DifferentStages,DifferentNeedsA.Studythechartcarefullyandwriteanessayof160-200words.B.Youressayshouldcoverthesetwopoints:1)thechangeofone"sneedsinhis/herdifferentstages2)yourunderstanding

DisparitybetweenOrdinaryMiddleSchoolandKeyMiddleSchoolWriteanessayof160-200wordsbasedonthedrawing.Inyouressay,youshould1)describethedrawingbriefly,2)explainitsintendedmeaning,and3)giveyourcomments.

There is a confused notion in the minds of many people that the gathering of the property of the poor into the hands of the rich does no ultimate harm, since in whosever hands it may be, it must be spent at last, and thus, they think, return to the poor again. This fallacy has been again and again exposed; but granting the plea true, the same apology may, of course, be made for blackmail, or any other form of robbery. It might be (though practically it never is) as advantageous for the notion that the robber should have the spending of the money he extorts, as that the person robbed should have spent it. But this is no excuse for the theft. If I were to put a tollgate on the road where it passes my own gate, and endeavor to extract a shilling from every passenger, the public would soon do away with my gate, without listening to any pleas on my part that it was as advantageous to them, in the end, that I should spend their shillings, as that they themselves should. But if, instead of outfacing them with a tollgate, I can only persuade them to come in and buy stones, or old iron, or any other useless thing, out of my ground, I may rob them to the same extent and, moreover, be thanked as a public benefactor and promoter of commercial prosperity. And this main question for the poor of England—for the poor of all countries—is wholly omitted in every writing on the subject of wealth. Even by the laborers themselves, the operation of capital is regarded only in its effect on their immediate interests, never in the far more terrific power of its appointment of the kind and the object of labor. It matters little, ultimately, how much a laborer is paid for making anything, but it matters fearfully what the thing is which he is compelled to make. If his labor is so ordered as to produce food, fresh air, and fresh water, no matter that his wages are low, the food and the fresh air and water will be at last there, and he will at last get them. But if he is paid to destroy food and fresh air, or to produce iron bars instead of them, the food and air will finally not be there, and he will not get them, to his great and final inconvenience. So that, conclusively, in political as in household economy, the great question is not so much what money you have in your pocket, as what you will buy with it and do with it.

OnCelebrityEndorsementWriteanessayof160-200wordsbasedonthedrawing.Inyouressay,youshould1)describethedrawingbriefly,2)interpretitsintendedmeaning,and3)giveyourcomments.

You were unable to attend the examination on English Writing by Mr. White because you got sick in the morning. Write a letter to express the reason for not being able to attend it and apologize. 1. You should write about 100 words. 2. Do not sign your own name at the end of the letter. Use "Li Ming" instead. 3. Do not write the address.

Have you ever wondered what our future is like? Practically all people【B1】______a desire to predict their future 【B2】______. Most people seem inclined to 【B3】______ this task using causal reasoning. First we 【B4】______ recognize that nature circumstances are 【B5】______ caused or conditioned by present ones. We learn that getting an education will【B6】______how much money we earn later and that swimming beyond the reef may bring an unhappy 【B7】______ with a shark.Second, people also learn that such 【B8】______ of cause and effect are probabilistic in nature. That is, the effects occur more often when the causes occur than when the causes are【B9】______, but not always. Thus, students learn that studying hard【B10】______good grades in most instances, but not every time. Science makes these concepts of causality and probability more【B11】______and provides techniques for dealing 【B12】______then more accurately than does causal human inquiry. In looking at ordinary human inquiry, we need to【B13】______between prediction and understanding. Often, even if we don't understand why, we are willing to act【B14】______the basis of a demonstrated predictive ability. Whatever the primitive drives【B15】______motivate human beings, satisfying them depends heavily on the ability to【B16】______future circumstances. The attempt to predict is often played in a【B17】______of knowledge and understanding. If you can understand why certain regular patterns【B18】______, you can predict better than if you simply observe those patterns. Thus, human inquiry aims 【B19】______answering both "what" and "why" question, and we pursue these【B20】______by observing and figuring out.

BeaCivic-mindedTouristWriteanessayof160-200wordsbasedonthedrawing.Inyouressay,youshould1)describethedrawingbriefly,2)explainitsintendedmeaning,and3)giveyourcomments.

