jogging for Fitness". When we run for fitness, exercise, and pleasure, it is commonly called jogging. Jogging 【C1】______in recent years. The popularity of jogging today stems from【C2】______. First, jogging is one of the most efficient forms of exercise. As a rule, a person jogging【C3】______more calories per minute than in most other sports. Running, like biking, swimming and【C4】______is an aerobic exercise. Such an exercise uses a great deal of oxygen. In addition, it increases【C5】______. Aerobic exercise strengthens the heart muscle so that it【C6】______. This kind of exercise is also one of the best ways to improve our general health and【C7】______ of our lungs. Jogging is also popular because almost every one of us【C8】______. Jogging is an activity that doesn't require【C9】______or special coordinatioa Jogging is【C10】______. Finally, it can be done alone, with another person, or in a group. For anyone who runs more than【C11】______a week, it is important to have good running shoes. Tennis shoes or sneakers won't do. Running produces stress that is 【C12】______than the stress of walking. With this added stress to【C13】______, we need good shoes. The shoes should be replaced when they【C14】______or worn unevenly. Cold weather poses few problems for us joggers. The main hazard in【C15】______is slipping on ice or snow. There is no danger of freezing our lungs, because our body 【C16】______before it reaches our lungs. In winter we should be sure to【C17】______ and keep our feet as dry and warm as possible. It's best to wear 【C18】______. In summer, we must be careful not to dry out. So it is important for us to【C19】______on hot, humid days. The best summer wear is loose fitting and【C20】______.

{{B}}Part B 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 us begin Part B with the first passage.{{/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}}

What does Chicago mayor mean by saying that "... you are supposed to just, on your own, turn that around. "(para. 4)? Britain' s top surgeons have warned that new government contracts for junior doctors may accelerate the "brain drain" stripping the NHS of its most talented staff. In a letter urging Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, to re-engage in talks to avert a strike that could delay up to 180,000 operations, more than 1,000 consultants sound the alarm about the falling number of applications to medical schools and rising dropout rates. Three days of walkout are set to disrupt non-urgent NHS services next month after 98% of the 28,305 junior doctors who took part in a British Medical Association(BMA)ballot backed strike action. Hunt has said the new contracts are necessary to provide a seven-day NHS and that a reduction in overtime rates for junior doctors at weekends would be compensated for by extra basic pay and a cut in the maximum number of hours a doctor can work in a week. He has accused the doctors' union of misleading its members, but the BMA says the government is trying to impose an unfair contract because some doctors' pay would drop. In the past two days more than 1,000 consultant surgeons have added their names to the letter, published today in The Sunday Times, urging NHS employers to "restart negotiations without the threat of preconditions or the imposition of the new contract to avoid further threats of industrial action". It highlights the fact that applications to medical schools have fallen this year and that in 2014, 40% of trainees dropped out before completing their core training against 25% the previous year. Among those who signed the letter is Nigel Standfield, a vascular surgeon and head of the London Postgraduate School of Surgery, which is responsible for 1,400 trainees. He said: "These figures are hugely alarming, especially given the amount of money that has been invested in their training. "The competition ratios for jobs are now so low that we are unable to maintain the high standards required and this is causing immense pressure on the hospital environment. " In 2007 there were eight junior doctors competing for each surgical speciality post but now the ratio is just one to one, according to BMJ Careers. Shafi Ahmed, a council member of the Royal College of Surgeons, said hospitals were struggling to fill posts as trainees dropped out or moved abroad. This year 8,026 doctors have been issued with a certificate of current professional status, the paperwork needed to practice medicine outside the UK, against 4,564 in 2008. Ahmed said: "We are seeing a shortage of trainees and if the new contract goes ahead we face an even bigger exodus. Junior doctors have the right to strike but we are urging both parties to go back to the table. " Consultants argue the proposed changes would see trainees "paid less to do extra hours, out of hours" and that those who took time out to do research or to have a family would be hit hardest. Stella Vig, chairwoman of the joint committee on surgical training, said: "Female surgeons will naturally take career breaks to have children but the proposed pay structure discourages this. " Alistair Burt, a health minister, said Hunt had not ruled out mediation through the conciliation service Acas. He said up to 60,000 operations would be at risk of cancellation or delay on each day of strike action and described the industrial action planned for December 1,8 and 16 as "entirely avoidable". The Department of Health said: "Strike action always puts patients at risk so this blinkered and persistent refusal by the BMA to engage with the government is extremely disappointing. " Junior doctors will provide a "Christmas Day" level of service on the first day of the strikes and a full walkout on the second two days from 8am to 5pm. Several trusts have said they will ask consultants to cancel elective work in order to cover emergency care. Dr Kathy McLean, medical director at the NHS Trust Development Authority, said: "We will be working with NHS England, trusts and foundation trusts on plans to manage the impact of industrial action and minimize disruption for patients. "

