问答题So many of the productions currently to be seen on the London stage are concerned with the more violent aspects of life that it is surprising to meet a play about ordinary people caught up in ordinary events. Thomas Sackville"s the Visitor is just such a play—at least, on the surface. It seems to stand well outside the mainstream of recent British drama. In fact the surface is so bland that attention is constantly focused on the care with which the play has been put together, and the clarity with which its argument develops; it seems natural to discuss it in terms of the notion of "the well-wrought play". The story is about an unremarkable family evening in middle-class suburbia. The husband and wife have invited a friend to dinner. The friend turns up in due course and they talk about their respective lives and interests. During this conversation, in which the author shows a remarkable talent for writing dialogue which is entertaining and witty without being so sparkling as to draw too much attention to itself; the characters are carefully fleshed out and provided with a set of credible—if unremarkable—motives. Through innumerable delicate touches in the writing they emerge: pleasant, humorous, ordinary, and ineffectual. And if they are never made vibrantly alive in terms of the real world, one feels that this is deliberate; that the author is content to give them a theatrical existence of their own, and leave it at that.

问答题Many animals and plants threatened with extinction could be saved if scientists spent more time talking with the native people whose knowledge of local species is dying out as fast as their languages are being lost. Potentially vital information about many endangered species is locked in the vocabulary and expressions of local people, yet biologists are failing to tap into this huge source of knowledge before it is lost for good, scientists said. "It seems logical that the biologists should go and talk to the indigenous people who know more about the local environment than anyone else," said David Harrison, an assistant professor of linguistics at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania. "Most of what humans know about ecosystems and species is not found in databases or libraries or written down anywhere. It"s in people"s heads. It"s in purely oral traditions," Dr. Harrison told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco. "About 80 percent of the animals and plants visible to the naked eye have not yet been classified by science. It doesn"t mean they are unknown; it just means we have a knowledge gap." An estimated 7,000 languages are spoken in the world but more than half of them are dying out so fast that they will be lost completely by the end of the century as children learn more common languages, such as English or Spanish. He cited the example of a South American skipper butterfly, Astraptes fulgerator, which scientists thought was just one species until a DNA study three years ago revealed that it was in fact 10 different species whose camouflaged colouration made the adult forms appear "identical to one another". Yet if the scientists had spoken to the Tzeltal-speaking people of Mexico—descendants of the Maya—they might have learnt this information much sooner because Tzeltal has several descriptions of the butterflies based on the different kinds of caterpillar. "These people live on the territory of that butterfly habitat and in fact care very little about the adult butterfly but they have a very-fine grained classification for the larvae because the caterpillars affect their crops and their agriculture," Dr. Harrison said. "It"s crucial for them to know which larva is eating which crop and at what time of year. Their survival literally depends on knowing that, whereas the adult butterfly has no impact on their crops," he said. "There was a knowledge gap on both sides and if they had been talking to each other they might have figured out sooner that they were dealing with a species complex," he said. "Indigenous people often have classification systems that are often more fine-grained and more precise than what Western science knows about species and their territories." Another example of local knowledge was shown by the Musqueam people of British Columbia in Canada, who have fished the local rivers for generations and describe the trout and the salmon as belonging to the same group. In 2003 they were vindicated when a genetic study revealed that the "trout" did in fact belong to the same group as Pacific salmon, Dr. Harrison said. "It seems obvious that knowing more about species and ecosystems would put us in a better position to sustain those species and ecosystems," he said. "That"s my argument that the knowledge gap is vastly to the detriment of Western science. We know much less than we think we do."

