单选题Which of the following statements about five-year-old children does the research of Nesdule and Rule suggest?

单选题From the third paragraph we know for sure that

单选题When they advise your kids to "get an education" if you want to raise your income, they tell you only half the truth. What they really mean is to get just enough education to provide manpower for your society, but not too much that prove an embarrassment to your society. Get high school diploma, at least. Without that, you are occupationally dead, unless your name happens to be George Bernard Shaw or Thomas Alva Edison and you can successfully drop out in grade school. Get a college degree, if possible. With a B.A., you are on the launching pad(发射台). But now you have to start to put on the brakes. If you go for a master's degree, make sure it is a M. B. A., and only from a first-rate university. Beyond this, the famous law of diminishing returns begins to take effect. Do you know, for instance, that long-haul truck drivers earn more a year than full professors? Yes, the average 1977 salary for those truckers was ＄24000, while the full professors managed to average just ＄23930. A Ph. D. is the highest degree you can get, but except in a few specialized fields such as physics or chemistry, where the degree can quickly be turned to industrial or commercial purposes, you are facing a dim future. There are more Ph. D.s unemployed or underemployed in this country than in any other part of the world by far. If you become a doctor of philosophy in English or history or anthropology or political science or language or—worst of all—in philosophy, you run the risk of becoming overeducated for our national demands. Not for our needs, mind you, but for our demands. Thousands of Ph. D. s are selling shoes, driving cabs, waiting on tables and filling out fruitless applications month after month. And then maybe taking a job in some high school or backwater college that pays much less than the janitor(看门人)earns. You can equate the level of income with the level of eduction only so far. Far enough, that is, to make you useful to the gross national product, but not so far that nobody can turn much of a profit on you.

单选题A recent article in The New York Times noted that Hollywood types now are wearing flip-flops(拖鞋)-- shoes appropriate for beachcombers--to business meetings. Decades ago, Californians were forgiven their sloppy attire as unique to their somewhat frivolous culture. Elsewhere during that bygone era, people were careful how they dressed when seen in public and certainly when going to the office. No one would think of traveling by plane in shorts or wearing anything but their best clothes for attending a church service, concert, wedding, or funeral. Look at old newsreels of baseball games and you will see most of the men in a shirt and tie. Walk through an airport today and you have to strain to find a man wearing a jacket (forget the shirt and tie) or a woman in a nice shirt. If so, they clearly are over 60. The standard for dressing down continues to decline. Neckties and suits no longer are fashionable; male models think it cool to have a face full of stubble(胡子茬). A rock star slouches onto the stage in his undershirt. Think about it: Dean Martin never failed to appear in Las Vegas in anything but his tux, and Frank Sinatra always was dressed to the nines when seen in public. That was the standard. Dress reflects many things about us and our culture. It tells us about standards, deportment, pride, and character. Somewhere along the way, our elites lost their self-confidence. Codes of dress fell by the wayside and, with them, standards of language and behavior. In a world stable and peaceful with no enemies lurking in the shadows to do us unspeakable harm, why would it matter what standards of courtesy we follow? Life would go on as it is. Sadly, this is not a relaxed era such as the 1990s. It matters now what kind of the society we are. We must recapture the seriousness of a generation that won World War II and persevered through the Cold War. We may be involved in a struggle even more lengthy, deadly, and demanding than the Cold War. The watchwords must be sacrifice, vigilance, and determination. A sloppy, self-indulgent culture will not produce an effective effort against an enemy as fanatical as the Japanese Kamikaze(日本神风敢死队) pilots. Our seriousness in World War II and the early Cold War reflected the qualities of a generation of American leaders, embodying the virtues of public spiritedness, selflessness, courage, and integrity. These leaders were human and made mistakes, but they set the tone for an entire era. Their tough-minded policies and dignified appearance reflected their character. That is why it matters how we present ourselves in public. For in a time as serious as theirs-- and ours-- it is character that eventually will triumph.