Eating out has become as American as apple pie, but for those manning the kitchen, restaurant work is anything but an American dream. Dishwashers, waiters and delivery people are increasingly served up unfair pay, discrimination and dangerous working conditions. A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, Unregulated Work in the Global City, documents a disturbing pattern of health and safety violations, wage inequities, and other indignities that plague a surprisingly broad swath of low-wage urban laborers. The report highlights a range of dramatic daily violations. And while the Brennan Center focused its research between 2003 and 2006 on New York City specifically, labor experts say the problem manifests itself in cities across the country. The number of federal lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act has more than doubled in recent years, growing from 1,854 in 2000 to 4,389 in 2006. "There are plenty of responsible employers in these low wage industries who are trying to do the right thing and comply with our labor laws," says Annette Bernhardt, the study's author and deputy director of the Brennan Center's Justice Program. "But they're starting to come under pressure from scrupulous employers, and they're getting dragged down in a race to the bottom, which is bad for our entire labor market." More than 5 million people work in restaurants nationwide, according to the US Department of Labor, including more than two million waiters and waitresses, two million line cooks and food preparers, and half a million dishwashers. About two-thirds of restaurant workers are foreign born, and increasingly, they're from Central and South America. The Brennan Center Study, which drew on extensive worker interviews, industry publications, prior studies and data on government enforcement efforts, concludes that many restaurant workers earn less than the minimum wage. Tips are often arbitrarily confiscated, overtime pay is rare, and wage deductions for things like broken plates and spoiled food are commonplace. The mistreatment of restaurant workers at a number of well-known eateries has recently prompted public outrage. At Saigon Grill, Ollie's and Jing Fong in New York City, delivery workers walked off the job in protest of wage and tip policies. More than two dozen city restaurants have been sued over the past year, and legal action has also been taken against restaurants in Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey and Rhode Island. "We have in our restaurant community a great many ethnic restaurants owned and operated by people for whom English is not their first language," says Chuck Hunt, Executive Vice President for the New York State Restaurant Association, "and perhaps the violations have not been fully explained." But Bernhardt and her coauthors found that restaurateurs themselves readily acknowledged that overtime and other violations were widespread. A study conducted by the Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York, a worker advocacy group, found that 13% of workers earned less than the minimum wage, and 59% had suffered overtime violations, having pay withheld for extra hours of work. The average dishwasher makes just $180 to $300 a week for 50 to 80 hours on the job. Delivery people typically make just $120 to $200 for a similar number of hours, plus tips that can vary widely. Restaurant owners are required to ensure that total wages and tips reach the minimum wage, but many don't. "The Department of Labor is aware of the violations," says New York State Department of Labor Commissioner Patricia Smith, who was appointed in December of 2006. "We're going to have broader enforcement. We're going to have more proactive enforcement." "Immigrant workers are vulnerable to exploitation whether they're legal or illegal. They often don't speak English and they come from countries where the wages are very low, so even if they are making less than minimum wage, they're making more than they would be at home," Smith says. So they're reluctant to protest conditions set by employers. In May, the New York State Labor Department established the Bureau of Immigrant Workers' Rights to make sure immigrant workers aren't treated differently from those born in the United States. But that office alone is unlikely to remedy the broader problem of underpaid, undervalued work in urban restaurants. "They are not isolated, short-lived cases of exploitation at the fringe of the city's economy," writes Bernhardt in the report. "Instead, the systematic violation of our country's core employment and labor laws ... is threatening to become a way of doing business for unscrupulous employers. And yet from the standpoint of public policy, these jobs—and the workers who hold them—are too often off the radar screen."