问答题1.Passage 1

问答题说起上海老城，总会让人和古老传统的东西联系起来，譬如明代的豫园和清代的城隍庙。上海 建城有700多年历史，但最具人文发展历史的时期是开埠后的150年间，诸如华洋杂居、石库门、老 字号等等，都发生在开埠后的上海。 流传于老城内外的民间文化丰富多彩。著名的“上海老城人物风情画卷”生动地描绘了上海老 城市民的生活百态。上海老城是历史文明与现代文明的兼容并蓄，无论上海城市发展如何日新月 异，她仍将记录着上海城市发展的历史华章。

问答题弘扬中华文化，建设中华民族共有精神家园。中华文化是中华民族生生不息、团结奋进的不竭动力。要全面认识祖国传统文化，取其精华，去其糟粕，使之与当代社会相适应、与现代文明相协调，保持民族性，体现时代性。加强中华优秀文化传统教育，运用现代科技手段开发利用民族文化丰厚资源。加强对各民族文化的挖掘和保护，重视文物和非物质文化遗产保护，做好文化典籍整理工作。加强对外文化交流，吸收各国优秀文明成果，增强中华文化国际影响力。

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

问答题

问答题说起上海老城，总会让人和古老传统的东西联系起来，譬如明代的豫园和清代的城隍庙。上海 建城有700多年历史，但最具人文发展历史的时期是开埠后的150年间，诸如华洋杂居、石库门、老 字号等等，都发生在开埠后的上海。 流传于老城内外的民间文化丰富多彩。著名的“上海老城人物风情画卷”生动地描绘了上海老 城市民的生活百态。上海老城是历史文明与现代文明的兼容并蓄，无论上海城市发展如何日新月 异，她仍将记录着上海城市发展的历史华章。

问答题Back in 1972, $1 million was still an eye-popping amount of cash. But to Robert Hecht, an enterprising American antiquities dealer living in Paris, it was not too much to charge the Metropolitan Museum of Art for an exquisite Greek vase created 500 years before the birth of Christ and painted by one of the acknowledged masters of the craft. Since the acquisition of the Greek vase, the prices of antiquities have shot skyward. The problem with the burgeoning traffic in antiquities, however, is not so much the price but something far more significant: the provenance, i.e. where are these precious artifacts coming from? And who are their rightful owners? Evidence is increasing that more and more artifacts are being illegally unearthed from their countries of origin. A recent British study of five large collections totaling 546 objects, for instance, determined that 82 percent of the objects were suspect. From Italy to Greece to Turkey, countries have long complained about the trade in smuggled artifacts and have been largely unable to stop it.

Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following interview.

Questions 16 to 20 are based on the following talk.

In his classic novel, "The Pioneers", James Fenimore Cooper has his hero, a land developer, take his cousin on a tour of the city he is building. He describes the broad streets, rows of houses, a teeming metropolis. But his cousin looks around bewildered. All she sees is a stubby forest. "Where are the beauties and improvements which you were to show me?" she asks. He"s astonished she can"t see them." Where! Why everywhere," he replies. For though they are not yet built on earth, he has built them in his mind, and they are as concrete to him as if they were already constructed and finished. Cooper was illustrating a distinctly American trait, future-mindedness: the ability to see the present from the vantage point of the future; the freedom to feel unencumbered by the past and more emotionally attached to things to come. "America is therefore the land of the future," the German philosopher Hegel wrote. "The American lives even more for his goals, for the future, than the European," Albert Einstein concurred. "Life for him is always becoming, never being." In 2012, America will still be the place where the future happens first, for that is the nation"s oldest tradition. The early Puritans lived in almost Stone Age conditions, but they were inspired by visions of future glories, God"s kingdom on earth. The early pioneers would sometimes travel past perfectly good farmland, because they were convinced that even more amazing land could be found over the next ridge. The founding Fathers took 13 scraggly colonies and believed they were creating a new nation on earth. The railroad speculators envisioned magnificent fortunes built on bands of iron. It"s now fashionable to ridicule the visions of dot-com entrepreneurs of the 1990s, but they had inherited the urge to leap for the horizon. "The Future is endowed with such a life, that it lives to us even in anticipation," Herman Melville wrote. "The Future is the Bible of the Free." This future-mindedness explains many modern features of American life. It explains workaholism: the average American works 350 hours a year more than the average European. Americans move more, in search of that brighter tomorrow, than people in other land. They also, sadly, divorce more, for the same reason. Americans adopt new technologies such as online shopping and credit cards much more quickly than people in other countries. Forty-five percent of world Internet use takes place in the United States. Even today, after the bursting of the stock-market bubble, American venture-capital firms—which are in the business of betting on the future—dwarf the firms from all other nations. Future-mindedness contributes to the disorder in American life, the obliviousness to history, the high rates of family breakdown, the frenzied waste of natural resources. It also leads to incredible innovations. According to the Yale historian Paul Kennedy, 75 percent of the Nobel laureates in economies and the sciences over recent decades have lived or worked in the United States. The country remains a magnet for the future-minded from other nations. One in twelve Americans has enjoyed the thrill and challenge of starting his own business. A study published in the Journal of International Business Studies in 2000 showed that innovative people are spread pretty evenly throughout the globe, but Americans are most comfortable with risk. Entrepreneurs in the U. S. are more likely to believe that they possess the ability to shape their own future than people in, say, Britain, Australia or Singapore. If the 1990s were a great decade of future-mindedness, we are now in the midst of a season of experience. It seems cooler to be skeptical, to pooh-pooh all those IPO suckers who lost their money betting on the telecom future. But the world is not becoming more French. By 2012, this period of chastisement will likely have run its course, and future-mindedness will be back in vogue, for better or worse. We don"t know exactly what the next future-mindedness frenzy will look like. We do know where it will take place: the American suburb. In 1979, three quarters of American office space were located in central cities. The new companies, research centers and entrepreneurs are flocking to these low buildings near airports, highways and the Wal-Mart malls, and they are creating a new kind of suburban life. There are entirely new metropolises rising-boom suburbs like Mesa, Arizona, that already have more people than Minneapolis or St. Louis. We are now approaching a moment in which the majority of American office space, and the hub of American entrepreneurship, will be found in quiet office parks in places like Rockville, Maryland, and in the sprawling suburbosphere around Atlanta. We also know that future-mindedness itself will become the object of greater study. We are discovering that there are many things that human beings do easily that computers can do only with great difficulty, if at all. Cognitive scientists are now trying to decode the human imagination, to understand how the brain visualizes, dreams and creates. And we know, too, that where there is future-mindedness, there is hope.

