单选题{{B}}Text 4{{/B}} Though it is mere 1 to 3 percent of the population, the upper class possesses at least 25 percent of the nation's wealth. This class has two segments: upper-upper and lower-upper. Basically, the upper-upper class is the "old rich"—families that have been wealthy for several generations—an aristocracy of birth and wealth. Their names are in the Social Register, a listing of acceptable members of high society. A few are known across the nation, such as the Rockefellers, Roosevelts, and Vanderbilts. Most are not visible to the general public. They live in grand seclusion, drawing their income from the investment of their inherited wealth. In contrast, the lower-upper class is the "new rich". Although they may be wealthier than some of the old rich; the new rich have hustled to make their money like everybody else beneath their class. Thus their prestige is generally lower than that of the old rich, who have not found it necessary to lift a finger to make their money, and who tend to look down upon the new rich. However its wealth is acquired, the upper class is very, very rich. They have enough money and leisure time to cultivate an interest in the arts and to collect rare books, painting, and sculpture. They generally live in exclusive areas, belong to exclusive social clubs, communicate with each other, and marry their own kind—all of which keeps them so distant from the masses that they have been called the out-of-sight class. More than any other class, they tend to be conscious of being members of a class. They also command an enormous amount of power and influence here and a broad, as they hold many top government positions, run the Council on Foreigh Relations, and control multinational corporations. The actions affect the lives of millions.

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} In almost all cases the soft parts of fossils are gone for ever but they were fitted around or within the hard parts. Many of them also were attached to the hard parts and usually such attachments are visible as depressed or elevated areas, ridges or grooves, smooth or rough patches on the hard parts. The muscles most important for the activities of the animal and most evident in the appearance of the living animal are those attached to the hard parts and possible to reconstruct from their attachments. Much can be learned about a vanished brain from the inside of the skull in which it was lodged. Restoration of the external appearance of an extinct animal has little or no scientific value. It does not even help in inferring what the activities of the living animal were, how fast it could run, what its food was, or such other conclusions as are important for the history of life. However, what most people want to know about extinct animals is what they looked like when they were alive. Scientists also would like to know. Things like fossil shells present no great problem as a rule, because the hard parts are external when the animal is alive and the outer appearance is actually preserved in the fossils. Animals in which the skeleton is internal present great problems of restoration, and honest restorers admit that they often have to use considerable guessing. The general shape and contours of the body are fixed by the skeleton and by muscles attached to the skeleton, but surface features, which may give the animal its really characteristic look, are seldom restorable with any real probability of accuracy. The present often helps to interpret the past. An extinct animal presumably looked more or less like its living relatives, if it has any. This, however, may be quite equivocal. For example, extinct members of the horse family are usually restored to look somewhat like the most familiar living horses — domestic horses and their closest wild relatives. It is, however, possible and even probable that many extinct horses were striped like zebras. If lions and tigers were extinct they would be restored to look exactly alike. No living elephants have much hair and mammoths, which are extinct elephants, would doubtless be restored as hairless if we did not happen to know that they had thick, woolly coats. We know this only because mammoths are so recently extinct that prehistoric men drew pictures of them and that the hide and hair have actually been found in a few specimens. For older extinct animals we have no such clues.

单选题If open-source software is supposed to be free, how does anyone selling it make any money? It's not that different from how other software companies make money. You'd think that a software company would make most of its money from, well, selling software. But you'd be wrong. For one thing, companies don't sell software, strictly speaking; they license it. The profit margin on a software license is nearly 100 percent, which is why Microsoft gushes billions of dollars every quarter. But what's the value of a license to a customer? A license doesn't deliver the code, provide the utilities to get a piece of software running, or answer the phone when something inevitably goes wrong. The value of software, in short, doesn't lie in the software alone. The value is in making sure the soft ware does its job. Just as a traveler should look at the overall price of a vacation package instead of obsessing over the price of the plane ticket or hotel room, a smart tech buyer won't focus on how much the license costs and ignore the support contract or the maintenance agreement. Open-source is not that different. If you want the software to work, you have to pay to ensure it will work. The open-source companies have refined the software model by selling subscriptions. They roll together support and maintenance and charge an annual fee, which is a healthy model, though not quite as wonderful as Microsoft's money-raking one. Tellingly, even Microsoft is casting an envious eye at aspects of the open-source business model. The company has been taking halting steps toward a similar subscription scheme for its software sales. Microsoft's subscription program, known as Soft ware Assurance, provides maintenance and support together with a software license. It lets you up grade to Microsoft's next version of the software for a predictable sum. But it also contains an implicit threat: If you don't switch to Software Assurance now, who knows how much Microsoft will charge you when you decide to upgrade? Chief information officers hate this kind of "assurance", since they're often perfectly happy running older versions of software that are proven and stable. Microsoft, on the other hand, rakes in the software-licensing fees only when customers upgrade. Software Assurance is Microsoft's attempt to get those same licensing fees but wrap them together with the service and support needed to keep systems running. That's why Microsoft finds the open-source model so threatening: open-source companies have no vested interest in getting more licensing fees and don't have to pad their service contracts with that extra cost. In the end, the main difference between open-source and proprietary software companies may be the size of the check you have to write.

