Most worthwhile careers require some kind of specialized training. Ideally, therefore, the choice of an 21 should be made even before choice of a curriculum in high school. Actually, 22 , most people make several job choices during their working lives, 23 because of economic and industrial changes and partly to improve 24 position. The "one perfect job" does not exist. Young people should 25 enter into a broad flexible training program that will 26 them for a field of work rather than for a single 27 . Unfortunately many young people have to make career plans 28 benefit of help from a competent vocational counselor or psychologist. Knowing 29 about the occupational world, or themselves for that matter, they choose their lifework on a hit-or-miss 30 . Some drift from job to job. Others 31 to work in which they are unhappy and for which they are not fitted. One common mistake is choosing an occupation for 32 real or imagined prestige. Too many high-school students—or their parents for them—choose the professional field, 33 both the relatively small proportion of work vacancies in the professions but the extremely high educational and personal 34 . The imagined or real prestige of a profession or a "white-collar" job is 35 good reason for choosing it as life's work. 36 , these occupations are not always well paid. Since a large proportion of jobs are in mechanical and manual work, the 37 of young people should give serious 38 to these fields. Before making an occupational choice, a person should have a general idea of what he wants 39 life and how hard he is willing to work to get it. Some people desire social prestige, others intellectual satisfaction. Some want security; others are willing to take 40 for financial gain. Each occupational choice has its demands as well as its rewards.

It is hard to predict how science is going to turn out

Directions: Write an essay of 160-200 words based on the following pictures. In your essay

Exactly where we will stand in the long war against disease by the year 2050 is impossible to say

MySpace and other Web sites have unleashed a potent new phenomenon of social networking in cyberspace, 1 at the same time, a growing body of evidence is suggesting that traditional social 2 play a surprisingly powerful and under-recognized role in influencing how people behave. The latest research comes from Dr. Nicholas A. Christakis, at the Harvard Medical School, and Dr. James H. Fowler, at the University of California at San Diego. The 3 reported last summer that obesity appeared to 4 from one person to another 5 social networks, almost like a virus or a fad. In a follow-up to that provocative research, the team has produced 6 findings about another major health 7 : smoking. In a study published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine, the team found that a person's decision to 8 the habit is strongly affected by 9 other people in their social network quit—even people they do not know. And, surprisingly, entire networks of smokers appear to quit virtually 10 . For 11 of their studies, they 12 of detailed records kept between 1971 and 2003 about 5,124 people who participated in the landmark Framingham Heart Study. Because many of the subjects had ties to the Boston suburb of Framingham, Mass., many of the participants were 13 somehow-through spouses, neighbors, friends, co-workers—enabling the researchers to study a network that 14 12,067 people. Taken together, these studies are 15 a growing recognition that many behaviors are 16 by social networks in 17 that have not been fully understood. And 18 may be possible, the researchers say, to harness the power of these networks for many 19 , such as encouraging safe sex, getting more people to exercise or even 20 crime.

Sunday nights in Paris are busy on the northern tip of the Canal Saint-Martin. On either side of the water, two groups form long ordered queues, albeit for different reasons. One queue is for those hoping to buy something to eat from a new gourmet hamburger truck (hour-long waits are normal). The other queue, almost all young North African men, is for those hoping to find a seat on a bus to a homeless shelter on the outskirts of the city. Paris is no stranger to such contrasts. Luxury and penury have always coexisted there in uneasy tension. But now a growing number of homeless are stretching the limits of the city's generosity. Nobody knows how many homeless there are in Paris. Data collection is meagre and infrequent. The last meaningful estimate by INSEE, France's national statistics office, dates from the mid 2000s and pegged the number, including those sleeping rough or in emergency shelters on any given night at around 12,000. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number is considerably higher today. Despite a big expansion in shelter capacity since 2004, demand still outstrips supply. Calls to an emergency number run by Samusocial de Paris, a government-funded charity that allocates beds in emergency shelters, doubled between 2009 and 2010. "Our problem is too much bureaucracy and centralisation," explains Mr. Damon. Dealing with homelessness, he argues, should be the exclusive responsibility of the Paris city council. Instead, at least 12 different government bodies are charged with caring for the homeless in Paris. Overlapping responsibility means duplication. Paris has three separate publicly funded groups that transport homeless people to shelters. Some complain about being woken up over the course of an evening by different homeless services. Philippe Redom, a 56-year-old rough sleeper and former chef, prefers to remain in his niche outside an office block. The shelters are "too big and there is no privacy". Yet the most useful fix would be for rough sleepers to go closer to the top of the queue for permanent public housing, as happens in London with good results. The problem is not just that there are not enough houses, but also that the wrong people tend to get them. However welcoming the streets of Paris, the homeless would do better with a roof over their heads. From the first two paragraphs, we learn that Paris is a city ______.

