单选题

单选题Questions 19—22

单选题Nick is unusually bright, so his great success has been ______. [A] hoped [B] expected [C] promised [D] asked

单选题 BQuestions 27-30/B

单选题

单选题Questions 15-18

单选题

单选题 Once upon a time, in the "dominion of new haven", it was illegal to kiss your children on Sunday. Or make a bed or cut your hair or eat mince pies or cross a river unless you were a clergyman riding your circuit. If you lived in Connecticut in 1650, there was no mistaking Sunday for just another shopping day; regardless of whether you'd go to hell for breaking the Sabbath, you could certainly go to jail. Centuries later, the sense that Sunday is special is still wired in us, a miniature sabbatical during which to peel off the rest of the week and savor ritual, religious or otherwise. Sunday worship, Sunday football, Sunday papers, Sunday brunch, the day you call your mother, the night the family gathers around the TV to watch, once upon a time, The Wonderful World of Disney and, now The Sim psons. The idea that rest is a right has deep roots in our history. Blue laws were a gift as much as a duty, a command to relax and reflect. That tension, explains Sunday historian Alexis McCrossen, has always been less between sacred and secular than between work and respite; America does not readily sit still, even for a day. The Civil War and a demand for news begat the Sunday paper; industrialization inspired progressives to argue that libraries and museums should open on Sundays so working people could elevate themselves. Major league baseball held its first Sunday game in 1892. Joseph Pulitzer realized the Sunday paper was less about news than about fun, comics and book reviews, and soon the theaters, amusement parks and fairs were open too. Over time, Sunday has gone from a day we could do only a very few things to the only day we can do just about anything we want. The U.S. is too diverse, our lives too busy, our economy too global and our appetites too vast to lose a whole day that could be spent working or playing or power shopping. Pulled between piety and profit, even Christian bookstores are open. Children come to Sunday school dressed in their soccer uniforms; some churches have started their own leagues just to control the schedule. Politicians recite their liturgies in TV studios. Post offices may still be closed, but once you miss that first Sunday e-mail from the boss, it becomes forever harder not to log on and check in. Even the casinos are open. If your soul has no Sunday, it becomes an orphan, Albert Schweitzer said—which raises a question for our times. What do we lose if Sunday becomes just like any other day? Lawmakers in Virginia got to spend part of their summer break debating that question, thanks to a mistake they made last winter when they inadvertently revived a "day of rest" rule; hotels and hospitals and nuclear power plants would have had to give workers a weekend day off or be fined $500. After a special legislative session was convened to fix the error, Virginia's workers, like the rest of us, are once more potentially on call 24/7. Meanwhile, Rhode Island just became the 32nd state to let liquor stores open every Sunday; until this month, they could do so only in December, perhaps because even George Washington's eggnog recipe called for brandy, whiskey and rum. Social conservatives may want to honor the Fourth Commandment, but businesses want the income, states need the tax revenues, and busy families want the flexibility. With progress, of course, comes backlash from those who desperately want to preserve the old ways. Morn-and-pop liquor stores in New York fought to keep the blue laws to have more time with their families. Car dealers in Kansas City pushed for a law to make them close on Sundays so they could have a day off without losing out to competition. Chick-Fil-A, a chain of more than 1,100 restaurants in 37 states, closes on Sundays because its founder, Truett Cathy, promised employees time to "worship, spend time with family and friends or just plain rest from the work week," says the chain's website. "Made sense then, still makes sense now." Pope John Paul Ⅱ even wrote an apostolic letter in defense of Sunday.. "When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely part of a 'weekend'," he wrote, "people stay locked within a horizon so limited that they can no longer see 'the heavens'." In an age with no free time, we buy it through hard choices. Do we skip church so we can sleep in or skip soccer so we can go to church or find a family ritual—cook together, read together—that we treat as sacred? That way, at least some part of Sunday faces in a different direction, whether toward heaven or toward one another.

单选题Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following interview.

