雨声渐渐地住了，窗帘后隐隐的透进清光来。推开窗户一看，呀!凉云散了，树叶上的残滴，映着月儿，好似荧光千点，闪闪烁烁的动着。——真没想到苦雨孤灯之后，会有这么一副清美的图画! 凭窗站了一会儿，微微地觉得凉意侵人。转过身来，忽然眼花缭乱，屋子里的别的东西，都隐在光云里；一片幽辉，只浸着墙上画中的安琪儿。——这白衣的安琪儿，抱着花儿，扬着翅儿，向着我微微的笑。

“干什么的?”老太太问。 邮差先生告诉她：“有一封信，挂号信，得盖图章。” 老太太没有图章。 “那你打个铺保，晚半天到局子里来领。这里头也许有钱。” “有多少?” “我说也许有，不一定有。” 你能怎么办呢?对于这个好老太太。 邮差先生费了半天唇舌，终于又走到街上来了。小城的阳光照在他的花白头顶上，他的模样既尊贵又从容，并有一种特别风韵，看见他你会当他是趁便出来散步的。说实话他又何必紧张，他手里的信反正总有时间全部送到，那么在这个小城里，另外难道还会有什么事等候他吗?虽然他有时候是这样抱歉，他为这个小城送来——不，这种事是很少有的，但愿它不常有。

How to Write a Book ReviewI. The definition of a book reviewA. a descriptive and critical or evaluative account of a bookB. a summary of content and a(n)【T1】______【T1】______II. Two approaches to book reviewingA. the descriptive review giving the essential【T2】______about a book【T2】______B. the critical review describing and evaluating the bookIII. Basic requirements and minimum essentialsA. Knowledge of the book【T3】______【T3】______B. Mastery of the genre in the workC. Description, not a summary of the bookD. Something about, not a biography of, the authorE. 【T4】______appraisal 【T4】______IV. Five preliminary mechanical stepsA. Reading the book【T5】______【T5】______B. Noting effective passages for 【T6】______【T6】______C. Noting your impressions as you readD.【T7】______what you have read 【T7】______E. Aiming at achieving a single impressionV. Starting the outlineA. Getting an over-all grasp of the organizationB. Determining the central point to be madeC. Eliminating【T8】______or irrelevancies 【T8】______D. Filling in gaps or omissionsVI. Making the draftA. The opening paragraph—in a position of emphasis, and—setting the【T9】______of the paper 【T9】______B. The main body—being【T10】______organized by the outline【T10】______—logical development of the central pointC. The concluding paragraph—summing up or 【T11】______【T11】______—making the【T12】______【T12】______—introducing no new ideas VII. 【T13】______the draft 【T13】______A. Correcting all mistakes in【T14】______【T14】______B. Looking for unity, organization and logical developmentC. Verifying quotations for accuracy and 【T15】______【T15】______