Darwin discovered two major forces in evolution—natural selection and sexual selection and wrote three radical scientific masterpieces, "On the Origin of Species"(1859), "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex"(1871)and " The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals"(1872). The "Origin", of course, is what he is hest known for. This volume, colossal in scope yet minutely detailed, laid the foundations of modern biology. 【F1】 Here, Darwin presented extensive and compelling evidence that all living beings—including humans have evolved from a common ancestor, and that natural selection is the chief force driving evolutionary change. 【F2】 Sexual selection, he argued, was an additional force, responsible for spectacular features like the tail feathers of peacocks that are useless for(or even detrimental to)survival but essential for seduction. 【F3】 Before the "Origin", similarities and differences between species were mere curiosities; questions as to why a certain plant is succulent like a cactus or deciduous like a maple could be answered only, "Because". Biology itself was nothing more than a vast exercise in catalog and description. After the "Origin", all organisms became connected, part of the same, profoundly ancient, family tree. Similarities and differences became comprehensible and explicable. In short, Darwin gave us a framework for asking questions about the natural world, and about ourselves. He was not right about everything. How could he have been? Famously, he didn"t know how genetics works; as for DNA—well, the structure of the molecule wasn"t discovered until 1953. So today"s view of evolution is much more nuanced than his.【F4】 We have incorporated genetics, and expanded and refined our understanding of natural selection, and of the other forces in evolution. But what is astonishing is how much Darwin did know, and how far he saw. His imagination told him, for example, that many female animals have a sense of beauty that they like to mate with the most beautiful males. For this he was ridiculed. But we know that he was right. Still more impressive: he was not afraid to apply his ideas to humans. He thought that natural selection had operated on us, just as it had on fruit flies and centipedes. As we delve into DNA sequences, we can see natural selection acting at the level of genes. Our genes hold evidence of our intimate associations with other beings, from cows to malaria parasites and grains.【F5】 The latest research allows us to trace the genetic changes thai differentiate us from our primate cousins, and shows that large parts of the human genome bear the stamp of evolution by means of natural selection.

Even though the number of legal and illegal immigrants in the United States has risen sharply since the early 1990s, the size and condition of the economic underclass has not. In fact, by several measures the number of people in America living on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder has been in a long term decline. Moreover, those immigrants who populate the underclass appear on the whole to be more socially functional than their native-born counterparts. Consider the most basic measure of the underclass: the number of people subsisting below the official poverty line as measured by the Census Bureau"s Current Population Survey(which measures all individuals residing in the United States, regardless of status). Between 1993 and 2007—that is, before the current recession took hold- the number of individuals living in poverty declined from 39 million to 37 million. The number of immigrants living in poverty increased by a million, but this was offset by a drop of 3 million in the number of native-born Americans in poverty. The period saw an increase of 1. 8 million in the number of Hispanics living in poverty, but this was dwarfed by the 3. 8 million decline among non-Hispanics, including a 1. 6 million decline among blacks. Another measure of the underclass is the number of adults without a high-school diploma. An adult or a head of household without a high-school education is almost invariably confined to lower-wage occupations with limited prospects for advancement. Sure enough, the trend in education follows that of poverty. From 1993 through 2006, the number of adults in America age 25 and older without a diploma declined from 32 million to 28 million. The number of adult Hispanic dropouts rose by 3. 9 million, much of that due to the progeny of low-skilled illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Rut among the rest of the population, the number of dropouts plunged by 8. 1 million. Educational attainment by citizenship status covers a slightly different period but confirms the trend. From 1995 to 2004, the number of adults without a high-school diploma declined by 2. 9 million. An increase of 2. 4 million in the number of immigrant dropouts was overwhelmed by a decline of 5. 3 million in native horn dropouts. As a result of these underlying trends, the underclass in our society has been shrinking as its face has become more Hispanic and foreign-born.

BPart ADirections: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D./B

TheImportanceofChoosingtheRightToolWriteanessayof160-200wordsbasedonthedrawing.Inyouressay,youshould1)describethedrawingbriefly,2)explainitsintendedmeaning,andthen3)supportyourviewwithanexample/examples.

So why is Google suddenly so interested in robots? That's the question everyone's asking after it emerged this month that the internet giant has quietly collected a portfolio of eight advanced-robotics firms. Google is【C1】______the venture as partly a long term "moonshot" project— the name【C2】______to its more bizarre or【C3】______ideas, such as its self-driving car or broadband via high-altitude balloons. But it also says it aims to【C4】______a batch of robotics products in the【C5】______term and it has a "10-year vision" of where the company is【C6】______. Based in the US and Japan, the new acquisitions make【C7】______products, ranging from walking humanoids(human-like Robots), to assembly robots, machine-vision systems and robotic special-effects movie cameras. The【C8】______of technologies that Google has acquired doesn't point to【C9】______one type of robot being developed, says Chris Melhuish. "These technologies could【C10】______anything from a smart bed to a wheeled home-assistant robot for elderly people." But Will Jackson thinks Google will use its【C11】______in search engines to allow people to find【C12】______faster in shopping malls and airports. "You would never go over and talk to a touch screen,【C13】______if a mechanical person talks to you and makes eye【C14】______and smiles it's very hard indeed not to talk【C15】______. Google knows all about our【C16】______and market preferences already. A robot would be a good【C17】______for that information." Google's moves are【C18】______of how robotics is changing, says Scott Eckert "The robotics industry is in the early stages of a【C19】______from a primarily industrial market to a dynamic technology sector," he says. "This is an exciting industry with a【C20】______future."

