单选题 Few men who find themselves cast as heroes early in life continue to command universal esteem till the end. Sir Edmund Hillary was one. To be the first to reach the top of the world's highest mountain ensured international celebrity and a place in history, but the modesty of a slightly awkward New Zealand beekeeper never departed him. Nor was mountaineering, or indeed beekeeping, his only accomplishment. Two views are often expressed about his life. One is that conquering Everest was everything. No one would play down the role of Tenzing Norgay, the Sherpa who reached the peak with him, possibly even before him; their partnership was like that of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. But it was Sir Edmund who first struggled his way up a crack in the 12-metre (40-foot) rockface that had to be overcome after the south summit if the real one was to be achieved, and below which only oblivion awaited. News of the British-led expedition's triumph on May 29th 1953 reached the world through a report in the London Times four days later. The Times, a sponsor of the expedition, had used an elaborate code to trick any rivals monitoring the radio waves. Its scoop was indeed a coup: June 2nd was the day of Queen Elizabeth's coronation, at which her majesty was crowned. Sir Edmund was a man of action. After Everest came more expeditious in Nepal, a race to the South Pole and further adventures in the Antarctic, the Himalayas and India. But for some onlookers neither these nor even the Everest expedition was especially remarkable: fitness and physical courage are all very well, they argued, but the world's highest peak was simply waiting to be scaled, and a steady traffic nowadays makes its way to the top unnoticed, except for the litter it leaves. Both the indifferent and the awe-struck, however, agree that Sir Edmund's other life was wholly admirable, and he himself said he was prouder of it than of anything else. This was his tireless work for the Sherpas, of whom he had become so fond. Through his efforts, and those of Tenzing, hospitals, clinics, bridges, runways and nearly 30 schools have been built in the Solo Khumbu region of Nepal just south of Everest. If New Zealand claimed Sir Edmund's loyalist, Nepal, and especially its Sherpas, could surely claim his heart.

单选题Text 2 The modern cult of beauty is a success in so far as more women retain their youthful appearance to a greater age than in the past. "Old ladies" are already becoming rare. In a few years, we may well believe, they will be extinct. White hair and wrinkles, a bent back and hollow cheeks will come to be regarded as medievally old-fashioned. The crone of the future will be golden, curly and cherry-lipped, and slender. This desirable consummation will be due in part to skin foods and injections of paraffin-wax, facial surgery, mud baths, and paint, in part to improved health, due in its turn to a more rational mode of life. Ugliness is one of the symptoms of disease, beauty of health. In so far as the campaign for beauty is also a campaign for more health, it is admirable and, up to a point, genuinely successful. Beauty that is merely the artificial shadow of these symptoms of health is intrinsically of poorer quality than the genuine article. Still, it is a sufficiently good imitation to be sometimes mistakeable for the real thing. The apparatus for mimicking the symptoms of health is now within the reach of every moderately prosperous person; the knowledge of the way in which real health can be achieved is growing, and will in time, no doubt, be universally acted upon. When that happy moment comes, will every woman be beautiful—as beautiful, at any rate, as the natural shape of her features, with or without surgical and chemical aid, permits? The answer is emphatically: No. For real beauty is as much an affair of the inner as of the outer self. The beauty of a porcelain jar is a matter of shape, of color, of surface texture. The jar may be empty or tenanted by spiders, full of honey or stinking slime—it makes no difference to its beauty or ugliness. But a woman is alive, and her beauty is therefore not skin deep. The surface of the human vessel is affected by the nature of its spiritual contents. I have seen women who, by the standards of a connoisseur of porcelain, were ravishingly lovely. Their shape, their colour, their surface texture were perfect. And yet they were not beautiful. For the lovely vase was either empty or filled with some corruption. Spiritual emptiness or ugliness shows through. And conversely, there is an interior light that can transfigure forms that the pure aesthetician would regard as imperfect or downright ugly. There are numerous forms of psychological ugliness. There is an ugliness of stupidity, for example, of unawareness (distressingly common among pretty women). An ugliness also of greed, of lasciviousness, of avarice. All the deadly sins, indeed, have their own peculiar negation of beauty. On the pretty faces of those especially who are trying to have a continuous "good time", one sees very often a kind of bored sullenness that ruin all their charm. I remember in particular two young American girls I once met in North Africa. Form the porcelain specialist's point of view, they were extremely beautiful. But a sullen boredom was so deeply stamped into their fresh faces, their gait and gestures expressed so weary a listlessness, that it was unbearable to look at them. These exquisite creatures were positively repulsive.