PASSAGE FOUR

Lotteries are quite popular in China and also in many other countries. Some people argue that lotteries are a form of gambling, which should be abolished. From the following article, you may find both merit and demerit of lottery. Write an article of NO LESS THAN 300 words, in which you should: 1. summarize briefly both merits and demerits of lottery; 2. express your opinion towards lottery, especially whether national lotteries should be abolished. The Good and Bad of National Lotteries Lotteries and prize draws are big businesses throughout the world, and entice significant annual investments from individuals who dream of scooping a huge and potentially life-changing cash prize. According to the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries, Americans spent a total of $50.4 billion on lotteries last year. In actual fact, while your chances of winning the lottery anywhere are decidedly slim, the sheer size of the U.S. population and popularity of the game means that Americans must climb an even steeper mountain towards any potential windfall. This was evident to see in the formative part of this year, as the nation's Mega Millions jackpot soared to $656 million. When the first winner was announced, an estimated 1.5 billion tickets had been sold nationwide. Americans still invested more than $1 billion into chasing their fanciful dreams of wealth and fortune. This is reflective of a growing trend, where lottery sales continue to soar despite the uncertain economic climate. There has been a significant rise in the number of syndicates that are purchasing tickets. This proves that rather than being discouraged by the seeming insurmountable odds of victory, Americans are instead looking for innovative ways to improve their chances and actively investing more into buying tickets. Now, while an estimated one in three global lotteries are won by syndicates, the likelihood of winning remains remote in the extreme. Even for those who win the lottery, their financial future or long-term happiness is not necessarily secured. Acquiring huge sums of money can inspire any number of extreme emotive reactions. There are individual state statistics which suggest that the majority of people only purchase lottery tickets when the jackpot has been steadily building over a period of weeks, with just nine to 12% of Illinois residents playing regularly. This would suggest that rather than being symbolic of a growing gambling culture in the U.S., national lotteries are in fact played responsibly and only intermittently by most participants. Another factor in favor of lotteries is the money that they generate for state funded projects, with public education bodies in particular benefiting from the investment made by participants. People who play the lottery responsibly are contributing towards local community development, which actually means that their small weekly investment at least creates some form of social change. In terms of monetary value, 34 cents out of every $1 spent on lottery tickets is invested into education, with 58 cents being awarded to winners in the form of prizes and 6 cents paid to participating retailers for sales commissions. National lotteries across the globe are always likely to be the subject of extreme opinion and controversy. Europe is looking to invest more during periods of sustained austerity. The fact remains, however, that participants have an individual responsibility to play the game responsibly, and spend within their means while pursuing the dream of huge cash prizes. As long as they do so, then there is no reason why they cannot enjoy the lottery while also contributing to state funded educational projects.

[此试题无题干]

How to Choose a College?I. Student-faculty ratio— The lower the ratios, the more【T1】_____ you will get【T1】______— Healthy ratio is【T2】_____ or lower【T2】______II. Financial aid—【T3】_____ of students receiving grant aid【T3】______— Average amount of grant aid—【T4】_____ colleges are more likely to offer significant grand aid【T4】______— Average amount of【T5】_____ students take【T5】______— Look for college where more grant aids are offeredIII. Internship and research opportunities— Possible opportunitiesa)【T6】_____【T6】______b)Independent undergraduate research fundsc)【T7】_____ from companies and organisations【T7】______d)Summer work from【T8】______【T8】______—【T9】_____ engineering and sciences【T9】______IV.【T10】______【T10】______— No need to be【T11】_____ or gimmicky【T11】______— Exiting courses— Reasonable core courses— Strong【T12】_____ to help with the transition【T12】______— Room for【T13】______【T13】______— Courses intended cover your interested areaV. Clubs and activities—【T14】_____ of the activities is unimportant【T14】______— Different campuses have different personalities— Outside-class activities of your interests【T15】_____ your campus life【T15】______

