听力题Questions 18 to 20 are based on the recording you have just heard
听力题Questions 19 to 21 are based on the passage you have just heard
单选题Look at the people around you. Some are passive, others more aggressive. Some work best alone, others crave companionship. We easily recognize that there is great variation among the individuals who live near us. Yet, when we speak of people from elsewhere, we seem to inevitably characterize them based on their country of origin. Statistics specialists, when they speak of national averages, often make the same mistake. Newly published research shows how erroneous such overviews are. Three researchers analyzed decades of values-based surveys and found that only between 16% and 21% of the variation in cultural values could be explained by differences between countries. In other words, the vast majority of what makes us culturally distinct from one another has nothing to do with our homeland. To determine what factors really are associated with culture, the authors combined data from 558 prior surveys that each measured one or more of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These are traits, such as individualism and masculinity, that describe work-related cultural values. (They are not a measure of visible cultural traits, such as food or dress.) Though the validity of Hofstede’s dimensions has been questioned, they have the singular benefit of having been in use for decades, which allows for historical and international comparisons. The researchers found that both demographic factors, such as age, and environmental factors, such as long-term unemployment rates, were more correlated with cultural values than nationality. Occupation and social economic status were the most strongly correlated, suggesting that our values are more economically driven than we usually give them credit for. The evidence implies that people with similar jobs and incomes are more culturally alike, regardless of where they live. Vas Taras, the lead author of the study, puts it this way: "Tell me how much you make and I will make a pretty accurate prediction about your cultural values. Tell me what your nationality is and I probably will make a wrong prediction." Taras says our erroneous belief that countries are cultures has caused businesses to teach their employees useless or even harmful ways of interacting with their international peers. Chinese and American lawyers might be trained to interact based on the assumption that the Chinese person is less individualistic, even though their similar social economic situations make it probable they are actually quite alike in that regard. The country, as the unit of authority, is often a convenient way of generalizing about a population. However, our focus on countries can mask broad variations within them. In the majority of cases we would be better off identifying people by the factors that constrain their lives, like income, rather than by the lines surrounding them on a map.
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题The subject of automation and its role in our economy has taken hold in American public discourse. Technology broadly and automation specifically are dramatically reshaping the way we work. And we need to have a plan for what’s still to come. We don’t have to look further than our own communities to see the devastating impact of automation. From automated warehouses to cashierless grocery stores to neighborhood libraries that offer self-checkout lanes instead of employing real people—automation is increasingly replacing jobs and leaving too few good new jobs behind. The statistics in manufacturing are staggering. Despite the widespread fears about trade, a recent report showed that just 13 percent of jobs lost in manufacturing are due to trade—the rest of the losses have been due to advances in technology. That is why more people are criticizing the ever-increasing role of technology in our economy. Our country is manufacturing more than ever before, but we are doing it with fewer workers. However, it’s not just factories that are seeing losses—software and information technology are also having a dramatic impact on jobs most people think are secure from the forces of a rapidly-changing economy. Something transformative is happening in America that is having an adverse effect on American families. Whether policymakers and politicians admit it or not, workers have made clear their feelings about their economic insecurity and desire to keep good jobs in America. So why are people so insistent on ignoring the perils of automation? They are failing to look ahead at a time when planning for the future is more important than ever. Resisting automation is futile: it is as inevitable as industrialization was before it. I sincerely hope that those who assert that automation will make us more effective and pave the way for new occupations are right, but the reality of automation’s detrimental effects on workers makes me skeptical. No one can currently say where the new jobs are coming from or when, and any sensible company or country should prepare for all alternatives. I’m not overstating the danger: look at what’s happened to the labor force. According to economic research, one in six working-age men, 25-54, doesn’t have a job. Fifty years ago, nearly 100 percent of men that age were working. Women’s labor force participation, meanwhile, has slipped back to the level it was at in the late 1980s. American families and prominent business leaders are aware that there’s a big problem with automation. The value of a college degree is diminishing, and our upward mobility is declining. If we want an economy that allows everyone to be economically secure, we need to start thinking about how we can rightfully address automation.