Divorce is transforming the lives of American children. In the post-World War II generation, more than 80 percent of children grew up with both biological parents. Today only half will do so. Each year more than a million children experience family breakup; about as many are born out of wedlock. At the same time, the problems associated with family disruption have grown. Overall child wellbeing has declined, despite historically high public spending. The teen suicide rate has almost tripled. Juvenile crime has increased and become more violent. School performance has been poor. Given such a dramatic impact on children's lives, one might expect today's high divorce rate to be viewed more widely as a national crisis. Yet, those who argue that it poses a serious threat are dismissed as being pessimistic or nostalgic, unwilling to accept the new facts of life. The dominate view in the popular culture is that the changes in family structure are, on balance, positive. And until recently there was little hard evidence to confirm or dispute this assumption. A 1940s book on divorce asserted: "children are entitled to the affection and association of two parents, not one." In the 1950s most Americans believed parents should stay in an unhappy marriage to avoid damaging the children.

The late Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once said that the meaning of a word was derived from the way it is used in language. Not according to McDonald's. The fast-food giant is currently lobbying dictionary publishers to change the meaning of the word McJob—or remove it altogether—on the grounds that it denigrates the company's employees. First used some 20 years ago in the United States to describe low-paying, low-skill jobs that offered little prospect of advancement, the term McJob was popularized by the author Douglas Coupland in his 1991 slacker ode Generation X, which chronicled the efforts of a "lost" generation of twenty-somethings to escape their dead-end jobs in an attempt to find meaning in life. In 2001, the term finally entered the Oxford English Dictionary, which defined it as "an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, especially one created by the expansion of the service sector." And it has remained there ever since. But not for much longer if McDonald's gets its way. The company is leading a "word battle" on behalf of the wider service sector. The object, according to David Fairhurst, a senior vice-president of McDonald's, is to change the definition of McJob to "reflect a job that is stimulating, rewarding ... and offers skills that last a lifetime." At first the OED, Britain's dictionary of record, explained that it merely recorded words according to their popular usage. A statement from a company official said it was not their role to redefine meanings assigned those words according to the preferences of interest groups.Representatives of McDonald's responded by arguing that the OED's definition was "outdated" and "insulting." So, the OED is turning to the public, inviting people to submit opinions on the definition of a McJob: "We're analysing the situation at the moment and evidence for the usage of the word," OED representative John Simpson told TIME. "It's a continuing process." McDonald's is hardly the first interest group to challenge the OED's chronicling of unflattering slang. Last year, Britain's Potato Council complained that the definition of couch potato implied that the nutritious tuber was inherently unhealthy, thus driving down business. Instead, the Council campaigned for the term to be replaced by couch slouch, even staging protests outside the OED's Oxford headquarters—but to no avail. This time, however, could be different—not least because of the size of McDonald's war chest and its lobbying power. The campaign has already garnered the support of heavyweight business figures such as Chambers of Commerce Director General David Frost. More impressively, Conservative Party Member of Parliament Clive Betts last week introduced a motion into Britain's parliament condemning the pejorative use of McJob. Betts believes the OED should redefine the term: "It would be helpful if the dictionary took the lead on this. It's not a proper and true reflection of the service industry today." But the McDonald's "word war" is hardly confined to the corridors of power. Last Friday morning in Birmingham, TIME found a McDonald's publicity team on the street, beneath an enormous TV screen atop a parked van beaming images of bright, happy McDonald's staff, urging passers-by to sign a petition to change the definition of McJob. "We're evidence collecting", said Sue Husband, head of regional corporate communications. The street campaign will visit 40 cities and towns over the next month, culminating in a formal presentation to the OED in October. Adds Douglas Wright, a local McDonald's franchisee, "We're trying to reenergize the definition [and] we're backed by the chamber of commerce. The support has been phenomenal." Away from the official jamboree in Birmingham's city center, however, the enthusiasm for McJobs is more muted among some of those who actually perform them. "Pay is an issue," said Nikki, who works as a floor manager at a nearby restaurant and has two young children at home. "We work very hard here; you're on your feet eight hours a day." Another employee, who preferred to remain anonymous, added that serving customers beat his old position as a factory sweeper. But, he added, "It's just a job." Still, they agreed that current usage of McJob is offensive, although others say that the burger chain is missing the point: it's the job that the term describes, not the person doing it. And it is this stress on the dignity of service industry labor that supporters of the campaign to redefine McJob like to emphasize: "Service sector employees ... should be respected and valued, not written off," said Sir Digby Jones, former chief of the Confederation of British Industry. Skeptics suggest that the language used to describe such jobs will change when the conditions and prospects associated with those jobs change. But whether the Oxford English Dictionary changes its definition of McJob may depend on the outcome of this summer's word war.