单选题{{B}}Part B{{/B}}Directions: In the following text, some sentences have been removed. For Questions (41-45), choose the most suitable one from the list A-G to fit into each of the numbered blank. There are two extra choices, which do not fit in any of the gaps. In the following text, some sentences have been removed. For Questions (41-45), choose the most suitable one from the list A-G to fit into each of the numbered blank. There are two extra choices, which do not fit in any of the gaps. English has become the world's number one language in the 20th century. In every country where English is not the native language, especially in the Third World, people must strive to learn it to the best of their abilities, if they want to participate fully in the development of their countries. 41．______ A close examination reveals a great number of languages have fallen casualty to English. For example, it has wiped out Hawaiian, Welsh, Scotch Gaelic, Irish, native American languages, and many others. Luckily, some of these languages are now being revived, such as Hawaiian and Welsh, and these languages will live again, hopefully, if dedicated people continue their work of reviving them. 42．______If this situation continues, the native or official languages of these countries will certainly die within two or three generations. This phenomenon has been called linguistic genocide. A language dies if it is not fully used in most activities, particularly as a medium of instruction in schools. 43．______According to many studies, only around 20 to 25 percent of students in these countries can manage to learn the language of instruction (English) as well as basic subjects at the same time. Many leaders of these Third World countries are obsessed with English and for them English is everything. They seem to believe that if the students speak English, they are already knowledgeable. These leaders speak and write English much better than their national languages. If these leaders deliver speeches anywhere in the world they use English and they feel more at home with it and proud of their ability as well. The citizens of their countries do not understand their leaders' speeches because they are made in a foreign language. All the greatest countries of the world are great because they constantly use their own languages in all national development activities, including education. From a psychological point of view, those who are taught in their own language from the start will develop better self-confidence and self-reliance. From a linguistic point of view, the best brains can only be produced if students are educated in their own language from the start. 44. There is nothing wrong, however, in learning a foreign language at advanced levels of education. 45. [A] But many people are concerned that English's dominance will destroy native languages. [B] But the best thing to do is to have a good education in one's native language first, then go abroad to have a university education in a foreign language. [C] Suppose you work in a big firm and find English very important for your job because you often deal with foreign businessmen. Now you are looking for a place where you can improve your English, especially your spoken English. [D] Nonetheless, a world full of different languages will disappear if the present trend in many countries to use English to replace the national or official languages in education, trade and even politics continues. [E] Those who are taught in a foreign language from the start will tend to be imitators and lack self-confidence. They will tend to rely on foreign consultants. [F] Here are some advertisements about English language training from newspapers. You may find the information you need. [G] The Third World countries that are now using English as a medium of instruction are depriving 75 percent of their future leaders of a proper education.

单选题Sleep is a funny thing. We' re taught that we should get seven or eight hours a night, but a lot of us get by just fine on less, and some of us actually sleep too much. A study out of the University of Buffalo last month reported that people who routinely sleep more than eight hours a day and are still tired are nearly three times as likely to die of stroke--probably as a result of an underlying disorder that keeps them from snoozing soundly. Doctors have their own special sleep problems. Residents are famously sleep deprived. When I was training to become a doctor, it was not unusual to work 40 hours in a row without rest. Most of us took it in stride, confident we could still deliver the highest quality of medical care. Maybe we shouldn' t have been so sure of ourselves. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association points out that in the morning after 24 hours of sleeplessness, a person' s motor performance is comparable to that of someone who is legally intoxicated. Curiously, surgeons who believe that operating under the influence is grounds for dismissal often don' t think twice about operating without enough sleep. "I could tell you horror stories," says Jaya Agrawal, president of the American Medical Student Association, which runs a website where residents can post anonymous anecdotes. Some are terrifying. "I was operating after being up for over 36 hours, "one writes. "I literally fell asleep standing up and nearly face planted into the wound. " "Practically every surgical resident I know has fallen asleep at the wheel driving home from work," writes another. "I know of three who have hit parked cars. Another hit a convenience store on the roadside, going [105kin/h]. " "Your own patients have become the enemy," writes a third," because they are the one thing that stands between you and a few hours of sleep. " Agrawal' s organization is supporting the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2001, introduced last November by Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan. Its key provisions, modeled on New York State's regulations, include an 80-hour workweek and a 24-hour work-shift limit. Most doctors, however, resist such interference. Dr. Charles Binkley, a senior surgery resident at the University of Michigan, agrees that something needs to be done but believes "doctors should be bound by their conscience, not by the government. " The U. S. controls the hours of pilots and truck drivers. But until such a system is in place for doctors, patients are on their own. If you' re worried about the people treating you, you should feel free to ask how many hours of sleep they have had. Doctors, for their part, have to give up their pose of infallibility and get the rest they need.