单选题It is mentioned in the passage that______

单选题{{B}}Text 3{{/B}} Yamato, the ancient name of Japan, essentially means "big harmony". To achieve such balance, Japanese society has refined a plethora of cultural traits: humility, loyalty, respect and consensus. In the field of business, however, this often results in a lack of leaders who are willing to stand out from the crowd, promote themselves and act decisively. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down" is a common Japanese refrain; "the hawk with talent hides his talons" is another. Whereas American and European bosses like to appear on the covers of global business magazines, their Japanese counterparts are comfortable in their obscurity. Business in Japan is generally run as a group endeavor. Such democratic virtues served the country well in the post-war period. But today they hold too many Japanese firms back. Japan boasts some of the best companies in the world: Toyota, Canon and Nintendo are the envy of their industries. But they operate on a global scale and have tentatively embraced some unconsensual American methods. In much of the Japanese economy-especially its huge domestic services sector-managers are in something of a funk. Firms do not give promising youngsters responsibility early on, but allocate jobs by age. Unnecessarily long working hours are the norm, sapping productivity. And there are few women and foreigners in senior roles, which narrows the talent pool. So how pleasing it is to be able to report the success of a business leader who breaks the mould. Young, dynamic and clever, he is not afraid to push aside old, conservative know- nothings. He disdains corporate politics and promotes people based on merit rather than seniority. He can make mistakes (he got involved in a questionable takeover-defence scheme), but he is wildly popular with salarymen: his every move is chronicled weekly. In June he was given the top job at one of Japan's biggest firms. Kosaku Shima of Hatsushiba Goyo Holdings has only one serious shortcoming: he is not a real person, but a manga, or cartoon, character. For many critics of Japan, that says it all: Mr. Shima could exist only in fiction. In fact there is room for the country's managers and even its politicians to learn from him. Most of the lessons are for Japan's managers. At present, bosses rarely say what they think because it might disrupt the harmony, or be seen as immodest. Their subordinates are reluctant to challenge ideas because that would cause the boss to lose face. So daft strategies fester rather than getting culled quickly. There is little risk-taking or initiative. The crux of the problem is Japanese companies' culture of consensus-based decision-making. Called nemawashi ( literally, "going around the roots" ) or ringi ( bottom-up decisions), it helped to establish an egalitarian workplace. In the 1980s Western management consultants cooed that it was the source of Japan's competitive strength. Sometimes it can be, as in periods of crisis when an entire firm needs to accept new marching orders quickly. But most of the time it strangles a company. Relying on consensus means that decisions are made slowly, if at all. With so many people to please, the result is often a mediocre morass of compromises. And with so many hands involved, there is no accountability; no reason for individuals to excel; no sanction against bad decisions so that there are fewer of them in future. Of course, sometimes the consensus of the Japanese workplace is just a veneer and decisions are still made from on high. But then why persist with the pretence, particularly if it drains a company's efficiency?

单选题The African plate is stationary and that it has not moved during ______ years.

单选题We learn from the passage that people classify a person into certain type according to ______.

单选题In his novel, Edgar Allen Poe _______.

单选题"WHAT'S the difference between God and Larry Ellison?" asks an old software industry joke. Answer: God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison. The boss of Oracle is hardly alone among corporate chiefs in having a reputation for being rather keen on himself. Indeed, until the bubble burst and the public turned nasty at the start of the decade, the cult of the celebrity chief executive seemed to demand bossly narcissism, as evidence that a firm was being led by an all-conquering hero. Narcissus met a nasty end, of course. And in recent years, boss-worship has come to be seen as bad for business. In his management bestseller, "Good to Great", Jim Collins argued that the truly successful bosses were not the self-proclaimed stars who adorn the covers of Forbes and Fortune, but instead self-effacing, thoughtful, monkish sorts who lead by inspiring example. A statistical answer may be at hand. For the first time, a new study, "It's All About Me", to be presented next week at the annual gathering of the American Academy of Management, offers a systematic, empirical analysis of what effect narcissistic bosses have on the firms they run. The authors, Arijit Chatterjee and Donald Hambrick, of Pennsylvania State University, examined narcissism in the upper levels of 105 firms in the computer and software industries. To do this, they had to solve a practical problem: studies of narcissism have hitherto relied on surveying individuals personally, something for which few chief executives are likely to have time or inclination. So the authors devised an index of narcissism using six publicly available indicators obtainable without the co-operation of the boss. These are: the prominence of the boss's photo in the annual report; his prominence in company press releases; the length of his "Who's Who" entry; the frequency of his use of the first person singular in interviews; and the ratios of his cash and non-cash compensation to those of the firm's second-highest paid executive. Narcissism naturally drives people to seek positions of power and influence, and because great self-esteem helps your professional advance, say the authors, chief executives will tend on average to be more narcissistic than the general population. How does that affect a firm? Messrs Chatterjee and Hambrick found that highly narcissistic bosses tended to make bigger changes in the use of important resources, such as research and development, or in spending and leverage; they carried out more and bigger mergers, and acquisitions; and their results were both more extreme (more big wins or big losses ) and more transient than those of firms run by their humbler peers. For shareholders, that could be good or bad. Although (oddly) the authors are keeping their narcissism ranking secret, they have revealed that Mr Eilison did not come top. Alas for him, that may be because the study limited itself to people who became the boss after 1991—well after he took the helm. In every respect Mr Ellison seems to be the classic narcissistic boss, claims Mr Chatterjee. There is life in the old joke yet.