单选题

单选题Professional language translators labor in a business that is unorganized and haphazard. Most are freelancers, contracting with book publishers, marketing companies, product document producers, or anyone else requiring language translation. While many large cities boast resources for translation, like the German cultural center Goethe Institute, corporations looking for professional translators usually hire locally, especially for the more obscure languages. The result is that language translation remains one of the few services in the globalized economy not networked in a significant way. World Point, a management-software developer, wants to change that by consolidating the language-translation business. Deploying its network of 6,000 independent translators from around the world, the company can translate a corporate Web site into potentially 75 languages and then provide software to manage the resulting multilingual site. Word Point"s Passport software works like other Web-site management packages, offering webmasters a way to centrally administer Web development, such as iteration controls, HTML authoring, reporting, cookie manipulation, and a built-in database-scripting language. Where the software distinguishes itself is in its ability to support multiple languages. The multilingual-content management tool has such innovations as single-click language addition, easy localization to target languages using the company"s translation service, speedy language importation, and an automatic language search engine and site map generation. "Before the Internet, translators were limited to their local translation shops," said Michael Demetrios, chief architect at World Point. "Our system is designed to facilitate collaboration. You can use someone locally, but you really don"t want someone who left, say, Germany, 15 years ago and isn"t current on the latest words. Especially on the Web, new words are coming into languages at a very fast rate." The translation business is set to boom, according to researchers. The market for text-based language translation is predicted to climb from US$10.4 billion in 1998 to $17.2 billion in 2003, according to a report recently released by Allied Business Intelligence, an analyst group in Oyster Bay, New York. The Internet has spurred the explosive growth of translation, according to the report, calling it the "single most significant future market" for translation. World Point, whose customers include Kodak and Nippon Telephone & Telegraph, plans to capture part of that growth by offering the largest network of independent translators. World Point pays its translators by the word. Asian languages cost more than European, and the average cost to establish a multilingual Web site usually runs from $20,000 to $1 million. The company"s translators are proficient in everything from Spanish to dead languages like Old English. World Point guarantees the sites will read fluently and be culturally sensitive. World Point"s software leverages economies of scale by allowing translators to work as a team, with each translator converting about 2,000 to 3,000 words a day into another language. Despite the logic of networking, translators remain wary of affiliating their services with centralized companies, according to Demetrios. "A lot of them are watching us to see how it goes," he says. If the Internet is responsible for translators finding more business at their doorsteps, computers also provide a cautionary flip side: speeding the day in which consolidation and specialization will be necessary. Automation in particular may play a role in the conversion of the translation business from mom-and-pop operators to an organized industry. While Demetrios dismisses the near-term impact of computer-translation software, the European Union reports that machine translation of documents rose from 2,000 pages in 1988 to 250,000 pages last year.

单选题 Once it was possible to define male and female roles easily by the division of labor. Men worked outside the home and earned the income to support their families, while women cooked the meals and took care of the home and the children. These roles were firmly fixed for most people, and there was not much opportunity for women to exchange their roles. But by the middle of this century, men's and women's roles were becoming less firmly fixed. In the 1950s, economic and social success was the goal of the typical American. But in the 1960s a new force developed called the counterculture. The people involved in this movement did not value the middle-class American goals. The counterculture presented men and women with new role choices. Taking more interest in childcare, men began to share child-raising tasks with their wives. In fact, some young men and women moved to communal homes or farms where the economic and childcare responsibilities were shared equally by both sexes. In addition, many Americans did not value the traditional male role of soldier. Some young men refused to be drafted as soldiers to fight in the war in Vietnam. In terms of numbers, the counterculture was not a very large group of people. But its influence spread to many parts of American society. Working men of all classes began to change their economic and social patterns. Industrial workers and business executives alike cut down on "overtime" work so that they could spend more leisure time with their families. Some doctors, lawyers, and teachers turned away from high paying situations to practice their professions in poorer neighborhoods. In the 1970s, the feminist movement, or women's liberation, produced additional economic and social changes. Women of all ages and at all levels of society were entering the work force in greater numbers. Most of them still took traditional women's jobs as public school teaching, nursing, and secretarial work. But some women began to enter traditionally male occupations: police work, banking, dentistry, and construction work. Women were asking for equal work, and equal opportunities for promotion. Today the experts generally agree that important changes are taking place in the roles of men and women. Naturally, there are difficulties in adjusting to these transformations.

单选题The word "fiasco" as used in Para. 4 is closest in meaning to ______.

单选题The phrase "litmus test" is in bad odor for good reason: politicians should be judged on a variety of positions, not just one. But deep down, nearly every voter has at least one litmus test— an issue so personally important that a politician who fails the test is forever tainted, or at least excluded from consideration for the presidency. I inherited my one litmus test from my father, Jim Alter, who flew 33 harrowing missions over Nazi Germany during World War 11. My father is not just a veteran who by all odds should not have survived. He is a true patriot. His litmus test is the proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, which will come up for a vote next week in the U. S. Senate. For dad—and me—any member of Congress who supports amending the Bill of Rights for the first time in the history of this country for a nonproblem like flag burning is showing serious disrespect for our Constitution and for the values for which brave Americans gave their lives. Such disrespect is a much more serious threat than the random idiots who once every decade or so try (often unsuccessfully) to burn a flag. Our understandable outrage at flag burning shouldn"t turn our brains to mush. "I feel the same sense of outrage, but I would not amend that great shield of democracy (the Constitution) to hammer a few miscreants," Colin Powell said when the issue last came up (his position has not changed). "The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away." Powell argues that a constitutional ban on flag burning is a sign of weakness and fear. John Glenn, another of the thousands of combat veterans against the amendment (they have banded together in a group called Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights), notes that "those 10 amendments we call the Bill of Rights have never been changed or altered by one iota, not by one word, not a single time in all of American history. There was not a single change during any of our foreign wars, and not during recessions or depressions or panics. Not a single change when we were going through times of great emotion and anger like the Vietnam era, when flag after flag was burned or desecrated. There is only one way to weaken our nation. The way to weaken our nation would be to erode the freedom that we all share." Actually, even during the Vietnam War, flag burning was rare. By one count, there have been only 45 such incidents in 200 years, and fewer than half a dozen since it was outlawed in 1989. Should the Constitution be amended, however, the incidence of flag burning is expected to surge as a form of civil disobedience. What began as a phony issue designed to prove patriotism (usually on the part of those who never served, the primary sponsors) could become a real concern. The flag-burning amendment, which already passed the House, is apparently just short of the 67 needed in the Senate. With one or two absences, the amendment would be approved. It would then go to the states for ratification, where its chances for approval appear good. Senators afraid of being seen as soft on flag burners should just adopt the Hillary Clinton dodge: support for a statute, but not an amendment. Another law is a dopey idea (an earlier one was struck down by the Supreme Court), but it"s politically safe and better than perverting the Constitution. To make matters worse, the amendment is vaguely worded, which led to fatuous debate in the Senate over whether a woman wearing a skimpy bathing suit patterned with stars and stripes was guilty of desecration. Bloggers wondered the same thing about President Bush"s new habit of autographing flags when he shakes hands on rope lines. Unconstitutional? With a war on and a hundred other pressing problems, it"s nice to see our elected representatives focused on what really counts. The usual litmus tests-abortion, gun control, Iraq-shouldn"t be. Reasonable and sincere people can disagree, with at least one or two principled arguments on each side. The flag burning amendment is in a category by itself: the only argument for it is based on pure emotion. But ours is supposed to be a government of reason, not emotion, especially when it comes to the most precious repository of, our rights. The American Constitution, the apogee of reason in the history of self government, is real; the American flag, for all of its beauty and deep meaning, is symbolic. For more than 200 years, we"ve occasionally used the amendment process to expand rights. This would be the first time we would enshrine their restriction. Polluting the Constitution is far more dangerous than burning the flag.

