单选题The newspaper must provide for the reader the facts, unalloyed, unslanted (不歪曲的), objectively selected facts. But in the days of complex news it must provide more; it must supply interpretation, the meaning of the facts. This is the most important assignment confronting American journalism—to make clear to the reader the problems of the day, to make international news as understandable as community news, to recognize that the there is no longer any such thing as "local" news, bemuse any event in the international area has a local reaction in manpower draft, in economic strain, in terms, indeed, of our very Way of life. There is in journalism a widespread view that when you embark on interpretation, you are entering dangerous waters, the swirling tides of opinion. This is nonsense. The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall confine himself to the "facts". This insistence raises two questions: What are the facts? And: Are the bare facts enough? As to the first query. Consider how a so-called "factual" story comes about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space allotment being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall constitute the lead of the piece. (This is an important decision bemuse many readers do not proceed beyond the first paragraph.) This is Judgments Number Two. Then the night editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has larger impact, or on page twenty-four, where it has little, Judgment Number Three. Thus, in the presentation of a so-called "factual" or "objective" story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved in interpretation, in which reporter and editor, calling upon their research resources, their general background, and their "news neutralism" arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news. The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather than subjective processes—as objective, that is, as any human being can be. (Note in passing: even though complete objectivity can never be achieved, nevertheless the ideal must always be the beacon on the murky news channels.) if an editor is intent on slanting the news. he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that prop up(支持)his particular plea. Or he can do it by the play when he gives a story promoting it to page one or demoting it to page thirty.

单选题From the text we learn that Welchi ______.

单选题A friend of mine had a grandfather who supervised the payroll at a large company long ago. People who knew him say this man was a paragon of virtue when it came to making sure the employees were treated fair and square on every payday. But he also believed that once wages were disbursed, workers should take full responsibility for their financial security. In his view, honest labor and thrifty habits were basic elements of the free-enterprise system. Nobody should expect any money unless they earned it. He opposed company pension plans, and was thoroughly dismayed by the fiscal structure and benefits of Social Security. I wonder how many people hold the same views now. The debate about changing Social Security is part of a larger question: What obligation, if any, do Americans feel toward fellow citizens who need help? Note, I didn't say "less fortunate," "disadvantaged," or some other term that might be construed as evidence I'm promoting my own brand of social engineering. I just want to know how much concern people have for what happens outside their own households. Critics of government assistance programs often say they do more harm than good by creating a cycle of dependency for recipients and a gigantic bureaucracy that demoralizes the rest of society by taking money away from us and creating a welfare state of slackers. The term I prefer to describe our current situation is "safety-net culture." It has lots of problems, but I also know what life was like before safety nets, because my dad gave me abundant testimony from his 1920s boyhood near San Francisco—it was no Norman Rockwell painting. His father worked for the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, so they did have a house. But one neighbor lived in a tent on a vacant lot and another was known for owning only one pair of overalls, which his wife laundered in a tub on the stove on Saturdays while he sat by, wrapped in a blanket. My dad's family often ate boiled rice for breakfast. The beverage of choice was tea, but if that ran out they made "silver tea"— hot water with milk and sugar. Money for college wasn't in the family budget. My dad got his degree thanks to the GI Bill. Decades of safety-net culture have removed a lot of anxiety from our lives but we're still not dose to Utopia. Amid all the Social Security debate about aging baby boomers and shrinking worker contributions, I'm most compelled by this statistic: Close to 20 percent of retirees get all of their income from Social Security. Should that number be a source of national pride or embarrassment? Or perhaps a better question: How do you honestly feel about drinking silver tea during your golden years?

单选题How do vaccines protect humans from diseases according to paragraph 2?

单选题A few common misconceptions Beauty is only skin-deep. One's physical assets and liabilities don't count all that much in a managerial career. A woman should always try to look her best. Over the last 30 years, social scientists have conducted more than 1,000 studies of how we react to beautiful and not-so-beautiful people. The virtually unanimous conclusion: Looks do matter, mom than most of us realize. The data suggest, for example, that physically attractive individuals are more likely to be treated well by their parents, sought out as friends, and pursued romantically. With the possible exception of women seeking managerial jobs, they are also more likely to be hired, paid well, and promoted. Un-American, you say, unfair and extremely unbelievable? Once again, the scientists have caught us mouthing pieces while acting just the contrary. Their typical experiment works something like this. They give each member of a group-college students, perhaps, or teachers or corporate personnel managers a piece of paper relating an individual's accomplishments. Attached to the paper is a photograph. While the papers all say exactly the same thing the pictures are different. Some show a strikingly attractive person, some an average looking character, and some an unusually unattractive human being. Group members are asked to rate the individual on certain attributes, anything from personal warmth to the likelihood that he or she will he promoted. Almost invariably, the better looking the person in the picture, the higher the person is rated. In the phrase, borrowed from Sappo, that the social scientists use to sum up the common perception, what is beautiful is good. In business, however, good looks cut both ways for women, and deeper than for men. A Utah State University professor, who is an authority on the subject, explains: in terms of their careers, the impact of physical attractiveness on males is only modest. But its potential impact on females can be tremendous, making it easier, for example, for the more attractive to get jobs where they are in the public eye. On another note, though, there is enough literature now for us to conclude that attractive women who aspire to managerial positions do not get on as well as women' who may be less attractive.