(1)Asked what job they would take if they could have any, people unleash their imaginations and dream of exotic places, powerful positions or work that involves alcohol and a paycheck at the same time. Or so you'd think. (2)None of those appeals to Lori Miller who, as a lead word processor, has to do things that don't seem so dreamy, which include proofreading, spell checking and formatting. But she loves it "I like and respect nearly all my co-workers, and most of them feel the same way about me," she says. "Just a few things would make it a little better," she says, including a shorter commute and the return of some great people who used to work there. And one more thing: She'd appreciate if everyone would put their dishes in the dishwasher. (3)It's not a lot to ask for and, it turns out, a surprising number of people dreaming up their dream job don't ask for much. One could attribute it to lack of imagination, setting the bar low or "anchoring," the term referring to the place people start and never move far from. One could chalk it up to rationalizing your plight. (4)But maybe people simply like what they do and aren't, as some management would have you believe, asking for too much—just the elimination of a small but disproportionately powerful amount of office inanity. That may be one reason why two-thirds of Americans would take the same job again "without hesitation" and why 90% of Americans are at least somewhat satisfied with their jobs, according to a Gallup Poll. (5)The matters that routinely rank high on a satisfaction scale don't relate to money but "work as a means for demonstrating some sort of responsibility and achievement," says Barry Staw, professor of leadership and communication at University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business. "Pay—even when it's important, it's not for what you can buy, it's a validation of your work and approval." (6)So, money doesn't interest Elizabeth Gray as much as a level playing field. "I like what I do," says the city project manager who once witnessed former colleagues award a contractor, paid for work he never completed, with the title of "Contractor of the Year". (7)Thus: "My dream job would be one free of politics," she says. "All advancement would be based on merit. The people who really did the work would be the ones who received the credit." (8)Frank Gastner has a similar ideal: "VP in charge of destroying inane policies." Over the years, he's had to hassle with the simplest of design flaws that would cost virtually nothing to fix were it not for the bureaucracies that entrenched them. So, the retired manufacturer's representative says he would address product and process problems with the attitude, "It's not right: let's fix it now without a committee meeting." (9)Monique Huston actually has her dream job—and many tell her it's theirs, too. She's general manager of a pub in Omaha, the Dundee Dell, which boasts 650 single-malt scotches on its menu. She visits bars, country clubs, people's homes and Scotland for whiskey tasting. "I stumbled on my passion in life," she says. (10)Still, some nights she doesn't feel like drinking—or smiling. "Your face hurts," she complains. And when you have your dream job you wonder what in the world you'll do next. (11)One of the big appeals of a dream job is dreaming about it. Last year, George Reinhart saw an ad for a managing director of the privately owned island of Mustique in the West Indies. (12)He was lured by the salary ($1 million)and a climate that beat the one enjoyed by his Boston suburb. A documentary he saw about Mustique chronicled the posh playground for the likes of Mick Jagger and Princess Margaret. He reread Herman Wouk's "Don't Stop the Carnival," about a publicity agent who leaves his New York job and buys an island hotel. In April of last year, he applied for the job. (13)He heard nothing. So last May, he wrote another letter: "I wanted to thank you for providing the impetus for so much thought and fun." He didn't get the job but, he says, he takes comfort that the job hasn't been filled. "So, I can still dream," he adds. (14)I told him the job had been filled by someone—but only after he said, "I need to know, because then I can begin to dream of his failure."

When a dark-colored S. U. V. raced through the streets of Washington, flipped over and burst into flames on Fox's fast-paced action show 24 last week, viewers probably were not calculating how much carbon dioxide the explosion produced. But executives at Fox have been paying close attention. On Monday the network will announce that 24 is going green, becoming the first "carbon neutrar television series. Among other things, Fox says, it has hired consultants to measure the carbon-dioxide output from the production, started using 20 percent biodiesel fuel in trucks and generators, installed motion monitors in bathrooms and kitchens to make the lights more efficient and paid the higher fees that help California utilities buy wind and solar power. Car crashes posed a bigger problem; even hybrid vehicles emit carbon dioxide when blown up. To achieve true carbon neutrality the scripts would have to avoid shooting on location and staging chase scenes, something likely to disappoint even the greenest viewers. So the producers decided to settle for buying carbon offsets, which in theory make up for emissions of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, by paying other people to generate enough clean energy to compensate—in this case wind-power plants in India. The producers said they bought enough credits to offset 1,291 tons of carbon dioxide, just over a half-season's worth of emissions. "If we've needed a car chase, we've had a car chase," said Howard Gordon, executive producer of "24." "Our obligation is first and foremost to the fans. If we have budget cuts and need to save money, then we'll have fewer car crashes. " Rupert Murdoch, spurred by a presentation by former Vice President Al Gore, said last year that he intended to make News Corporation, Fox's parent, carbon neutral by 2010, and the network's campaign, the producers say, is part of that effort. Still, the green fervor is an interesting turn for a show known more for playing out terrorist themes pioneered by the Bush administration and for graphic portrayals of torture in prime time. Mr. Gordon said that he knew more skeptical viewers might see the effort as a way to rehabilitate the show's reputation among liberals, but he insisted that there was no connection."People continue to ascribe political agendas to the show, so they may see this cynically, but, no, absolutely, one has nothing to do with the other," he said. Fox is not the first network to tout its devotion to the planet. In November NBC Universal committed to "greening" three shows, including the "Nightly News With Brian Williams" and "Saturday Night Live", by using alternative fuels and increasing recycling and composting. Warner Brothers and Disney also have environmental divisions. Still, Fox executives said that they were the first to make a series carbon neutral and that they hoped 24 would be a model for other shows and inspire a higher level of environmental consciousness in viewers. On Monday the network will begin broadcasting announcements in which the stars of 24—including Kiefer Sutherland, who plays Agent Jack Bauer—encourage viewers to take steps themselves. "No one is kidding themselves that viewers want to see Jack Bauer stop in the middle of an action scene and deliver some line about the environment," said Dana Walden, a chairwoman of20th Century Fox Television, who was the force behind the carbon-neutral scheme. But, she added, Fox hoped that the result would be "a more gratifying viewing experience, even if it is at a more subconscious level." Figuring out how to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions on a show that often shoots on location and is known for explosion-enhanced action was not easy. The first step was to evaluate how much of the greenhouse gas was produced, examining everything from the cars used to ferry scripts across the Los Angeles area to flights taken by actors and executives. Two categories accounted for 95 percent of emissions: fuel for on-site generators, transportation and special effects; and the electricity used for sets and offices. The cast, crew and contractors all made substantial adjustments. They shared scripts electronically and drove around in hybrid vehicles, eliminating the use of 1,300 gallons of gasoline, according to the network. Joel Makower, executive editor of GreenBiz. com, which advises businesses and evaluates the effectiveness of environmental measures, said he was impressed with the show's efforts. "These are not just feel-good measures," Mr. Makower said. "They did their homework." Still, by the show's own accounting, the realities of production often limited what could be done. Although 1,300 gallons of gas represents about 10 cross-country car trips, Fox said, it is not much for a show that goes through at least 1,000 gallons a week.

Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and more common in many countries. Whether the rights of the non-smokers to breathe in fresh air outweigh those of the smokers to smoke freely is a matter of opinion, manifesting itself in a heated smoking ban debate. In the following excerpt, the author states the effect of the smoking ban. Read the excerpt carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should: 1. summarize briefly the author's opinion; 2. give your comment. Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks. The English smoking ban came into force on July 1, 2007. Smoking is banned in almost all enclosed public spaces, including pubs, restaurants and on public transport. Only places that are "like homes" or are specifically excluded by the health secretary are exempt from the ban. In essence, smoking is only allowed outdoors and in private homes. Posters must be displayed in all workplaces reminding people that smoking is illegal. Individuals who defy the ban face a ￡50 on-the-spot fine; businesses can be fined ￡200 for allowing smoking or not displaying the signs.There are many shocking things about the smoking ban—or, at least, they would be shocking if we were not inured to them. First, there's the fact that the flimsy evidence that passive smoking causes any significant harm is taken seriously. According to figures from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)—Britain's fundamentalist anti-smoking lobby group—the incidence of lung cancer for non-smokers is about 10 cases per 100,000 people. Regular passive smoking (that is, living with a smoking partner, not just encountering one in bars or restaurants) increases that by about 25 percent—12.5 cases per 100,000. So, even if these figures are correct, passive smoking causes 2. 5 cases of lung cancer per 100,000 of the population; to put it another way, these are odds of 40,000-to-one of potentially getting lung cancer from passive smoking. On the basis of these remote risks, a war against smokers has been built. The second shocking thing is that governments now believe it is their right—even duty—to decide what vices we engage in. In this, the UK is not alone. From Argentina to Zambia, governments and local authorities have been queuing up to make it extremely difficult for people to indulge in filthy habits. Only this week, the Dutch joined the smoking ban club, exactly a year after England's pubs and restaurants went smoke-free (or "smokefree" to use the single-word, Orwellian Newspeak preferred by the New Labour government). On the same day, patients in England's mental institutions received the "protection" of the law, too—that is, they will from now on be "protected" from smoke by a super-killjoy ban on smoking even in hospitals for the mentally ill. Another shocking thing is the way in which the people have been browbeaten into accepting this kind of state intervention. A quarter of the population is actively engaged, at some time or other, in the pastime of smoking; and most of the rest of the population was once happy to tolerate that pastime. Yet a noisy minority, joining forces with governments that are increasingly keen to micromanage our most personal affairs and behaviour, has managed to criminalize a perfectly normal activity. This state of affairs has been accepted with barely a murmur of protest. The consequences for our everyday life have been profound. Smokers are now marked out as "undesirables", shunted on to the street or to some other open area to partake in their evil habit. The simple business of socializing has been undermined: alcohol-fueled chatter is persistently interrupted by the disappearance of smokers to the nearest open space. Many people, particularly the elderly, for whom getting up and walking outside every time they want a cigarette is something of an ordeal, are visiting pubs less and less. There is something rather inhumane in the zealous anti-smoking crusade, where the health authorities and their cheerleaders seem happy to make our life worse in the name of "protecting us" from harm. Write your response on ANSWER SHEET FOUR.