For a politician, appearing on a live television news programme can be gruelling, but at least the ground rules are fair. The interviewer will pitch hard questions, but not ridiculous ones, and your replies will be broadcast in their entirety. Not so if you appear on "The Colbert Report", a satirical show on Comedy Central, a cable channel. The host, Stephen Colbert, typically spends two hours pitching questions such as: "If you could embalm anyone in Congress, who would it be?" (This was to Phil Hare, a Democratic congressman from Illinois who once considered becoming a mortician.) Mr. Colbert edits the footage down to the funniest five minutes and broadcasts it. Under these rules no politician, no matter how quick-witted, can win. Which is why Rahm Emanuel, the House Democrats' chief enforcer, recently advised newly-elected Democratic lawmakers to steer clear of the show. Mr. Colbert responded in his usual measured way. "There is a new witch hunt in Washington. First they went after Scooter Libby. Then it was attorney-general Alberto Gonzales. And now the Democratic leadership has unleashed a vicious attack on everything America holds dear: me." He went on: "I know what you're thinking, nation. Why would Emmanuelle, whose erotic adventures taught a generation the elusive art of sensual love, return from space to counsel freshman congressmen?" And so on. Mr. Colbert ended the segment by offering Mr. Emanuel a replacement for the middle finger he lost in a meat-slicer as a teenager—poking out of a box, raised. "The Colbert Report" is probably the most popular satire show among political junkies. Comedians with larger, less well-informed audiences, such as Jay Leno, have to keep their political quips short and focused on figures with flaws everyone knows—like Bill Clinton's lechery or George Bush's grammatical problems. Mr. Colbert faces no such constraints. His jokes are aimed at people who would never watch Bill O'Reilly's conservative rant of a cable news show on Fox, but who recognise Mr. Colbert's obnoxious on-screen persona as a parody of Mr. O'Reilly because they have read about Mr. O'Reilly in the New Yorker. The 1.2 million viewers Mr. Colbert attracts each night may be small by network standards, but they are young, educated and attractive to advertisers. Politicians appear on "The Colbert Report" for the same reason that ordinary people agree to appear on reality shows: it may be undignified, but it gets you on television. For a big shot like Mr. Emanuel, who can attract a camera any time he wants, the indignity obviously outweighs the publicity. But for politicians no one has heard of, it may not. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and Mr. Colbert says he plans to interview them all, one by one, for a series of segments called "Better Know a District". Some end up looking fools. Mr. Colbert floored Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican from Georgia who co-sponsored a bill to have the Ten Commandments displayed in the Capitol, simply by asking him to name the Ten Commandments. Viewers saw him recite three. His spokesman says he managed seven in all. By contrast, most of the Democrats who appear on "The Colbert Report" end up looking like good sports. John Yarmuth of Kentucky was joshed into advocating tossing kittens into a wood-chipper: "sometimes the only thing that you can do, [if] you don't have a shovel." Robert Wexler of Florida confessed to liking cocaine and prostitutes: "It's a fun thing to do." Such spectacles may make Mr. Emanuel squirm, but viewers know it's all a joke. Mr. Colbert extracted Mr. Wexler's "confession" by pointing out that he was running unopposed for reelection and daring him to say something that might otherwise cause him to lose, by completing the sentence "I like cocaine because...". Mr. Colbert is equally rude to all his guests. But because he is pretending to be a deranged right-winger, his questions about policy are much easier for liberals to parry. Last week he sparred with Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting Democratic representative for Washington, DC, about whether DC residents should be allowed the same voting rights as other Americans. To Ms. Holmes Norton, who is black, Mr. Colbert said: "Do we not have more important things to do than worry about whether all of our citizens get a vote?" Against such a foil, Ms. Holmes Norton could hardly help sounding reasonable. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to be flummoxed when Mr. Colbert enthusiastically agrees with a point somewhat more extreme than the one they were making. Jack Kingston, a Republican from Georgia, complained about Democratic plans to make congressmen work a full five-day week in Washington. That would mean less time with their families, he told the Washington Post, but "Democrats could care less about families." Mr. Colbert suggested that the five days could include Sunday, thus keeping lawmakers out of church, too, because "Democrats hate God." "I hadn't thought about that," said Mr. Kingston. "But that would kill two birds with one stone." An odd thing about political satire in America is that it is directed nearly as much at the media as at politicians. Headlines in the Onion, a spoof newspaper ("[Clinton] feels nation's pain, breasts"), would not be so funny if those in the New York Times were not so ponderous. Mr. Colbert's show would make no sense if cable-news blowhards such as Mr. O'Reilly did not exist. The post-modernity of it all was illustrated when Mr. O'Reilly actually appeared on "The Colbert Report" and jokingly admitted that his aggressive on-screen persona was "all an act". Mr. Colbert replied: "If you're an act, then what am I?"