单选题When anyone opens a current account at a bank, he is lending the bank money. He may 1 the repayment of the money at any time, either 2 cash or by drawing a check in favor of another person. 3 , the banker customer relationship is that of debtor and creditor who is 4 depending on whether the customer"s account is 5 credit or is overdrawn. But, in 6 to that basically simple concept," the bank and its customer 7 a large number of obligations to one another. Many of these obligations can give 8 to problems and complications but a bank customer, unlike, say, a buyer of goods, cannot complain that the law is 9 against him. The bank must 10 its customer"s instructions, and not those of anyone else. 11 , for example, a customer opens an account, he instructs the bank to debit his account only in 12 of checks drawn by himself. He gives the bank 13 of his signature, and there is a very firm rule that the bank has no right or 14 to pay out a customer"s money 15 a check on which its customer"s signature has been 16 . It makes no difference that the forgery may have been a very 17 one, the bank must recognize its customer"s signature. For this reason there is no 18 to the customer in the practice, 19 by banks, of printing the customer"s name on his checks. If this 20 forgery, it is the bank that will lose, not the customer.

单选题The earliest controversies about the relationship between photography and art centered on whether photographer's fidelity to appearances and dependence on a machine allowed it to be a fine art (1) distinctive from merely a practical art. Throughout the nineteenth century, the defense of photography was identical with the (2) to establish it as a fine art. (3) the charge that photographers was a soulless mechanical duplication of (4) , photographers (5) that it was instead a privileged (6) of seeing, a revolt against commonplace vision, and (7) worthy an art than painting. Ironically, (8) photography is securely established as a fine art, many photographers find it pretentious or (9) to label it as such. Serious photographers are no longer willing to (10) whether photography is not involved with art, (11) to proclaim that their own work is not involved with it. This shows the extent (12) which they simply take for granted the concept of art imposed by the (13) of Modernism: the better the art, the more subversive it is of the traditional aims of art. Photographers' disclaimers of any interest in making art tell us more about the troubled status of the contemporary (14) of art (15) about whether photography is or is not art. Photography, (16) Pop painting, reassures viewers that art is not hard; photography seems to be more about its subjects than about art. Photography, (17) , has developed all the (18) and self-consciousness of a classic Modernist art. Many professionals privately have begun to worry that the (19) of photography as an activity subversive of the traditional pretensions of art has gone so far that the public will forget that photography is a distinctive and exalted activity-- (20) , an art.

单选题The simple act of surrendering a telephone number to a store clerk may seem innocuous—so much so that many consumers do it with no questions asked. Yet that one action can set in motion a cascade of silent events, as that data point is acquired, analyzed, categorized, stored and sold over and over again. Future attacks on your privacy may come from anywhere, from anyone with money to purchase that phone number you surrendered. If you doubt the multiplier effect, consider your e-mail inbox. If it's loaded with spam, it's undoubtedly because at some point in time you unknowingly surrendered your e-mail to the wrong Web site. Do you think your telephone number or address are handled differently? A cottage industry of small companies with names you've probably never heard of—like Acxiom or Merlin—buy and sell your personal information the way other commodities like corn or cattle futures are bartered. You may think your cell phone is unlisted, but if you've ever ordered a pizza, it might not be. Merlin is one of many commercial data brokers that advertises sale of unlisted phone numbers compiled from various sources—including pizza delivery companies. These unintended, unpredictable consequences that flow from simple actions make privacy issues difficult to grasp, and grapple with. In a larger sense, privacy also is often cast as a tale of "Big Brother"—the government is watching you or a big corporation is watching you. But privacy issues don't necessarily involve large faceless institutions: A spouse takes a casual glance at her husband's Blackberry, a co-worker looks at e-mail over your shoulder or a friend glances at a cell phone text message from the next seat on the bus. While very little of this is news to anyone—people are now well aware there are video cameras and Internet cookies everywhere—there is abundant evidence that people live their lives ignorant of the monitoring, assuming a mythical level of privacy. People write e-mails and type instant messages they never expect anyone to see. Just ask Mark Foley or even Bill Gates, whose e-mails were a cornerstone of the Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft. And polls and studies have repeatedly shown that Americans are indifferent to privacy concerns. The general defense for such indifference is summed up a single phrase: "I have nothing to hide. " If you have nothing to hide, why shouldn't the government be able to peek at your phone records, your wife see your e-mail or a company send you junk mail? It's a powerful argument, one that privacy advocates spend considerable time discussing and strategizing over. It is hard to deny, however, that people behave different when they're being watched. And it is also impossible to deny that Americans are now being watched more than at any time in history.