意外地遇到一个青年拿了一本《从军日记》坐在我的旁边看，他竟大胆地向我宣传，要我去买一本来看看，我回答他：“我不赞成女人当兵，所以也不喜欢看这本书。” 他听了非常不高兴，竟骂我思想顽固。 “廿世纪时代的女性不应该这样开倒车的!”他气愤愤地说。 我故意和他辩论了很久，惹得全车厢的人都注意起来。车子驶到卡德路，我就下来了。怀着一颗兴奋的心，跑去找光光。她和元真正穷得没法过日子，见我去时很高兴，猜想我一定拿到了钱，连忙向我瓜分。我立刻给了她们两元，其余的两元多，就花在请她们吃饭的小馆子里，等到回去，又只剩几毛钱了。但我并不难受，我觉得吃了一顿饱饭，至少可以挨饿三天。

(1)Here's a smart idea to meet the ever-increasing demand for an English university education: let colleges charge what they like to those youngsters who are entitled to support from the student-loan system but who promise to forego any claim on it, and let them admit as many such students as they want. That is the wheeze(花招)David Willetts, the universities minister, unveiled recently. (2)At present, the state limits the number of places mat English universities can offer to students from Britain and the European Union, because it must provide these students with subsidised loans to cover the costs of their courses. For the same reason, it also limits the tuition fees that universities can charge British and European students. From next September, the cap on me fee will rise to ￡9,000 per year. (3)Meanwhile universities are free to set their own tuition fees for students from outside the European Union, and to enroll as many of them as they like. They have done so with gusto: the number of undergraduates from outside me European Union enrolled at English universities increased by 12% over me past four years, while me number from within the European Union rose just 7% over the same period. The tuition fees paid by international students can be eye-watering: me University of Oxford, for example, charges ￡12,700 per year for a degree in theology and ￡14,550 for each of me first three years of a medical degree, rising to ￡26,500 for each of me final three years. (4)Although Mr Willett's ruse could help ease the squeeze on university places—demand is at a record high, according to me latest application figures—there are some obvious political pitfalls. Most crucially, it exposes Mr Willetts to me charge of being unfair. If Daddy's little darling narrowly missed out on a place, Daddy could, if the university were willing, simply pay a higher tuition fee and cover the cost of her board and lodging(and, no doubt, dizzying social life)while at college. The same opportunity would be denied to the offspring of families who could not afford it. (5)So Mr Willetts is keen to point out the elements of the proposal that promote social mobility, not least because if he is to enact the plan, he must persuade his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition government to go along with it. If those who could afford to pay for higher education did so, he argues, there would be more places available to those who needed state support to take up a university place. (6)Speaking on BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme, Mr Willetts said, "I start from me view mat, by and large, more people going to university is a good thing for social mobility, I think going to university is a fantastic opportunity, and it is a particularly good thing for young people who have come from tough backgrounds and may have been let down by the school system. But anything we did, if this does go forward and, at me moment, these are just ideas being put to us, would have to pass the test of improving social mobility, not reversing it." (7)Alas Mr Willetts was unable to shake off the idea mat rich families might be able to buy a better education man their poorer counterparts. That is hardly surprising, given that it is the main reason for the existence of a flourishing privately-funded school system in the country, albeit one derided by me left-wing of Mr Willett's coalition partners. Those parents with children in such schools argue, correctly, that they have paid taxes to support me publicly-funded school system in addition to finding me money to pay steep school fees. And the most expensive schools are just as hard to get into as, and even more pricey than, the elite universities: Eton, the prime minister's alma mater, charges ￡30,000 per year in tuition. Of course, cheaper options are available: Dulwich College, for example, provides a perfectly sound alternative at half me price. (8)Turning away a family with funds to pay for university makes little sense financially. After all, higher education is a global business, and the tuition fees will follow the youngster wherever she wins a place. That works for England as well as elsewhere: the British daughter of a sufficiently wealthy man who narrowly failed to get into the English university of her choice could be considered for an international place, for example, if the family had a home abroad from which she could apply. (9)It may not yet be common for undergraduates, but postgraduates who narrowly miss out on a state-supported PhD place are admitted anyway if they can find funds from elsewhere. A friend who is involved with postgraduate admissions says he interviewed 40 people for six state-funded research programmes that will start in the autumn, of which 15 candidates were of an acceptable quality. He tells me that he expects to recruit five independently-funded students this year, in addition to the six state-funded ones. If this model were to be extended to undergraduates, Mr Willetts would want students to win sponsorship from companies and charities to pay for their education. (10)One last point. Foreign students enrolled at English universities have long complained—with fan-reason, in my opinion—that they are treated as "cash cows" that are milked to pay for the cut-price, state-subsidised but same-quality education offered to locals. In the politics of class war, persuading left-leaning voters that fat cats would have to pay more for the same education offered to the poor could yet prove popular.

