问答题 Questions 7～10 In a provocative look at the impact of sedentary behavior on health, a new study links time watching television to an increased risk of death. One of the most surprising findings is that it isn't just couch potatoes who were affected—even for people who exercised regularly, the risk of death went up the longer they were in front of the TV. The problem was the prolonged periods of time spent sitting still. Australian researchers who tracked 8,800 people for an average of six years found that those who said they watched TV for more than four hours a day were 46% more likely to die of any cause and 80% more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than people who reported spending less than two hours a day in front of the tube. Time spent in front of TVs and computers and videogames has come under fire in studies in recent years for contributing to an epidemic of obesity in the U. S. and around the world. But typically the resulting public-health message urges children and adults to put down the Xbox controller and remote and get on a treadmill or a soccer field. The Australian study offers a different take. "It's not the sweaty type of exercise we're losing," says David Dunstan, a researcher at Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, who led the study. "It's the incidental moving around, walking around, standing up and utilizing muscles that doesn't happen when we're plunked on a couch in front of a television." Indeed, participants in the study reported getting between 30 and 45 minutes of exercise a day, on average. The results are supported by an emerging field of research that shows how prolonged periods of inactivity can affect the body's processing of fats and other substances that contribute to heart risk. And they suggest that people can help mitigate such risk simply by avoiding extended periods of sitting. The report, being published Tuesday in the American Heart Association journal Circulation, focuses on TV watching in part because it is the predominant leisure-time activity in many countries, researchers said, especially in the U. S. A study by ratings firm Nielsen Co. found that Americans averaged 151 hours of TV viewing a month in the fourth quarter of 2008—more than five hours a day. Dr. Hamilton says studies suggest that after just one day of inactivity, levels of HDL, or good cholesterol, which helps transport LDL or bad cholesterol out of the blood stream, can fall by as much as 20%. Keeping such processes working more effectively doesn't require constant intense exercise, but consciously adding more routine movement to your life might help, doctors say. "Just standing is better than sitting," says Gerard Fletcher, a cardiologist at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., who works standing up at his computer. "When you stand up, you shuffle around a little bit and use muscles not required when you're sitting or lying down". Simple strategies for increasing activity include incorporating household chores such as folding laundry into TV-watching time or getting up to change a TV channel rather than using a remote control.

问答题The biggest problem of the third industrial revolution is as easy to explain as it is difficult to solve. Technology is creating a global economy that is rapidly supplanting our old national economies. National governments cannot control this new economy, yet no one, least of all Americans, wants to create the form of global government that might be able to control it. As a result we were going to be living in a fundamentally unmanaged economic system. The difficulties of containing the 1997 Asian economic meltdown are just the first of many such difficulties we can expect. National governments, which used to worry about managing and maintaining their economic systems, are slowly being pushed out of business. Changes in global finance overwhelm all but the largest governments. Governments have lost much of their influence over the movement of information and capital. They cannot control who crosses their borders either physically or culturally. Conversely, the power of global businesses is growing with companies" ability to move to the most advantageous locations and play countries off against one another in bidding for attractive investment projects.

问答题Shy people, having low self-respect, are likely to be passive and easily influenced by others. They need reassurance that they are doing "the right thing". Shy people are very sensitive to criticism. They feel it confirms their inferiority. They also find it difficult to be pleased by praise because they believe they are unworthy of praise. It is clear that, while self-awareness is a healthy quality, over-doing it is harmful. Can shyness be completely eliminated, or at least reduced? Fortunately, people can overcome shyness with determined and patient effort in building self-confidence. Since shyness goes hand in hand with lack of self-esteem, it is important for people to accept their weaknesses as well as their strengths. Each one of us is a unique, worthwhile individual. We are interesting in our own personal ways. The better we understand ourselves, the easier it becomes to live up to our fuI1 potential. Let's not allow shyness to block our chances for a rich and fulfilling life.