Parenthood should be affordable in this country, but the cost of raising a child from birth to adulthood is now a quarter of a million dollars and projected to double by the time today's toddlers reach their teens. Will having kids soon be out of reach economically for many American families? A recent report from the Center for American Progress found that middle-class families are feeling an unprecedented economic squeeze—caught between stagnating wages and the exploding cost of basics like housing, healthcare and children's education. Most families, it seems, are getting by on less and living closer to the financial edge to help their kids grow up healthy and get ahead. The most striking growth in costs to families has been in child care, where expenses have climbed about $ 200 annually in each of the last dozen years, with nearly tenfold growth since the 1960s. Child care, on average, consumes $ 1 of every $ 5 in a family's budget and exceeds the typical rent in every state. In terms of their kids' health, families increasingly have to choose between treating their children's medical needs and paying household bills. Despite gains in the percentage of children with health insurance, per capita medical spending on kids has quietly ballooned faster than for any other age group, with families paying more for premiums and steeper out-of-pocket expenses. For evidence to suggest that middle-class parents might already be getting priced out of parenthood, look to the national birthrate. It fell sharply in the recession but, unlike in previous economic rebounds, has continued to drop. This makes sense in financial context, given that most families haven't seen their incomes grow since the recovery began and the median net worth of households has actually fallen below what it was 15 years ago. Most families today don't have enough saved to meet basic needs for three months, let alone save for college or retirement. For folks in the middle class, the economic calculus of raising kids must be daunting. Not only are the costs unaffordable, but parents also face a harsh ultimatum: "Keep up with the Gateses" or risk your children's health, achievement and long-term well-being. Higher-income families spend six times more than working-class families on child care and educational resources, such as high-quality day care, summer camps, computers and private schools, which are increasingly indispensable investments in long-term success. This spending inequity has tripled over the last four decades and is only accelerating, which is likely to widen the achievement gap, creating a vicious cycle. The public education infrastructure, designed generations ago to drive a strong economy and give every child an equal footing for success, is crumbling from neglect—stuck between those who argue for repair and those who argue for redesign. As a consequence, it is unable to prepare most kids for the new economy. The statistics are grim: Two-thirds of preschoolers don't have access to high-quality child care, two-thirds of public school students fail to meet math and language proficiency by eighth grade, and two-thirds of public high schoolers aren't ready for college when they graduate. To solve these problems we have increasingly relied on a public safety net designed to catch what used to be a small number of kids falling through the cracks. But over the last 50 years those cracks have become chasms. When funding constraints force programs such as Early Head Start to enroll just 4% of eligible children needing early intervention and half of pediatricians opt out of accepting kids on Medicaid, these are clear signs that it's time to rethink our approach. These economic realities are contributing to a swift loss of academic opportunity, health prospects and upward mobility among children whose parents cannot afford to spend top dollar. With this de facto economic segregation of opportunity leaving working families in the economic dust, we are risking the prosperity and social mobility of our kids for years to come. We should be reinvesting in working families and modernizing our public infrastructure. Not only would this make parenthood more feasible, it also makes good economic sense. We know that investing early in kids yields considerable savings by reducing chronic health problems, building stable families and increasing earning potential. The opportunity to raise healthy, smart and successful kids shouldn't be an economic luxury. It's time we made parenthood affordable again by investing more in kids and families. Given that what's at stake is the success of our country, the alternative is unaffordable.