(1) Under the 1996 constitution, all 11 of South Africa's official languages "must enjoy equality of esteem and be treated equitably". In practice English, the mother tongue of just 8% of the people, increasingly dominates all the others. Its hegemony may even threaten the long-term survival of the country's African languages, spoken as the mother tongue of 80% of South Africans, despite the government's repeated promises to promote and protect indigenous languages and culture. (2) Under apartheid, there were just two official languages, English and Afrikaans, a variant of Dutch with a dash of French, German, Khoisan (spoken by so-called Bushmen and Hottentots), Malay and Portuguese. Pre-colonial African languages were relegated to the black townships and tribal "homelands". Even there, English was often chosen as the medium of education in preference to the inhabitants' mother tongues. Black South Africans increasingly rejected Afrikaans as the language of the main oppressor; English was a symbol of advancement and prestige. (3) Today, 16 years after the advent of black-majority rule, English reigns supreme. Not only is it the medium of business, finance, science and the internet, but also of government, education, broadcasting, the press, advertising, street signs, consumer products and the music industry. For such things Afrikaans is also occasionally used, especially in the Western Cape province, but almost never an African tongue. The country's Zulu-speaking president, Jacob Zuma, makes all his speeches in English. Parliamentary debates are in English. Even the instructions on bottles of prescription drugs come only in English or Afrikaans. (4) Yet most black South Africans are not proficient in English. This is because most of their teachers give lessons in a language that is not their own. To give non English-speaking children a leg-up, the government agreed last year that all pupils should be taught in their mother tongue for at least the first three years of primary school. But outside the rural areas, where one indigenous language prevails, this is neither financially nor logistically feasible. (5) Some people suggest reducing the number of official Languages to a more manageable three: English, Afrikaans and Zulu, the mother tongue of nearly a quarter of South Africans. But non-Zulus would object. Unless brought up on a farm, few whites speak an African language. For the school-leaving exam, proficiency in at least two languages is required. But most native English-speakers opt for Afrikaans, said to be easy to learn, rather than a useful but harder African tongue. At universities African-language departments are closing. (6) Some effort is being made to protect African languages from this apparently inexorable decline. The Sunday Times, South Africa's biggest-selling weekend paper, recently launched a Zulu edition. In September the Oxford University Press brought out the first isiZulu-English dictionary in more than 40 years. (7) Many of the black elite, who send their children to English-speaking private schools or former white state schools, may accept English emerging as the sole national language. Many talk English to their children at home. Fluency in the language of Shakespeare is regarded as a sign of modernity, sophistication and power. (8) Will South Africa's black languages suffer the fate of the six languages brought by the country's first Indian settlers 150 years ago? Maybe so, thinks Rajend Mesthrie at the University of Cape Town. For the first 100-odd years, he says, South Africa's Indians taught and spoke to their children in their native tongues. But English is now increasingly seen as "the best way forward". Today most young Indians speak only English or are bilingual in English and Afrikaans, though they may continue to chat at home in a kind of pidgin English mixed with Indian and Zulu.