单选题The slogan on the poster for Enduring Love indicates that

单选题One thing that "Assertiveness Training" does not do is ______.

单选题We can learn from the fourth paragraph that the author believes

单选题The best title for this text could be

单选题Here is a quick way to spoil a Brussels dinner party. Simply suggest that world governance is slipping away from the G20, G7, G8 or other bodies in which Europeans may hog up to half the seats. Then propose, with gloomy relish, that the future belongs to the G2: newly fashionable jargon for a putative body formed by China and America. The fear of irrelevance haunts Euro-types, for all their public boasting about Europe’s future might. The thought that the European Union might not greatly interest China is especially painful. After all, the 21st century was meant to be different. Indeed, to earlier leaders like France’s Jacques Chirac, a rising China was welcome as another challenge to American hegemony, ushering in a “multipolar world” in which the EU would play a big role. If that meant kow-towing to Chinese demands to shun Taiwan, snub the Dalai Lama or tone down criticism of human-rights abuses, so be it. Most EU countries focused on commercial diplomacy with China, to ensure that their leaders’ visits could end with flashing cameras and the signing of juicy contracts. Meanwhile, Europe’s trade deficit with China hit nearly∈170 billion ( $ 250 billion) last year. In five years, China wants 60% of car parts in new Chinese vehicles to be locally made. This is alarming news for Germany, the leading European exporter to China thanks to car parts, machine tools and other widgets. As ever, Europeans disagree over how to respond. Some are willing to challenge China politically — for example, Germany, Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands. But they are mostly free traders. That makes them hostile when other countries call for protection against alleged Chinese cheating. In contrast, a block of mostly southern and central Europeans, dubbed “accommodating mercantilists” by the ECFR (The European Council on Foreign Relations), are quick to call for anti-dumping measures: But that makes them anxious to keep broader relations sweet by bowing to China on political issues. The result is that European politicians often find themselves defending unconditional engagement with China. The usual claim is that this will slowly transform the country into a freer, more responsible stakeholder in the world. The secret, it is murmured, is to let Europe weave China into an entangling web of agreements and sectoral dialogues. In 2007 no fewer than 450 European delegations visited China. Big countries like France and Britain add their own bilateral dialogues, not trusting the EU to protect their interests or do the job properly. There are now six parallel EU and national “dialogues” with China on climate change, for example.

单选题It is hard to box against a southpaw, as Apollo Creed found out when he fought Rocky Balboa in the first of an interminable series of movies. While "Rocky" is fiction, the strategic advantage of being left-handed in a fight is very real, simply because most right-handed people have little experience of fighting left-handers, but not vice versa. And the same competitive advantage is enjoyed by left-handers in other sports, such as tennis and cricket. The orthodox view of human handedness is that it is connected to the bilateral specialization of the brain that has concentrated language-processing functions on the left side of that organ. Because, long ago in the evolutionary past, an ancestor of humans (and all other vertebrate animals) underwent a contortion that twisted its head around 180° relative to its body, the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, and vice versa. In humans, the left brain (and thus the right body) is usually dominant. And on average, lefthanders are smaller and lighter than right-handers. That should put them at an evolutionary disadvantage. Sporting advantage notwithstanding, therefore, the existence of left-handed-ness poses a problem for biologists. But Charlotte Faurie and Michel Raymond, of the University of Montpellier Ⅱ , in France, think they know the answer. As they report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, there is a clue in the advantage seen in boxing. As any schoolboy could tell you, winning fights enhances your status. If, in prehistory, this translated into increased reproductive success, it might have been enough to maintain a certain proportion of left-handers in the population, by balancing the costs of being left-hand-ed with the advantages gained in fighting. If that is true, then there will be a higher proportion of left-handers in societies with higher levels of violence, since the advantages of being left-handed will be enhanced in such societies. Dr Faurie and Dr Raymond set out to test this hypothesis. Fighting in modern societies often involves the use of technology, notably firearms, that is unlikely to give any advantage to left-handers. So Dr Faurie and Dr Raymond decided to confine their investigation to the proportion of left-handers and the level of violence (by number of homicides) in traditional societies. By trawling the literature, checking with police departments, and even going out into the field and asking people, the two researchers found that the proportion of left-handers in a traditional society is, indeed, correlated with its homicide rate. One of the highest proportions of left-handers, for example, was found among the Yanomamo of South America. Rai-ding and warfare are central to Yanomamo culture. The murder rate is 4 per 1000 inhabitants per year (compared with, for example, 0.068 in New York). And, according to Dr Faurie and Dr Raymond, 22.6% of Yanomamo are left-handed. In contrast, Dioula-speaking people of Burkina Faso in West Africa are virtual pacifists. There are only 0.013 murders per 1000 inhabitants among them and only 3.4% of the population is left-handed. While there is no suggestion that left-handed people are more violent than the right-hand-ed, it looks as though they are more successfully violent. Perhaps that helps to explain the double meaning of the word "sinister".