单选题When prehistoric man arrived in new parts of the world, something strange happened to the large animals: they suddenly became extinct. Smaller species survived. The large, slow-growing animals were easy game, and were quickly hunted to extinction. Now something similar could be happening in the oceans. That the seas are being overfished has been known for years. What researchers such as Ransom Myers and Boris Worm have shown is just how fast things are changing. They have looked at half a century of data from fisheries around the world. Their methods do not attempt to estimate the actual biomass (the amount of living biological matter) of fish species in particular parts of the ocean, but rather changes in that biomass over time. According to their latest paper published in Nature, the biomass of large predators (animals that kill and eat other animals) in a new fishery is reduced on average by 80% within 15 years of the start of exploitation. In some long-fished areas, it has halved again since then. Dr. Worm acknowledges that these figures are conservative . One reason for this is that fishing technology has improved. Today"s vessels can find their prey using satellites and sonar, which were not available 50 years ago. That means a higher proportion of what is in the sea is being caught, so the real difference between present and past is likely to be worse than the one recorded by changes in catch sizes. In the early days, too, longlines would have been more saturated with fish. Some individuals would therefore not have been caught, since no baited hooks would have been available to trap them, leading to an underestimate offish stocks in the past. Furthermore, in the early days of longline fishing, a lot offish were lost to sharks after they had been hooked. That is no longer a problem, because there are fewer sharks around now. Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm argue that their work gives a correct baseline, which future management efforts must take into account. They believe the data support an idea current among marine biologists, that of the "shifting baseline." The notion is that people have failed to detect the massive changes which have happened in the ocean because they have been looking back only a relatively short time into the past. That matters because theory suggests that the maximum sustainable yield that can be cropped from a fishery comes when the biomass of a target species is about 50% of its original levels. Most fisheries are well below that, which is a bad way to do business.

单选题From par

单选题The last-minute victory of the Texas Longhorns in this year's Rose Bowl— America's college football championship—was the kind of thing that stays with fans forever. Just as well, because many had paid vast sums to see the game. Rose Bowl tickets officially sold for $175 each. On the Internet, resellers were hawking them for as much as $3,000 a pop. "Nobody knows how to control this," observed Mitch Dorger, the tournament's chief executive. Re-selling tickets for a profit, known less politely as scalping in America or touting in Britain, is booming. In America alone, the "secondary market" for tickets to sought-after events is worth over $10 billion, reckons Jeffrey Fluhr, the boss of StubHub, an online ticket market. Scalping used to be about burly men lurking outside stadiums with fistfuls of tickets. Cries of "Tickets here, tickets here" still ring out before kick-off. But the Internet has created a larger and more efficient market. Some Internet-based ticket agencies, such as tickco. com and dynamiteticketz, corn act as traditional scalpers, buying up tickets and selling them on for a substantial mark-up. But others like StubHub have a new business model—bring together buyers and sellers, and then take a cut. For each transaction, StubHub takes a juicy 25%. Despite its substantial commission—far higher than those charged by other online intermediaries including eBay or Craigslist—StubHub is flourishing. The firm was set up in 2000 and this year's Rose Bowl was its biggest event ever. The Super Bowl in early February will bring another nice haul, as have U2 and Rolling Stones concerts. Unlike eBay, which is the largest online trader in tickets, StubHub guarantees each transaction, so buyers need not worry about fraud. The company's revenues, now around $200 million, are tripling annually (despite its start in the dotcom bust). And there is plenty more room to grow. Mr. Fluhr notes that the market remains "highly fragmented", with tiny operations still flourishing and newspaper classified not yet dead. But there are risks. Some events are boosting prices to cut the resale margins; others are using special measures to crack down. This summer, tickets to the soccer World Cup in Germany will include the name and passport number of the original purchaser and embedded chips that match the buyer to the tickets. Then there are legal worries. In America, more than a dozen states have anti-scalping laws of various kinds. New Mexico forbids the reselling of tickets for college games; Mississippi does so for all events on government-owned property. Such laws are often ignored, but can still bite. In Massachusetts, where reselling a ticket for more than $2 above face value is unlawful, one fan brought a lawsuit last autumn against 16 companies (including StubHub) over his pricey Red Sox tickets.

单选题The logical organization of the text is that

单选题What is the meaning of "shire" in Para 2?