[此试题无题干]

草儿似乎刚刚出浴。鲜嫩的叶片上溜滑着一滴两滴的露珠，在春阳的映照下，折射出一片耀眼的晶莹，似一粒粒珍珠在熠熠闪光。微风清略湖畔的时候，露珠从叶尖上颤颤地滚落下来，使人想起杏花春雨里的千点万点晶亮亮的檐滴，想起了生命成长的过程…… 我久久地伫立于湖畔，聆听一种生命悄然拔节的声音，心头如有暖流滚滚？刹那间，心中的春天已是万木竞秀，繁花缤纷。我强烈地感受到：禁锢了一冬的生命正在苏醒，心扉灵府里渗透了一种全新的感觉，那些弱小但又顽强不屈的草儿，以其锲而不舍的执着，昭示出一种原始的壮美，使我真切的感悟到人生的真谛和生命的意义？ 这以后，沉寂的万千生命开始喧闹起来。那片小草，也纷纷地擎起了一面面青春的旗幡，沐浴着春风，欣欣然地欢舞，自由自在歌唱。我的干涸已久的心田，被这一片碧绿种满了生机。

在中国，孩子的满月酒是其人生中第一个重要仪式。孩子满月那天，家人邀请亲朋好友来一起庆祝。通常孩子穿上狗头帽、虎头鞋，象征着孩子能幸运一生。孩子周岁那天的抓周仪式也很有特色。家里人会摆上书、笔、墨、纸、钱币、食物、玩具等物品任孩子随意挑选。根据孩子抓的东西来预测孩子可能存在的兴趣爱好和将来从事的职业。

(1)The American screen has long been a smoky place, at least since 1942's Now, Voyager, in which Bette Davis and Paul Henreid showed how to make and seal a romantic deal over a pair of cigarettes that were smoldering as much as the stars. Today cigarettes are more common onscreen than at any other time since midcentury: 75% of all Hollywood films — including 36% of those rated G or PG — show tobacco use, according to a recent survey by the University of California, San Francisco. (2)Audiences, especially kids, are taking notice. Two recent studies, published in Lancet and Pediatrics, have found that among children as young as 10, those exposed to the most screen smoking are up to 2.7 times as likely as others to pick up the habit Worse, it's the ones from nonsmoking homes who are hit the hardest, perhaps because they are spared the duty ashtrays and moldy drapes that make real-world smoking a lot less appealing than the clean cinematic version. (3)Now the Harvard School of Public Health(HSPH)— the folks behind the designated-driver campaign — are pushing to get the smokes off the screen. "Some movies show kids up to 14 incidents of smoking per hour," says Barry Bloom, HSPH's dean. "We're in the business of preventing disease, and cigarettes are the No. 1 preventable cause." (4)If there's one thing health experts know, it's that you don't influence behavior by telling people what to do. You do it by exposing them to enough cases of people behaving well that it creates a new norm. What made the designated-driver concept catch on in the 1980s was partly that Harvard and the ad agencies it worked with persuaded TV networks to slip the idea into their shows. There's a reason a designated-driver poster appeared in the bar on Cheers, and it's not because it made the jokes funnier. (5)"The idea appeared in 160 prime-time episodes over four years," says Jay Winsten, HSPH's associate dean. "Drunk-driving fatalities fell 25% over the next three years." (6)Harvard long believed that getting cigarettes out of movies could have as powerful an effect, but it wouldn't be easy. Cigarette makers had a history of striking product-placement deals with Hollywood, and while the 1998 tobacco settlement prevents that, nothing stops directors from incorporating smoking into scenes on their own. (7)In 1999 Harvard began holding one-on-one meetings with studio executives trying to change that, and last year the Motion Picture Association of America flung the door open, inviting Bloom to make a presentation in February to all the studios. Harvard's advice was direct: Get the butts entirely out, or at least make smoking unappealing. (8)A few films provide a glimpse of what a no-smoking — or low-smoking — Hollywood would be like. Producer Lindsay Doran, who once helped persuade director John Hughes to keep Ferris Bueller smoke-free in the 1980s hit, wanted to do the same for the leads of her 2006 movie Stranger Than Fiction. When a writer convinced her that the character played by Emma Thompson had to smoke, Doran relented, but from the way Thompson hacks her way through the film and snuffs out her cigarettes in a palmful of spit, it's clear the glamour's gone. And remember all the smoking in The Devil Wears Prada? No? That's because the producers of that film kept it out entirely. "No one smoked in that movie," says Doran, "and no one noticed." (9)Such movies are hardly the rule, but the pressure is growing. Like smokers, studios may conclude that quitting the habit is not just a lot healthier but also a lot smarter.