More than any other date on the calendar, Thanksgiving has remained private and personal

"I like money and nice things

Sometimes the biggest changes in society are the hardest to spot precisely because they are hiding in plain sight. It could well be that way with wireless communications. Something that people think of as just another technology is beginning to show signs of changing lives, culture, politics, cities, jobs, even marriages dramatically. In particular, it will usher in a new version of a very old idea: nomadism. Futurology is a dangerous business, and it is true that most of the important arguments about mobile communications at the moment are to do with technology or regulation—bandwidth, spectrum use and so on. Yet it is worth jumping ahead and wondering what the social effects will be, for two reasons. First, the broad technological future is pretty clear: there will be ever faster cellular networks, and many more gadgets to connect to these networks. Second, the social changes are already visible: parents on beaches waving at their children while typing furtively on their BlackBerrys; entrepreneurs discovering they don't need offices at all. Everybody is doing more on the move. Wireless technology is surely not just an easier-to-use phone. The car divided cities into work and home areas; wireless technology may mix them up again, with more people working in suburbs or living in city centers. Traffic patterns are beginning to change again: the rush hours at 9am and 5pm are giving way to more varied patterns, with people going backwards and forwards between the office, home and all sorts of other places throughout the day. Already, architects are redesigning offices and universities: more flexible spaces for meeting people, fewer private enclosures for sedentary work. Will it be a better life? In some ways, yes. Digital nomadism will liberate ever more knowledge workers from the cubicle prisons as depicted in Mr. Dilbert's cartoons. But the old tyranny of place could become a new tyranny of time, as nomads who are "always on" all too often end up—mentally—anywhere but here. As for friends and family, permanent mobile connectivity could have the same effect as nomadism: it might bring you much closer to family and friends, but it may make it harder to bring in outsiders. Sociologists fret about constant e-mailers and texters losing the everyday connections to casual acquaintances or strangers sitting next to them in the cafe or on the bus. The same tools have another dark side, turning everybody into a fully equipped paparazzo. Some fitness clubs have started banning mobile phones near the treadmills and showers lest exercising people find themselves pictured, flabby and sweaty, on some website. As in the desert, so in the city: nomadism promises the heaven of new freedom, but it also signals the hell of constant surveillance by the tribe. We can infer from the first two paragraphs that ______.

Exactly where we will stand in the long war against disease by the year 2050 is impossible to say

Northern Europeans will not forget the name Eyjafjallajokull (埃亚菲亚德拉冰盖) in a hurry

People have wondered for a long time how their personalities and behaviors are formed, h is not easy to explain why one person is intelligent and another is not, or why one is cooperative and another is competitive. Social scientists are, of course, extremely interested in these types of questions. They want to explain why we possess certain characteristics and exhibit certain behaviors. There are no clear answers yet, but two distinct schools of thought on the matter have developed. As one might expect, the two approaches are very different from one another, and there is a great deal of debate between proponents of each theory. The controversy is often referred to as "nature/nurture". Those who support the "nature" side of the conflict believe that our personalities and behavior patterns are largely determined by biological and genetic factors. That our environment has little, if anything, to do with our abilities, characteristics, and behavior is central to this theory. Taken to an extreme, this theory maintains that our behavior is predetermined to such a degree that we are almost completely governed by our instincts. Proponents of the "nurture "theory, or, as they are often called, behaviorists, claimed that our environment is more important than our biologically based instincts in determining how we will act. A behaviorist, B. F. Skinner sees humans as beings whose behavior is almost completely shaped by their surroundings. The behaviorists' view of the human being is quite mechanistic; they maintain that, like machines, humans respond to environmental stimuli as the basis of their behavior. Either of these theories cannot yet fully explain human behavior. In fact, it is quite likely that the key to our behavior lies somewhere between these two extremes. That the controversy will continue for a long time is certain. Which one of the following statements would supporters of the "nature" theory agree with?

Generally speaking

A. Vista will also have consumer appeal

When older people can no longer remember names at a cocktail party

Science and its practical applications in the form of technology, or the "science" of the industrial arts, as Webster defines the term, have had an enormous impact on modem society and culture. For generations it was believed that science and technology would provide the solutions to the problem of human suffering disease, famine, war, and poverty. But today these problems remain; in fact, many argue that they are expanding. Some even conclude that science and technology as presently constituted are not capable of meeting the collective needs of mankind. A more radical position is that modem scientific methods and institutions, because of their very nature and structure, thwart basic human needs and emotions; the catastrophes of today's world, and the greatest threat to its future, some claim, are the direct consequences of science and technology. A major paradox has been created: scientific rationality taken as the supreme form of the application of the rational faculties of human beings and which, along with its practical applications in the form of technological development, have liberated man from ignorance, from the whims and oppressions of a relentless nature and while having subordinated the earth to man, has become the potential instrument of the self-destruction of the human species. War, pollution, and economic oppression are seen as the inevitable results of scientific advance by large sections of the public. The atomic disaster of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are seen as the products of an uninterested scientific rationality. In recent decades in the West there has emerged a wave of anti-scientific, antirational moods, especially among the young people, which threatens a complete rejection not simply of the technological fruits of science, but of scientific rationalism as well, in favor of one or another version of mysticism, irrationalism, and primitivism-or as one philosopher of science has called it, of blood and soil philosophy. Wartovsky has described the argument of the anti-science people as one in which we are warned to "listen to the blood, get back to our roots, and cast out the evil demons of a blind and inhuman rationality, and thereby we will save ourselves". The only "reasonable thing" to do, according to the oppositionist, is to reject reason itself-at least in its scientific form. The very rejection of that reason, in "reasonable" terms, is in itself a paradox. According to Paragraph 1, science and technology hindered humans' needs and emotions in that