单选题According to the passage, sound journalistic judgment ______.

单选题If the opinion polls are to be believed, most Americans are coming to trust their government more than they used to. The habit has not yet spread widely among American Indians, who suspect an organization which has so often patronized them, lied to them and defrauded them. But the Indians may soon win a victory in a legal battle that epitomizes those abuses. Elouise Cobell, a banker who also happens to be a member of the Blackfeet tribe in Montana, is the leading plaintiff in a massive class-action suit against the government. At issue is up to $10 billion in trust payments owed to some 500,000 Indians. The suit revolves around Individual Indian Money (11M) accounts that are administered by the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Back in the 1880s, the government divided more than 11m acres of tribal land into parcels of 80 to 160 acres that were assigned to individual Indians. Because these parcels were rarely occupied by their new owners, the government assumed responsibility for managing them. As the Indians' trustee, it leased the land out for grazing, logging, mining and oil drilling--but it was supposed to distribute the royalties to the Indian owners. In fact, officials admit that royalties have been lost or stolen. Records were destroyed, and the government lost track of which Indians owned what land. The plaintiffs say that money is owing to 500,000 Indians, but even the government accepts a figure of about 300,000. For years, Cobell heard Indians complain of not getting payment from the government for the oil-drilling and ranching leases on their land. But nothing much got done. She returned to Washington and, after a brush-off from government lawyers, filed the suit. Gale Norton, George Bush's interior secretary was charged with contempt in November because her department had failed to fix the problem. In December, Judge Lam berth ordered the interior Department to shut down all its computers for ten weeks because trust-fund records were vulnerable to hackers. The system was partly restored last month and payments to some Indians, which had been interrupted l resumed. And that is not the end of it. Ms Norton has proposed the creation of a new Bureau of Indian Trust Management, separate from the BIA. Indians are cross that she suggested this without consulting them. Some want the trust funds to be placed in receivership, under a , neutral supervisor. Others have called for Congress to establish an independent commission, including Indians, to draw up a plan for reforming the whole system. A messy injustice may at last be getting sorted out.

单选题{{B}}Part A{{/B}}{{B}}Directions:{{/B}}Reading 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}} When it comes to suing doctors, Philadelphia is hardly the city of brotherly love. A combination of sprightly lawyers and sympathetic juries has made Philadelphia a hotspot for medical-malpractice lawsuits. Since 1995, Pennsylvania state courts have awarded an average of $ 2m in such cases, according to Jury Verdict Research, a survey firm. Some medical specialists have seen their malpractice insurance premiums nearly double over the past year. Obstetricians are now paying up to $104,000 a year to protect themselves. The insurance industry is largely to blame. Carol Golin, the Monitor's editor, argues that in the 1990s insurers tried to grab market share by offering artificially low rates (betting that any losses would be covered by gains on their investments). The stock-market correction, coupled with the large legal awards, has eroded the insurers' reserves. Three in Pennsylvania alone have gone bust. A few doctors--particularly older ones--will quit. The rest are adapting. Some are abandoning litigation-prone procedures, such as delivering babies. Others are moving parts of their practice to neighboring states where insurance rates are lower. Some from Pennsylvania have opened offices in New Jersey. New doctors may also be deterred from setting up shop in litigation havens, however prestigious. Despite a Republican president, tort reform has got nowhere at the federal level. Indeed doctors could get clobbered indirectly by a Patients' Bill of Rights, which would further expose managed care companies to lawsuits. This prospect has fuelled interest among doctors in Pennsylvania's new medical malpractice reform bill, which was signed into law on March 20th. It will, among other things, give doctors $ 40m of state funds to offset their insurance premiums, spread the payment of awards out over time and prohibit individuals from double dipping--that is, suing a doctor for damages that have already been paid by their health insurer. But will it really help? Randall Bovbjerg, a health policy expert at the Urban Institute, argues that the only proper way to slow down the litigation machine would be to limit the compensation for pain and suffering, so-called "non-monetary damages". Needless to say, a fixed cap on such awards is resisted by most trial lawyers. But Mr Bovbjerg reckons a more nuanced approach, with a sliding scale of payments based on well-defined measures of injury, is a better way forward. In the meantime, doctors and insurers are bracing themselves for a couple more rough years before the insurance cycle turns. Nobody disputes that hospital staff make mistakes: a 1999 Institute of Medicine report claimed that errors kill at least 44,000 patients a year. But there is little evidence that malpractice lawsuits on their own will solve the problem.