单选题For several days I saw little of Mr. Rochester. In the morning he seemed much occupied with business, and in the afternoon gentlemen from the neighbourhood called and sometimes stayed to dine with him. When his foot was well enough, he rode out a great deal. During this time, all my knowledge of him was limited to occasional meetings about the house, when he would sometimes pass me coldly, and sometimes bow and smile. His changes of manner did not offend me, because I saw that I had nothing to do with the cause of them. One evening, several days later, I was invited to talk to Mr. Rochester after dinner. He was sitting in his armchair, and looked not quite so severe, and much less gloomy. There was a smile on his lips, and his eyes were bright, probably with wine. As I was looking at him, he suddenly turned, and asked me, "do you think I"m handsome, Miss Eyre?" The answer somehow slipped from my tongue before I realized it: "No, sir. " "Ah, you really are unusual! You are a quiet, serious little person, but you can be almost rude. " "Sir, I"m sorry. I should have said that beauty doesn"t matter, or something like that." "No, you shouldn"t! I see, you criticize my appearance, and then you stab me in the back! You have honesty and feeling. There are not many girls like you. But perhaps I go too fast. Perhaps you have awful faults to counterbalance your few good points. I thought to myself that he might have too. He seemed to read my mind, and said quickly, ""Yes, you"re right. I have plenty of faults. I went the wrong way when I was twenty-one, and have never found the right path again. I might have been very different. I might have been as good as you, and perhaps wiser. I am not a bad man, take my word for it, but I have done wrong. It wasn"t my character, but circumstances which were to blame. Why do I tell you all this? Because you"re the sort of person people tell their problems and secrets to, because you"re sympathetic and give them hope. " It seemed he had quite a lot to talk to me. He didn"t seem to like to finish the talk quickly, as was the case for the first time. "Don"t be afraid of me, Miss Eyre. " He continued. "You don"t relax or laugh very much, perhaps because of the effect Lowood School has had on you. But in time you will be more natural with me, and laugh, and speak freely. You"re like a bird in a cage. When you get out of the cage, you"ll fly very high. Good night. "

单选题Questions 11—14

单选题{{B}}Questions 1 to 5 are based on the following conversation.{{/B}}

单选题Questions 15-18

单选题 Directions: In this section, you will read several passages. Each passage is followed by several questions based on its content. 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 the letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. Questions 1-5 To understand the marketing concept, it is only necessary to understand the difference between marketing and selling. Not too many years ago, most industries concentrated primarily on the efficient production of goods, and then relied on "persuasive salesmanship" to move as much of these goods as possible. Such production and selling focuses on the needs of the seller to produce goods and then convert them into money. Marketing, on the other hand, focuses on the wants of consumers. It begins with first analyzing the preferences and demands of consumers and then producing goods that will satisfy them. This eye- on-the-consumer approach is known as the marketing concept, which simply means that instead of trying to sell whatever is easiest to produce or buy for resale, the makers and dealers first endeavor to find out what the consumer wants to buy and then go about making it available for purchase. This concept does not imply that business is benevolent or that consumer satisfaction is given priority over profit in a company. There are always two sides to every business transaction--the firm and the customer—and each must be satisfied before trade occurs. Successful merchants and producers, however, recognize that the surest route to profit is through understanding and catering to customers. A striking example of the importance of catering to the consumer presented itself in mid-1985, when Coca Cola changed the flavor of its drink. The non-acceptance of the new flavor by a significant portion of the public brought about a prompt restoration of the Classic Coke, which was then marketed alongside the new. King Customer ruled!