单选题By now, the 2012 Republican presidential contenders have all been tattooed by the opposition, branded as boring, damaged, or even insane . The entire GOP (共和党的别称) is "mad, " as The New Republic recently put it, and the party"s White House hopefuls display what The New Yorker calls " crackles of craziness. " This kind of talk flows both ways, of course. But what if the big problem with Washington—isn"t nuttiness so much as a lack of it? That"s one takeaway from A First-Rate Madness, a new book of psychiatric case studies by Nassir Ghaemi, director of the Mood Disorders Program at Tufts Medical Center. He argues that what sets apart the world"s great leaders isn"t some splendidly healthy mind but an exceptionally broken one, coupled with the good luck to lead when extremity is needed. "Our greatest crisis leaders toil in sadness when society is happy, " writes Ghaemi. "Yet when calamity occurs, if they are in a position to act, they can lift up the rest of us. " If so, then what we need for these calamitous times is a calamitous mind, a madman in chief, someone whose abnormal brain can solve our abnormal problems. Perhaps the nicotione -free, no-drama Obama won"t do after all. The good doctor isn"t saying that all mental illness is a blessing. Only that the common diseases of the mind—mania, depression, and related quirks—shouldn"t disqualify one from the upper stairs of public life, and for a simple reason: they are remarkably consistent predictors of brilliant success. Depression in all its forms (which Ghaemi finds in Abraham Lincoln and the mildly bipolar Churchill) brings suffering, which makes one more clear-eyed, fit to recognize the world"s problems, and able to face them down like the noonday demon . Madness in all its forms ( which Ghaemi detects in FDR and JFK) brings resilience , which helps one learn from failure, often with enough creativity to make a new start. Most originally, Ghaemi coins "the inverse law of sanity" : the perils of well-being. It"s why the poor, sane Neville Chamberlain chummed around with Nazi leaders while Churchill"s "black dog" foresaw a fight. In Ghaemi"s view, even our supposedly crazy leaders were too sane for their times, and the nation suffered. When Richard Nixon faced the Watergate crisis, "he handled it the way an average normal person would handle it: he lied, and he dug in, and he fought. " Similarly, George W. Bush was " middle of the road in his personality traits , " which is why his response to the September 11 attacks was simplistic, unwavering , and, above all, "normal. " So should we bring on the crazy in 2012? At the very least, we should rethink our definitions and stop assuming that normality is always good, and abnormality always bad. If Ghaemi is right, that is far too simplistic and stigmatizing, akin to excluding people by race or religion—only possibly worse because excellence can clearly spring from the unwell, and mediocrity from the healthy . The challenge is getting voters to think this way, too. It won"t do to have candidates shaking Prozac bottles (一种治疗抑郁症的物) from the podium , unless the public is ready to reward them for it. Amid multiple wars and lingering recession, maybe that time is now.

单选题We can infer from the passage that the author ______.