问答题Bengt Holmstrom, a professor at MIT, is slated to accept a Nobel Prize in economics next month for his path-breaking contributions to contract theory. Congressmen and corporate boards might take note: Mr. Holmstrom"s innovative proposal for indexed stock options, which aren"t yet widely used, could be one solution in the political debate over whether CEOs are fairly paid for performance. Almost all stock options today have a fixed exercise price: The holder buys the company"s stock at the market price on the day the options were granted. The idea is to align the interests of CEOs and their shareholders. If the stock rises, the executive buys at the old price and makes a profit. If the company"s stock is flat or down, the options become worthless. Unfortunately, as Mr. Holmstrom pointed out in 1979, fixed-price options can easily reward poorly performing executives during times of rising markets. Suppose a drug company grant 50,000 options to its CEO with an exercise price of $100 a share. If in three years the stock rises by 30%—to $130 a share—the CEO exercising his options would make a profit of $1.5million. Sometimes this profit might reflect the outstanding work of the CEO. But suppose the stock prices of comparable drug companies rose by 60% on average during the same three years. Suddenly the CEO"s options look like a windfall instead of a reward for superior management. The opposite can also happen. Suppose the stock of our CEO"s firm fell by 15% a share in three years, when comparable drug companies dropped by 30%. The CEO"s stock options would be worthless, even though he did a much better job than his peers of managing the decline in the industry. An indexed stock option eliminates these problems by doing away with the fixed exercise price. Instead, the CEO has the option to purchase stock at a price that rises or falls along with the share prices of comparable firms. The board would choose an appropriate industry stock index against which to measure the executive"s performance. For administrative feasibility, the exercise price of the indexed options could be adjusted no more than annually. To take an example. If the industry index rose 10% by the end of one year, so would the exercise price of the CEO"s options, meaning that if the stock of the CEO"s firm increased by the same 10% that year, his options wouldn"t gain value. This is the way to avoid over-rewarding (or under-rewarding) executives. CEOs with true managerial skill, those who beat their industry averages, will be richly compensated. Those who don"t will not. So why have few companies awarded options structured this way? Historically, firms shunned indexed options because the variable price model would generate expenses on their income statements, while fixed-priced options did not. But that comparative disadvantage no longer exists: For roughly a decade, companies have also been required to record expenses for fixed price options. More important, an indexed stock option is subject to onerous taxes. Regulators wanted to prevent companies from granting options with exercise prices below market—say, a $70 option on stock worth $100—thus giving their executives built-in profits. So there"s a special rule for any option whose exercise price drops below the stock"s market value on the grant date: the government immediately taxes these built-in profits, plus a 20% penalty. Indexed stock options weren"t the target, but they fail under that regulation. To encourage companies to adopt Mr. Holmstrom"s proposal, tax authorities should revise the rule to exempt indexed options. A last factor is competition. Executives might say that indexed options are less valuable than fixed price ones, especially in rising markets. But there are other ways to bid for top CEO talent. Companies could grant them restricted shares, whose payoff depends on achieving specified revenue or earnings targets. Indexed options are designed to reward managerial skill instead of fortuitous movements of the stock market. The government should change the tax rules so that a performance-oriented company may choose to award them without penalty. It"s a good idea—and you don"t have to take my word for it: Ask the Nobelist.