Harry Truman didn"t think his successor had the right training to be president. "Poor Ike—it won"t be a bit like the Army," he said. "He"ll sit there all day saying” do this, do that", and nothing will happen." Truman was wrong about Ike. Dwight Eisenhower had led a fractious alliance—you didn"t tell Winston Churchill what to do—in a massive, chaotic war. He was used to politics. But Truman"s insight could well be applied to another, even more venerated Washington figure: the CEO-turned cabinet secretary. A 20-year bull market has convinced us all that CEOs are geniuses, so watch with astonishment the troubles of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul O"Neill. Here are two highly regarded businessmen, obviously intelligent and well-informed, foundering in their jobs. Actually, we shouldn"t be surprised. Rumsfeld and O"Neill are not doing badly despite having been successful CEOs but because of it. The record of senior businessmen in government is one of almost unrelieved disappointment. In fact, with the exception of Robert Rubin, it is difficult to think of a CEO who had a successful career in government. Why is this? Well, first the CEO has to recognize that he is no longer the CEO. He is at best an adviser to the CEO, the president. But even the president is not really the CEO. No one is. Power in a corporation is concentrated and vertically Structured. Power in Washington is diffuse and horizontally spread out. The secretary might think he"s in charge of his agency. But the chairman of the congressional committee funding that agency feels the same. In his famous study "Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents", Richard Neustadt explains how little power the president actually has and concludes that the only lasting presidential power is "the power to persuade". Take Rumsfeld"s attempt to transform the cold-war military into one geared for the future. It"s innovative but deeply threatening to almost everyone in Washington. The Defense Secretary did not try to sell it to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, the budget office or the White House. As a result, the idea is collapsing. Second, what power you have, you must use carefully. For example, O"Neill"s position as Treasury Secretary is one with little formal authority. Unlike Finance Ministers around the world, Treasury does not control the budget. But it has symbolic power. The secretary is seen as the chief economic spokesman for the administration and, if he plays it right, the chief economic adviser for the president. O"Neill has been publicly critical of the IMF"s bailout packages for developing countries while at the same time approving such packages for Turkey, Argentina and Brazil. As a result, he has gotten the worst of both worlds. The bailouts continue, but their effect in bolstering investor confidence is limited because the markets are rattled by his skepticism. Perhaps the government doesn"t do bailouts well. But that leads to a third role: you can"t just quit. Jack Welch"s famous law for re-engineering General Electric was to be first or second in any given product category, or else get out of that business. But if the government isn"t doing a particular job at peak level, it doesn"t always have the option of relieving itself of that function. The Pentagon probably wastes a lot of money. But it can"t get out of the national-security business. The key to former Treasury Secretary Rubin"s success may have been that he fully understood that business and government are, in his words, "necessarily and properly very different". In a recent speech he explained, "Business functions around one predominate organizing principle, profitability… Government, on the other hand, deals with a vast number of equally legitimate and often potentially competing objectives—for example, energy production versus environmental protection, or safety regulations versus productivity." Rubin"s example shows that talented people can do well in government if they are willing to treat it as its own separate, serious endeavor. But having been bathed in a culture of adoration and flattery, it"s difficult for a CEO to believe he needs to listen and learn, particularly from those despised and poorly paid specimens, politicians, bureaucrats and the media. And even if he knows it intellectually, he just can"t live with it.