The main problem in discussing American popular culture is also one of its main characteristics: it

Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain's National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world. The potential of this work applied to health-care is very great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech giant. It is against that background that the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients in 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients' rights and their expectations of privacy. DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further arrangements—and there may be many—between the NHS and DeepMind will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about informed patient consent to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it "controlled" the data and DeepMind merely "processed" it. But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value. The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them. That misses the way the surveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is compared with the data of countless millions more. The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources. If software promises to save lives on the scale that drugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as big pharma has done. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham's report is a welcome start. What is true of the agreement between the NHS and DeepMind?

In the 2006 film version of em>The Devil/em> Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, scolds her unattractive assistant for imagining that high fashion doesn't affect her, Priestly explains how the deep blue color of the assistant's sweater descended over the years from fashion shows to departments stores and to the bargain bin in which the poor girl doubtless found her garment. This top-down conception of the fashion business couldn't be more out of date or at odds with the feverish world described in Overdressed, Elizabeth Cline's three-year indictment of "fast fashion". In the last decade or so, advances in technology have allowed mass-market labels such as Zara, HM, and Uniqlo to react to trends more quickly and anticipate demand more precisely. Quicker turnarounds mean less wasted inventory, more frequent release, and more profit. These labels encourage style-conscious consumers to see clothes as disposable—meant to last only a wash or two, although they don't advertise that—and to renew their wardrobe every few weeks. By offering on-trend items at dirt-cheap prices, Cline argues, these brands have hijacked fashion cycles, shaking an industry long accustomed to a seasonal pace. The victims of this revolution, of course, are not limited to designers. For HM to offer a $5.95 knit miniskirt in all its 2,300-pius stores around the world, it must rely on low-wage overseas labor, order in volumes that strain natural resources, and use massive amounts of harmful chemicals. em>Overdressed/em> is the fashion world's answer to consumer-activist bestsellers like Michael Pollan's The em>Omnivore's Dilemma/em>. "Mass-produced clothing, like fast food, fills a hunger and need, yet is non-durable and wasteful," Cline argues. Americans, she finds, buy roughly 20 billion garments a year—about 64 items per person—and no matter how much they give away, this excess leads to waste. Towards the end of Overdressed, Cline introduced her ideal, a Brooklyn woman named Sarah Kate Beaumont, who since 2008 has made all of her own clothes—and beautifully. But as Cline is the first to note, it took Beaumont decades to perfect her craft; her example can't be knocked off. Though several fast-fashion companies have made efforts to curb their impact on labor and the environment—including HM, with its green Conscious Collection line—Cline believes lasting change can only be effected by the customer. She exhibits the idealism common to many advocates of sustainability, be it in food or in energy. Vanity is a constant; people will only start shopping more sustainably when they can't afford not to. Priestly criticizes her assistant for her

The family is the center of most traditional Asians' lives. Many people worry about their families' welfare, reputation, and honor. Asian families are often 21 , including several generations related by 22 or marriage living in the same home. An Asian person's misdeeds are not blamed just on the individual but also on the family—including the dead 23 . Traditional Chinese, among many other Asians, respect their elders and feel a deep sense of duty 24 them. Children repay their parents' 25 by being successful and supporting them in old age. This is accepted as a 26 part of life in China. 27 , taking care of the aged parents is often viewed as a tremendous 28 in the United States, where aging and family support are not 29 highly. 30 , in the youth-oriented United States, growing old is seen as a bad thing and many old people do not receive respect. Pilipinos, the most Americanized of the Asians, are 31 extremely family-oriented. They are 32 to helping their children and will sacrifice greatly for their children to get an education. 33 , the children are devoted to their parents, who often live nearby. Grown children who leave the country for economic reasons 34 send large parts of their income home to their parents. The Vietnamese family 35 people currently 36 as well as the spirits of the dead and of the as-yet unborn. Any 37 or actions are done from family considerations, not individual desires. People's behavior is judged 38 whether it brings shame or pride to the family. The Vietnamese do not particularly believe in self-reliance; in this way, they are the 39 of people in the United States. Many Vietnamese think that their actions in this life will influence their 40 in the next life.