问答题Flight attendants, who start as low as $ 12,000 per year, are paid meagerly. No question. But for all the rhetoric stirred by last month"s strike against American Airlines, few have dared to breathe perhaps the key question—a 60-year-old question. Are flight attendants indispensable guardians of passengers" safety and well-being? Or, are they flying waitresses (85% are women) and waiters who are becoming less important to passengers willing to sacrifice frills for cheap fares? Fright attendants find the second suggestion repugnant. "We"re very highly trained in first aid and CPR," says Wendy Palmer, an American Air fines flight attendant based in Nashville, "Our goal is to evacuate an airplane in a minute or less. That"s what we"re there for. In the meantime, we do serve drinks and food. " "But maybe the time has come to let the free market determine if passengers value flight attendants enough to pay for them," says Thomas Moore, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Customers willing, there"s no reason airlines can"t hand out sandwiches and soft drinks as passengers board. Then they could be on their way with, perhaps, one safety expert on board. "I"d suspect some people would be willing to pay dirt-cheap fares," says Bill Winter, spokesman for the Libertarian Party, an opponent of government regulation, "Other (airlines) would go in the opposite direction and there would be three attendants for each flier. " Already millions of passengers have shown an eagerness to sacrifice service for lower fares. Southwest Airlines, which doesn"t offer meals or assigned seating, has been the fastest-growing and most profitable airline in the industry. Southwest never staffs a jet with more attendants than the Federal Aviation Administration requires. The FAA requires at least one flight attendant for every 50 seats. A 122-seat Boeing 737 must have three flight attendants even if it"s flying only a few passengers. Union contracts often require more. Among its demands, American Airlines wants the option of staffing its jets at the FAA minimum. No other form of transportation falls under such rigid government control. Passengers aboard Amtrak and Greyhound aren"t even required to wear seat belts. But climb aboard a Boeing 757, and you not only have to be strapped in, but four specialists are there to supervise a rare evacuation. The National Safety Council estimates that 1 in 2.2 million people are killed in airline crashes each year. There are about 90,000 airline flight attendants employed by U. S. carriers. They cost the airlines $ 2.7 billion a year, assuming they average $ 30,000 per year in salary and benefits. If they save 100 lives per year, each life costs $ 27 million. Dee Maki, National president of the Association of Flight Attendants, says 100 saved lives is a gross underestimate. No one tracks the actual number, but Maki says more than 100 heart-attack victims are saved each year by attendants. Maybe one on-board attendant is all that"s needed for safety, says Moore, an opponent of government regulation. "I don"t know. But the FAA undoubtedly makes the wrong decision. Government always makes the wrong decision because they don"t have the right information. John Adams, former vice president of human resources for Continental Airlines, doubts that deaths would increase much if the number of flight attendants were cut in half. "Flying is very safe. It"s much safer than riding a bus or a train," he says. No one doubts that flight attendants have a tough job. They make about 20% what pilots make and often less than baggage handlers. Stuck in a metal tube for hours with cramped passengers battling nicotine fits, they are constantly being driven to go the extra mile for customer service. They have to worry about policies concerning theft weight, height and eyesight. And when a jet does crash, even heroic flight attendants say they face agonizing depression as they rehash what more they might have done. A 1992 FAA study of airline accidents did find examples where flight attendants performed heroically. But the FAA also found cases in which they were unable to locate and operate emergency equipment because of rusty skills. American flight attendant Todd Peters says he"s never had to evacuate a jet, but once had to tackle a deranged passenger who tried to open an exit door as a flight from Newark, N. J. , to Miami was taking off. "The public thinks we"re up there serving Cokes and Sprites," Peters says. "But if there was an emergency, passengers would be seeking us out, waiting for our instruction. " Safety is the repeated theme. But airlines say that when they hire attendants, they don"t look for backgrounds in nursing or safety. They want outgoing applicants with experience in customer relations. The history of flight attendants is rooted in safety, but safety usually has taken a back seat to promotion. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, attendants were required to be registered nurses because of fears about the health consequences of flying at high speed and altitude. But by hiring young women instead of men in the 1930s, they were signaling to the public that planes were safe. When flying caught on in the 1960s, airlines staffed their male-laden planes with pretty single women who were forced to retire at 32. It was titillation, says John Nance, author and airline-safety analyst. Braniff even promoted an "air strip", its stewardesses disappearing for a few minutes before returning in a different uniform. One commercial asked: "Does your wife know you"re flying Braniff?" No one knows how many flight attendants airlines would use if FAA minimums were eliminated, says Winter of the Libertarian Party. But he trusts a market free of government interference. Union president Maki says an end to FAA minimums probably would mean fewer flight attendants on short flights. However, for safety reasons, getting rid of FAA minimums is "crazy", she says.

问答题At a time when the public is being assaulted with unsolicited e-mail ads, California is about to launch the toughest counterattack in the nation. A law that goes into effect on Jan. 1 allows computer users in the state to refuse unwanted solicitations en masse and sue spammers who violate their wishes for as much as ＄1 million. Those potent weapons for deflecting pitches that offer everything from bigger body parts to lower mortgage rates have attracted the ire of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and mass marketers. Fearing the law will curtail advertising on the Internet, they are pushing for a far weaker national solution that would undercut the tough tactics in California and other states that are going the same route. But such self-interest is hardly enlightened. The growing flood of messages not only annoys PC users, it also slows the transmission of wanted e-mail and forces businesses to spend billions to combat spam. In fact, a survey released Oct. 22 suggests the proliferation of pitches could hurt the very e-commerce these business groups say they want to preserve. The survey of computer users, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a non-profit group that studies public issues, found 25% use e-mail less because of spam. And 75% were reluctant to give out e-mail addresses, even to online retailers.

问答题

问答题[此试题无题干]

问答题What today's global market economy teaches many of us who are involved in political life is that even when they are inconvenient, the laws of economies, like the laws of physics, cannot be repealed for the convenience of governments. The economic principles for national success are as difficult to implement as they are easy to state. There is a paradox in all our countries. Just as a new global economy creates more to look forward to than ever before, it also brings more uncertainty and more change to worry about than ever before. That is why the challenge of crafting economy policy in your country as in mine is one of balance. A balance between moving toward necessary objectives and maintaining stability. A balance between responding to global realities and upholding domestic traditions. And a balance between the virtues of competition as the best known motivator and driver of success, and the importance of cohesion and cooperation as sources of strength for our societies. These balances will have to be struck and calibrated every year in every country in this new global economy. If one looks at the success over the long term of the economy in any developed country, more than any scientific innovation, what has been important is a potent social innovation. This is what one might call the intangible infrastructure of a modern market economy.