Imagine taking a university exam in your own home, under the watchful eye of a webcam or with software profiling your keystrokes or your syntax to see whether it really is you answering the questions. Online university courses have become the Next Big Thing for higher education, particularly in the United States, where millions of students have signed up for courses from some of the most upmarket universities. With spiralling costs and student loan debts crossing the trillion dollar barrier this year, the online university has been seen as a way of reaching many more people for much less money. But a major stumbling block has been how such digital courses are assessed. When students are at home how do you know whether they are cheating? How do you know the identity of the person answering the questions? For the online courses to gain value, they need a credible way of assessing students and an important part of that is preventing fraud. The Open University in the U. K. has been a pioneer of distance learning. "It's a common problem across the sector—how do you know that the individual taking the exam is the right person?" says Peter Taylor, chair of the Open University's academic conduct group. "The student's computer would be locked down so that it can't use other materials. If you've got an appropriate webcam—that can provide you with effective invigilation. " says Prof. Taylor. This still raises the question about how you know who is sitting the exam. "There are various ways you can identify a person," says Prof. Taylor. "One system we looked at meant that you had to type in a particular phrase—and the rate and the particular way you type is effectively a signature of the individual. " These are not distant-horizon ideas—Prof. Taylor says he would expect such technology to be in place within the next five years. He also says that there is no reason to think more people would necessarily cheat online. EdX, an online university project set up earlier this year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, wants to make more use of the exam hall rather than less. Students taking edX online courses will be able to sit their final exams in an international network of test centres, run by Pearson Vue. These will be formally supervised on-screen exams, using the edX website, and those who pass will receive a "proctored certificate", showing it has been achieved in an invigilated setting. Such online testing techniques are going to have an impact on the traditional university course too, he says. But this volume of testing depends on automated marking—and will mean a limit on the range of subjects and type of questions that can be examined. A computer is going to struggle to mark an essay on irony. That's the challenge for another of the most significant online course providers, Coursera, set up by Stanford academics and backed by Silicon Valley investors. It has attracted students remarkably quickly—1.6 million have signed up in the first year, taking courses from more than 30 top universities. When the University of London's international section joined last month, 9,000 students signed up in the first 24 hours. But how can such large numbers of candidates be reliably marked? Coursera's co-founder Daphne Koller says trying to find a way to assess so many students is "part of the learning process". She says automatic marking can generate a score or a grade, but students want human feedback. And there isn't any technology that can judge whether an essay has really connected with a question. The Open University's Prof. Taylor says their own experiments have shown that any software for assessing free-text answers requires a large amount of human intervention. Coursera has been experimenting with peer assessment, where students grade each other's work, following guidelines set by the teacher. This allows for the marking capacity to grow with the class size—but it also depends on the reliability of fellow students. These online courses are also being discussed online—and blogs from students refer to disagreements over marking. Martin Bean, vice chancellor of the Open University, said: "There is no doubt that this is the 'web moment' for higher education and a battle is shaping up for growing student numbers on global courses online. However this is a battle which will be about brands and the market ability of the providers but also, crucially, about quality of teaching and credibility."