单选题The underlined word "entitlement" in the text ( Para. 3) probably means______.

单选题{{B}}Text 1{{/B}} Sharks have gained an unfair reputation for being fierce predators of large sea animals. Humanity's unfounded fear and hatred of these ancient creatures is leading to a worldwide slaughter that may result in the extinction of many larger, coastal shark species. The shark is the victim of a warped attitude of wildlife protection: we strive only to protect the beautiful, nonthreatening parts of our environment. And, in our efforts to restore only nonthreatening parts of our earth, we ignore other important parts. A perfect illustration of this attitude is the contrasting attitude towards another large sea animal, the dolphin. During the 1980s, environmentalists in the U. S. A. protested the use of driftnets for tuna fishing in the Pacific Ocean since these nets also caught dolphins. The environmentalists generated enough political and economic pressure to prevent tuna companies from buying tuna that had been caught in driftnets. In contrast to this effort, the populations of sharks in the Pacific Ocean have decreased to the point of extinction and there has been very little effort by the same environmentalists to save this important species, of marine wildlife. Sharks are among the oldest creatures on earth, having survived in the seas for more than 350 million years. They are extremely efficient animals, feeding on wounded or dying animals, thus performing an important role in nature of weeding out the weaker animals in a species. Just the fact that species such as the Great White Shark have managed to live in the oceans for so many millions of years is enough proof of their efficiency and adaptability to changing environments. It is time for humans, who may not survive another 1000 years at the rate they are damaging the planet, to east away their fears and begin considering the protection of sharks as creatures that may provide us insight into our own survival.

单选题The author of the book hopes that by reading the book, the reader can______

单选题 It was a fixing sight: there, in the Capitol itself, a U.S. Senator often mocked for his halting, inarticulate speaking, reached deep into his Midwestern roots and spoke eloquently, even poetically, about who he was and what he believed, stunning politicians and journalists alike. I refer, of course, to Senator Jefferson Smith. In Frank Capra's classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Jimmy Stewart plays this simple, idealistic small-town American, mocked and scorned by the big-moneyed, oh-so-sophisticated power elite--only to triumph over a corrupt Establishment with his rock-solid goodness. At root, it is this role that soon-to-be-ex-Senator Bob Dole most aspires to play: the self effacing, quietly powerful small-town man from {{U}}Main Street{{/U}} who outwits the cosmopolitan, slick-talking snob from the {{U}}fleshpots{{/U}}. And why not? There is, after all, no more enduring American icon. How enduring? Before Americans had a Constitution, Thomas Jefferson was arguing that the new nation's future would depend on a base of agrarian yeomen free from the vices inherent in big cities. In 1840 one of the classic, image-driven presidential campaigns featured William Henry Harrison as the embodiment of rural virtues, the candidate of the log cabin and hard cider, defeating the incumbent Martin Van Buren, who was accused of dandified dress and manners. There is, of course, a huge disconnect between this professed love of the simple, unspoiled life and the way Americans actually live. As a people, Americans have spent the better part of the 20th century deserting the farms and the small towns for the cities and the suburbs; and are torn between vacationing in Disney World and Las Vegas. U.S. politicians too haven't exactly shunned the temptations of the cosmopolitan life. The town of Russell, Kansas, often seems to be Dole's running mate, but the candidate spends his leisure time in a luxury condominium in Bal Harbor, Florida. Bill Clinton still believes in a place called Hope, but the spiffy, celebrity-dense resorts of Martha's Vineyard and Jackson Hole are where he kicks back. Ronald Reagan embodied the faith-and-family pieties of the front porch and Main Street, but he fled Iowa for a career and a life in Hollywood. Still, the hunger for the way Americans believe they are supposed to live is strong, and the distrust of the intellectual hustler with his airs and his high-flown language runs deep. It makes sense for the Dole campaign to make this a contest between Dole as the laconic, quiet man whose words can be trusted and Bill Clinton as the traveling salesman with a line of smooth patter but a suitcase full of damaged goods. It makes sense for Dole to make his campaign song Thank God I'm a Country Boy--even if he is humming it 9,200 m up in a corporate jet on his way to a Florida condo.