问答题 My Story about Love and Loss I was lucky—I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents' garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation—the Macintosh—a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling-out. When we did, our board of directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating. I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down—that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me— I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over. I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life. During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the world's first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together. I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it Don't settle.

问答题France today is no superpower, but French influence in some spheres significant. Nothing has cemented French influence in the world like the decision made by the victorious World War Ⅱ powers in 1945 to include France as one of the five permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council. Until the end of the Cold War, France rarely found itself in disagreement with or the U.S. on major issues. But the U.N. veto today takes on larger significance as France struggles to decide whether it wants to lead the European Union in defiance of American power or in partnership with it. As America's great media outlets have begun preparing for coverage of the D-Day celebrations, the question of a "grand gesture" by the French toward the American war in Iraq has been raised. Administration officials hint that, perhaps, just perhaps, the French President will use the occasion of France's rescue as an opportunity to square the accounts-to issue a blanket endorsement of America's plan for Iraq's future and throw its support behind the transfer of power looming at the end of the month. France certainly wants the United States to be successful in Iraq at this point. But France seems unlikely to see D-Day as an opportunity to make good on a 60-year-old debt. Beyond nice speeches and some truly fine cuisine, don't expect France to liberate America from Iraq.

问答题1.Passage 1

问答题 世界无烟日 有人作过这样的预言：如果地球上有一天断了烟，天下可能会大乱。此话可能是危言耸听，但是烟害的严重性是不能低估的。 抽烟之危害，可谓大矣，而且是全球性的。目前全球约有13亿烟民，其中的6.5亿人会因吸烟早逝。在中国，抽烟者多达亿万。瘾君子们说，一天饭不吃可以，一个时辰不抽烟就难捱了。吸烟污染空气，损害健康，使肺癌发病率大大增加。 为了使世界各国人民关注烟草的盛行及预防吸烟导致的疾病和死亡，世界卫生组织成员国在1987创立了“世界无烟日”。现在，每年的5月31日被定为“世界无烟日”。吸烟有害已家喻户晓，禁止吸烟的公共场所也日益增多。社会舆论长时期开展的有针对性的宣传，以及随之而创造的一些有效的戒烟方法的推广，产生了积极效果，不少人向香烟吻别。瘾君子从戒烟中吃尽了苦头，也尝到甜头。戒烟贵在坚持，坚持下去就是收获。 但是，戒烟者终究还是少数，主要是中年以上、患疾病的人和知识分子。最令人担忧的是青年人吸烟，染上抽烟坏习惯的青年人日益增多。有关统计表明，全球13岁至15岁年龄段少年的吸烟率已达20%。 烟瘾难戒，但并非不能戒。如果占全球三分之一的我国烟民能够在今天——世界无烟日——开始抵挡住香烟的诱惑，为了自己的健康和周围亲朋好友的健康一天不吸烟，乃至尽早戒烟，那将会创造出不可估量的效益!

问答题当前，世界更加看好中国，不少外国人羡慕中国人的好日子。诸多欧美学者认为，西方骄傲自大的“中心主义”蒙蔽了其心智，面对中国的成功，西方应及时反思和学习。在别人认同“中国经济前景光明论”时，我们自己不能唱衰自己，误判断世界发展大势和我国处境，低估自身发展潜力，妄自菲薄，丧失信心。 当然，我们也要有忧患意识，居安思危，要看到各种风险和挑战，不能高枕无忧、无所作为。多数机遇都不是不争自来的，机遇需要我们自己去创造和把握。只要我们继续走自己的路，谦虚谨慎，开拓进取，攻坚克难，不断加强和发展自身的优势，我们的日子就会越过越好。

问答题______

问答题在各国相互联接更为紧密的全球化时代，世界真正需要的不是单枪匹马的英雄，而是同舟共济的合作伙伴。正因为如此，中国积极致力于同各国发展和深化伙伴关系，我们的“朋友圈”不断扩大。中国积极推动构建新型伙伴关系，具有深厚的历史文化渊源，也是顺应世界发展潮流的创新之举。中华文化主张“合则强，孤则弱”，推崇“一个好汉三个帮”、“众人拾柴火焰高”的互助精神，这是我们构建伙伴关系的文化根基。当前，求和平、谋发展、促合作、图共赢成为不可阻挡的时代潮流。大国制衡、零和博弈等旧思维已难以为继，各国需要探寻国与国交往的新路径。