{{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}}

______

[此试题无题干]

The ancient Chinese board game Go was invented long before there was any writing to record its rules. A game from the impossibly distant past has now brought us closer to a moment that once seemed part of an impossibly distant future: a time when machines are cleverer than we are. For years, Go was considered the last redoubt against the march of computers. Machines might win at chess, draughts, Othello, Monopoly, bridge and poker. Go, though, was different. The game requires intuition, strategising, character reading, along with vast numbers of moves and permutations. It was invented to teach people balance and patience, qualities unique to human intelligence. This week a computer called AlphaGo defeated the world's best player of Go. It did so by "learning" the game, crunching through 30 million positions from recorded matches, reacting and anticipating. It evolved as a player and taught itself. That single game of Go marks a milestone on the road to "technological singularity", the moment when artificial intelligence becomes capable of self-improvement and learns faster than humans can control or understand. Fear of the super-intelligent, over-mighty machine is embedded in our psyche. Technological advance brings with it the anxiety that the machines will eventually threaten humanity, a dread underpinned by the attribution to machines of our own evolutionary instinct to survive at the expense of lesser species. Artificial intelligence is advancing in ways that were once the preserve of science fiction. Scientists are competing to build robot footballers, with a prediction that would once have sounded barmy: "By the middle of the 21st century, a team of fully autonomous humanoid robot soccer players shall win a soccer game, against the winner of the most recent World Cup. " Pepper, an affectionate humanoid robot, was unveiled last year. It is designed to "make people happy" by reading human emotions using a 3D depth sensor and lasers which analyse the facial expressions and voice tones of the people around it. Robot comes from the Czech robota meaning forced labour. Machines are increasingly working with humans. They even make financial decisions: one Hong Kong firm recently appointed an algorithm to its board, with an equal vote on investment decisions. Entrenched in our culture is the idea that when Man overreaches himself by playing God, he faces disaster. In Mary Shelley' s Frankenstein, the monster made by man is an offence against religion and nature that turns on its creator. Its alternative title was The Modern Prometheus: a reference to the figure from Greek mythology who was punished for displaying arrogance towards the gods. It is a short step from Frankenstein to HAL, the softly spoken computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey, which also turns on its human masters. The film Ex Machina is the latest expression of that terror. Underlying this staple sci-fi plot is the assumption that a machine with comparable or greater abilities than ours will inevitably become an enemy. The theory goes that a robot will eventually take over and throw off the "forced labour" reflected in its name. Yet machines do only what they are created to do, and no robot could be built that shares our evolutionary biology. For AlphaGo to represent a danger, it would have to know that it had won, and to like winning. As drone technology shows, intelligent machines can be programmed to endanger humans. All inventions can be turned to nefarious ends, and the advance of artificial intelligence requires human intelligence to frame a set of robotic ethics. While the machines do not need regulation, the people who invent and use them do. In 1942, the great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov drew up three laws governing robot behavior: 1. Never harm a human being through action or inaction: 2. Obey human orders(subject to rule 1): 3. A robot must protect its own existence,(subject to 1 and 2). It is no accident that Asimov's code was drawn up at a time when unfettered power, based on superior technology, was causing untold suffering across the world. He later added a fourth: that robots should not allow humanity in general to come to harm. To Asimov's rules might be added requirements to comply with existing international law and human rights, to design robots in a way that their function is clear and apparent, and to ensure that human beings bear direct legal responsibility for robot behavior. A code of ethics for roboticists would be complex, but no harder to frame than the regulations governing existing relationships between man and machines: speed limits, safety rules, arms treaties. Drawing up the new robot laws would require patience, foresight and adaptability: the very human qualities to be instilled when Go was invented.

{{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}}

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]