单选题Some managers treat things as "business as usual" when

单选题A word processor can be looked on as satisfying a need rather than a want if ______.

单选题A patent is an exclusive right given to an inventor for his or her invention. In other words, a patent is a monopoly right given to the inventor for the invention. A patent confers on the inventor the right to price and to sell the invention in any way he or she desires, in the United States, patents are granted by the Patent Office for 17 years. Although economists generally condemn monopoly as a form of market organization since monopoly imposes costs on the economy, patents present a more subtle case for monopoly theory. Specifically, can patent monopolies be justified? In general, economists complain about the costs of monopoly because they believe that the same industry could be organized competitively. A patent monopoly grant for 17 years presents a different problem. That is, the purpose of the patent system is to encourage invention. The issue is not monopoly versus competition but, more fundamentally, invention versus no invention. Is the world better off with the invention, even though it is monopolized for 17 years? In other words, what are the costs and benefits of a patent? Consider the simple case of a new consumer product with a positive demand, such as a camera utilizing a new exposure process. The costs of the patent monopoly are simply the deadweight costs of monopoly measured by the lost consumers' surplus from the 17-year patent monopoly. This cost must be assessed carefully in the context of an invention, however. What are the benefits of the patent system? First, there is the increase in consumer well-being brought about immediately by a desirable invention. In 17 years, the patent monopoly ends, and a second source of benefits arises: The price of cameras will fall to a competitive level, and consumers will reap the benefits of the camera at a lower price. In sum, theory of monopoly helps us to assess the costs and benefits of the patent. One can quibble about patent monopolies, arguing, for example, that they are granted for too long a time. In the end, the patent system creates goods and services and technologies that did not previously exist. In this respect it is a valuable System for the economy. The patent system also underscores the importance of property rights to ideas as a source of economic growth and progress.

单选题The author probably believes that

单选题The word "Pyrrhic"(Line 2, Para. 5) can be substituted by

单选题Anthropologists commonly distinguish three forms of marriage: monogamy, the marriage of one man to one woman, polygyny—the marriage of one man to two or more women, and polyandry—the marriage of one woman to two or more men. polygyny and polyandry are often linked under the single term "polygamy", a marriage of one individual to two or more spouses. Though there are many societies which permit, or even encourage, polygamous marriages, it does not follow, in such societies, that every married individual, or even that a majority of them, has more than one spouse. Quite the contrary is true, for in most, if not all, of so called polygamous societies monogamy is statistically the prevailing form. The reason for this is clear: the proportion of male to female births in any human society is roughly the same, and if this proportion is maintained among the sexually mature, a preponderance of plural marriages means that a considerable number of either men or women must remain unmarried. No society can maintain itself under such conditions; the emotional stresses would be too great to be survived. Accordingly, even where the cultural ideals do not prohibit plural marriages, these may occur on any notable scale only societies where for one reason or another, one sex markedly outnumbers the other. In short, monogamy not only prevails in most of the world's societies, either as the only approved form of marriage or as the only feasible form, but it may also prevail within a polygamous society where, very often, only a minority of the population can actually secure more than one spouse. In a polygynous household, the husband must supply a house and garden for each of his wives. The wives live with him in turn, cooking and serving for him during the period of his visit. The first wife takes precedence over the others. Polyandry is much rarer than polygyny. It is often the result of a disproportion in the ratio of men to women. In sum, polygyny is not, as so frequently indicated, universally a result of human immorality. It is simply not true, in this aspect of culture as in many others, that people who follow patterns of culture deemed immoral in our society are thereby lacking in morality. Our ideal and compulsory pattern of marriage, which holds that monogamy is the only appropriate form of marriage, is not shared by all peoples, even by some of those who regularly practice monogamy. In a great many societies, monogamy is only one possible form of marriage, with polygyny or polyandry as perfectly possible, though less frequent, alternatives.