Questions 6 to 10 are based on the following news.

填空题It is difficult to give a description of 1 because they vary from state to state and city to city. Some towns allow the sale of very weak, 2 , known as "three-two" beer. Some places 3 of any alcohol on Sundays, not only in bars but also in shops. You may find a locked bar over the alcohol shelves. In many parts of America, you are not allowed to drink alcohol 4 . That is, you may not sit in a park or 5 drinking beer, and you cannot even take a nice bottle of wine 6 . In some public places, people can be seen taking drinks from cans 7 . These are not cans of Coca-Cola. 8 you are not allowed to drink alcohol while driving, or even 9 container in the car. Some bars 10 only for beer and wine. Others are also allowed to sell spirits and thus, as Americans say, " 11 ". Many bars have a period 12 , often longer than an hour, when they sell drinks with prices 13 . This is usually around 5p.m. and may be only 14 of the week. Legal drinking age varies from state to state but is generally 15 . Some states permit 16 at 18 but spirits only at 21. Others permit the consumption only of "three-two" beer from 18 to 21. 17 , in some parts of the USA, young people 18 , marry, raise children, keep full-time jobs, be tried in courts as adults, join the army and even buy guns but not 19 . In some places 18 to 21 year olds are allowed into bars but not allowed to drink. Another even more interesting aspect of American drinking-age laws is that in some places people 20 are not even allowed to sell alcohol.

填空题How many time do you spend with your parents? 75.______ Your parents are your dearer people in the world 76.______ when you are young. And they always care of you 77.______ deep. But even though many children still love their 78.______ mum and dad, families may become more close 79.______ as you get older. The end of the year is a time for80.______ families to get together. Have you ever thought of 81.______ how you can show your parents that you love them? 82.______ Find a chance and do something for them or to have 83.______ sincere talk with them. If you can do this, your parents 84.______ will be very happy.

填空题We all have problems and barriers that block our progress or prevent us from moving into new areas. When that happens, consider the following three ways of dealing with a 1 . One way is to pretend it doesn"t exist. 2 it, deny it, and lie about it. However, this approach leaves the barrier 3 . A second approach is to fight the barrier. This often 4 the barrier"s magnitude. The more one struggles, the 5 the problem gets. The third 6 is to love the barrier. Accept it. Totally experience it. Tell the 7 about it. When you do this, the barrier 8 its power. Suppose one of your barriers is being afraid of 9 in front of a group. You can use any of these three approaches. First, you can 10 you"re not afraid about speaking in public. The second way is to 11 the barrier. You could tell yourself, "I"m not scared," and then try to keep your knees from knocking. Generally, this doesn"t 12 . The third approach is to get up and look out into the 13 , and say to yourself, "Yup, I"m scared and that"s OK. I"m going to 14 this speech even though I"m scared." And you might discover if you examine the fear, accept it, and totally 15 it, the fear itself also 16 . Remember two ideas: First, loving a problem is not necessarily the same as 17 it. Love in this sense means total and unconditional acceptance. Second, "unconditional acceptance" is not the same as unconditional 18 . Often the most effective 19 come when we face a problem squarely—diving into it headfirst and getting to know it in 20 .