单选题The author's attitude toward the construction of skyscrapers seems to be that of

单选题{{B}}Part A{{/B}}{{B}}Directions:{{/B}} Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.{{B}}Text 1{{/B}} Addiction is such a harmful behavior, in fact, that evolution should have long ago weeded it out of the population: if it's hard to drive safely under the influence, imagine trying to run from a saber-toothed tiger or catch a squirrel for lunch. And yet, says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of NIDA and a pioneer in the use of imaging to understand addiction, "the use of drugs has been recorded since the beginning of civilization. Humans in my view will always want to experiment with things to make them feel good." That's because drugs of abuse co-opt the very brain functions that allowed our distant ancestors to survive in a hostile world. Our minds are programmed to pay extra attention to what neurologists call salience—that is, special relevance. Threats, for example, are highly salient, which is why we instinctively try to get away from them. But so are food and sex because they help the individual and the species survive. Drugs of abuse capitalize on this ready-made programming. When exposed to drugs, our memory systems, reward circuits, decision making skills and conditioning kick in—salience in overdrive—to create an all consuming pattern of uncontrollable craving. "Some people have a genetic predisposition to addiction," says Volkow. "But because it involves these basic brain functions, everyone will become an addict if sufficiently exposed to drugs or alcohol." That can go for nonchemical addictions as well. Behaviors, from gambling to shopping to sex, may start out as habits but slide into addictions. Sometimes there might be a behavior-specific root of the problem. Volkow's research group, for example, has shown that pathologically obese people who are compulsive eaters exhibit hyperactivity in the areas of the brain that process food stimuli—including the mouth, lips and tongue. For them, activating these regions is like opening the floodgates to the pleasure center. Almost anything deeply enjoyable can turn into an addiction, though. Of course, not everyone becomes an addict. That's because we have other, more analytical regions that can evaluate consequences and override mere pleasure seeking. Brain imaging is showing exactly how that happens. Paulus, for example, looked at drug addicts enrolled in a VA hospital's intensive four-week rehabilitation program. Those who were more likely to relapse in the first year after completing the program were also less able to complete tasks involving cognitive skills and less able to adjust to new rules quickly. This suggested that those patients might also be less adept at using analytical areas of the brain while performing decision-making tasks. Sure enough, brain scans showed that there were reduced levels of activation in the prefrontal cortex, where rational thought can override impulsive behavior. It's impossible to say if the drugs might have damaged these abilities in the relapsers an effect rather than a cause of the chemical abuse—but the fact that the cognitive deficit existed in only some of the drug users suggests that there was something innate that was unique to them. To his surprise, Paulus found that 80% to 90% of the time, he could accurately predict: who would relapse within a year simply by examining the scans. Another area of focus for researchers involves the brain's reward system, powered largely by the neurotransmitter dopamine. Investigators are looking specifically at the family of dopamine receptors that populate nerve cells and bind to the compound. The hope is that if you can reduce the effect of the brain chemical that carries the pleasurable signal, you can loosen the drug's hold.

单选题The word "superficial" (Par

单选题We can learn from the passage that people's enthusiasm for Mars______.

单选题The second and third paragraphs are written in order to illustrate