问答题Questions 1～3 Toward the end of every calendar year, Ian Robertson puts his small arsenal of expensive fountain pens into overdrive. That"s when Rolls-Royce Motor Cars sends a yearbook to customers who have purchased a Rolls since Jan. 1,2003, when production began under the German automaker BMW. As head of Rolls-Royce, Robertson personally signs each book"s accompanying cover letter. The bespoke touch is appreciated by the company"s superrich clientele—which numbered 2,800 when Robertson performed the task last year. "With that many customers," he says, "I could just about do it. " This year Robertson may need an autopen. The iconic British car company is expecting already rising sales to soar, relatively speaking. This is, after all, a company whose ambition is to sell a mere 1,000 cars a year. That"s a goal within reach, thanks to upcoming expansions of the product line, increasing numbers of extremely rich potential buyers and fast-growing Asian markets. Last year Rolls sold 805 Phantoms, its main model, slightly more than the previous year. Revenues were also up—the company won"t say by how much—largely because of the newly introduced extended- wheelbase Phantom, which has a base price of $403,000, or $ 63,000 more than the standard version. Garel Rhys, emeritus professor of automotive economics at Cardiff Business School in Wales, applauds the company"s performance since its acquisition by BMW: "You couldn"t expect much better." In July, it rolled out the Drophead Coupe, a two-door convertible Phantom starting at $ 407,000. Overall, Robertson predicts, the firm should enjoy double-digit sales growth this year. The company began life in 1904, when Charles Rolls, an aristocratic automobile aficionado and dealership owner, joined forces with fledgling carmaker Henry Royce. Then and now, the company"s cars were big, powerful, stately and silent. In 1931, Roils acquired the more sporty, slightly less expensive rival Bentley. When Roll—which also made aircraft engines—went bust in 1971, the auto and aerospace units became separate companies. After a variety of owners, BMW took over. It now builds the cars at a plant in Sussex, England, operating one line and one shift that turns out four or five hand-built cars a day. The 550 employees include craftsmen—skilled cabinet—and saddle makers, for example. Most Rolls are made to order; on average, customers pay $ 20,000 to have their car customized. The company is adding a second line next year and a second shift in 2009 to handle (at the same careful pace) both the Drophead and other planned new cars. For its first Rolls, BMW opted to resurrect the Phantom—a big sedan limousine that all but begs to be chauffeur-driven. That meant targeting the very rich, whose legions are growing fast. Rolls wants to increase its market share while still remaining at the price pinnacle. Next year it"s introducing a hardtop coupe version of the Phantom and launching a smaller, as-yet-unnamed sedan. So who is willing to pay a small ransom to own a Roller? Buyers tend to be entrepreneurs, show-business celebrities or sports stars; few are corporate executives. One factor working for Rolls in developing economies: showing off one"s megabucks is culturally acceptable in China. That helps explain why China is now Rolls" third largest and fastest-growing market, accounting for 10% of sales. (The U.S. still accounts for 45%.) It was a Beijing property developer who last year paid a record $ 2.3 million for a superstretch Phantom. BMW will certainly be happy to see Rolls generating profits, given the $1.2 billion Rhys estimates it put into the company. Rolls won"t budge Beemer"s bottom line, given the parent Company"s $ 65 billion in sales. But owning Rolls-Royce gives BMW prestige and bragging rights. It proves it can sell cars that sweep the breadth of the market, from budget to budget-busting. Should the world"s economy sputter and car sales drop off a cliff, "Rolls-Royce would probably be the first thing to go," Rhys says. But for now, like that iconic spirit of ecstasy that makes up its hood ornament, Rolls-Royce looks poised to speed ahead.

问答题Bringing the World Cup to Asia was supposed to expand the reach of the global game in a happy confluence of good will and good business. The action on the pitch has certainly been dramatic, and most fans were thrilled. But less than half way through the month-long tournament, the good will is already wearing thin-and business seems relatively slow, with fewer visitors and Cup-related sales than expected. Deeply embarrassed by the image of part-empty stadiums besieged by angry ticket hunters, Japanese prime minister ordered an official investigation into the ticket fiasco. Claiming losses of more than ＄800,000 per game, Korea"s soccer federation even threatened to sue Byrom, the official ticket agent, for failing to print and deliver tickets on time. Japan and Korea both hoped to score big points-at home and abroad-with the World Cup. Perhaps it was the memories of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and the 1988 Seoul Olympics, which were considered turning points in their nations" development. Mired in a decade-long slump, Japan longs for anything that might shock its economy back to life. Korea, meanwhile, hopes the Cup will steady its halting recovery from the 1997 Asian financial crisis-and help brand it as Asia"s most wired nation. Their plan: inject billions of dollars into new facilities, welcome throngs of tourists and for one glorious month showcase their countries to the biggest television audience in world history.