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题In recent years, the food industry has increased its use of labels. Whether the labels say ’non-GMO (非转基因的)’ or ’no sugar,’ or ’zero carbohydrates’, consumers are increasingly demanding more information about what’s in their food. One report found that 39 percent of consumers would switch from the brands they currently buy to others that provide clearer, more accurate product information. Food manufacturers are responding to the report with new labels to meet that demand, and they’re doing so with an eye towards giving their products an advantage over the competition, and bolstering profits. This strategy makes intuitive sense. If consumers say they want transparency, tell them exactly what is in your product. That is simply supplying a certain demand. But the marketing strategy in response to this consumer demand has gone beyond articulating what is in a product, to labeling what is NOT in the food. These labels are known as "absence claims" labels, and they represent an emerging labeling trend that is detrimental both to the consumers who purchase the products and the industry that supplies them. For example, Hunt’s put a "non-GMO" label on its canned crushed tomatoes a few years ago—despite the fact that at the time there was no such thing as a GMO tomato on the market. Some dairy companies are using the "non-GMO" label on their milk, despite the fact that all milk is naturally GMO-free, another label that creates unnecessary fear around food. While creating labels that play on consumer fears and misconceptions about their food may give a company a temporary marketing advantage over competing products on the grocery aisle, in the long term this strategy will have just the opposite effect: by injecting fear into the discourse about our food, we run the risk of eroding consumer trust in not just a single product, but the entire food business. Eventually, it becomes a question in consumers’ minds: Were these foods ever safe? By purchasing and consuming these types of products, have I already done some kind of harm to my family or the planet? For food manufacturers, it will mean damaged consumer trust and lower sales for everyone. And this isn’t just supposition. A recent study found that absence claims labels can create a stigma around foods even when there is no scientific evidence that they cause harm. It’s clear that food manufacturers must tread carefully when it comes to using absence claims. In addition to the likely negative long-term impact on sales, this verbal trick sends a message that innovations in farming and food processing are unwelcome, eventually leading to less efficiency, fewer choices for consumers, and ultimately, more costly food products. If we allow this kind of labeling to continue, we will all lose.
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题此题为音频题
单选题Social media is absolutely everywhere. Billions of people use social media on a daily basis to create, share, and exchange ideas, messages, and information. Both individuals and businesses post regularly to engage and interact with people from around the world. It is a powerful communication medium that simultaneously provides immediate, frequent, permanent, and wide-reaching information across the globe. People post their lives on social media for the world to see. Facebook, Twitter, Linkedln, and countless other social channels provide a quick and simple way to glimpse into a job candidate’s personal life—both the positive and negative sides of it. Social media screening is tempting to use as part of the hiring process, but should employers make use of it when researching a potential candidate’s background? Incorporating the use of social media to screen job candidates is not an uncommon practice. A 2018 survey found that almost 70% of employers use social media to screen candidates before hiring them. But there are consequences and potential legal risks involved too. When done inappropriately, social media screening can be considered unethical or even illegal. Social media screening is essentially scrutinising a job candidate’s private life. It can reveal information about protected characteristics like age, race, nationality, disability, gender, religion, etc. and that could bias a hiring decision. Pictures or comments on a private page that are taken out of context could ruin a perfectly good candidate’s chances of getting hired. This process could potentially give an unfair advantage to one candidate over another. It creates an unequal playing field and potentially provides hiring managers with information that can impact their hiring decision in a negative way. It’s hard to ignore social media as a screening tool. While there are things that you shouldn’t see, there are some things that can be lawfully considered—making it a valuable source of relevant information too. Using social media screening appropriately can help ensure that you don’t hire a toxic employee who will cost you money or stain your company’s reputation. Consider the lawful side of this process and you may be able to hire the best employee ever. There is a delicate balance. Screening job candidates on social media must be done professionally and responsibly. Companies should stipulate that they will never ask for passwords, be consistent, document decisions, consider the source used and be aware that other laws may apply. In light of this it is probably best to look later in the process and ask human resources for help in navigating it. Social media is here to stay. But before using social media to screen job candidates, consulting with management and legal teams beforehand is essential in order to comply with all laws.