The enlightenment needs rescuing, or so thinks Jonathan Israel, the pre-eminent historian of 17th-century Holland. In 2001 he published Radical Enlightenment. He now offers a second Volume with a third to come. (46) The three volumes will be the first comprehensive history of the Enlightenment for decades—and Mr. Israel"s groundbreaking interpretation looks set to establish itself as the one to beat. The period was once thought of as a glorious chapter in the history of mankind, a time when the forces of light (science, progress and tolerance) triumphed over the forces of darkness (superstition and prejudice). Today, the Enlightenment tends to be dismissed. (47) Post-modernists attack it for being biased, self-deceived and ultimately responsible for the worst in Western civilization. Post-colonialists accuse it of being Eurocentric, an apology for imperialism. Nationalist historians reject the idea of a coherent universal movement, preferring to talk about the English, French, even Icelandic Enlightenments. Mr. Israel has set himself the task oil repelling these critics and re-establishing the period as the defining episode in the liberation of man. His arguments are convincing. He contends that there were two Enlightenments, one Radical, and the other Moderate. The Radicals, inspired by Spinoza, were materialists, atheists and equalities. (48) The Moderates, who followed Locke and Newton, were conservative and more at home than the Radicals in the hierarchical and deeply religious world of 18th-century Europe. They advocated only a partial Enlightenment. In Mr. Israel"s opinion, the Radicals offered the only true Enlightenment, giving us democracy, equality, individual liberty and secular morality. The Moderates, on the other hand, have left an ambiguous and, in the end, harmful legacy. While promoting tolerance, they remained uncomfortable with the idea of universal equality. While advancing reason, they failed to divorce morality from religion and tried to rationalize faith. (49) Mr. Israel argues that for as long as historians treat the two wings of the Enlightenment as a single movement, they have misunderstood the phenomenon. Worst still, they supply today"s critics with the evidence they need to blacken the movement. This re-evaluation makes for an unfamiliar picture of the Enlightenment and its torchbearers. According to Mr. Israel, "enlightened values" were born not in England but in Holland, and he re-casts men such as Locke, Voltaire and even Hume, once thought of as champions of the party of light, as apologists for colonialism and enemies of equality. In addition, Mr. Israel would like his book to be studied beyond academia. In an ideal world everyone would be reading it. (50) His stupendous research and grasp of the sources are such that few will contest his core argument that the Enlightenment was a coherent, Europe-wide phenomenon, intellectual in origin, which represented a profound shift in the way that men thought about themselves and the world around them.

EI Nino is the term used for the period when sea surface temperatures are above normal off the South American coast along the equatorial Pacific, sometimes called the Earth"s heartbeat, and is a dramatic but mysterious climate system that periodically rages across the Pacific. EI Nino means "the little boy" or "the Christ child" in Spanish, and is so called because its warm current is felt along coastal Peru and Ecuador around Christmas. But the local warming is just part of an intricate set of changes in the ocean and atmosphere across the tropical Pacific, which covers a third of the Earth"s circumference. Its intensity is such that it affects temperatures, storm tracks and rainfall around the world. Droughts in Africa and Australia, tropical storms in the Pacific, torrential rains along the Californian coast and lush greening of Peruvian deserts have all been ascribed to the whim of EI Nino. Until recently it has been returning about every three to five years. But recently it has become more frequent—for the first time on record it has returned for a fourth consecutive year—and at the same time a giant pool of unusually warm water has settled clown in the middle of the Pacific and is showing no signs of moving. Climatologists don"t yet know why, though some are saying these aberrations may signal a worldwide change in climate. The problem is that nobody really seems sure what causes the EI Nino to start up, and what makes some stronger than others. And this makes it particularly hard to explain why it has suddenly started behaving so differently. In the absence of EI Nino and its cold counterpart, La Nina, conditions in the tropical eastern Pacific are the opposite of those in the west: the east is cool and dry, while the west is hot and wet. In the east, it"s the winds and currents that keep things cool. It works like this. Strong, steady winds, called trade winds, blowing west across the Pacific drag the surface water along with them. The varying influence of the Earth"s rotation at different latitudes, known as the Coriolis effect, causes these surface winds and water to veer towards the poles, north in the northern hemisphere and south in the southern hemisphere. The surface water is replaced by colder water from deeper in the ocean in a process known as upwelling. The cold surface water in turn chills the air above it. This cold dense air cannot rise high enough for water vapor to condense into clouds. The dense air creates an area of high pressure so that the atmosphere over the equatorial eastern Pacific is essentially devoid of rainfall.

The good news about America"s economy is that jobs are plentiful despite slower growth and the housing blues. Some 180,000 new jobs were created in March and the unemployment rate fell to 4. 4% , three-tenths of a percentage point lower than a year ago. With employment and wage growth strong, consumers are unlikely to stop spending and throw the economy into recession. That is not all cause for celebration , however. The drop in the jobless rate at the same time as the economy is slowing implies that the growth in productivity—the amount workers produce in an hour—is waning. If this proves to be a permanent shift, slower productivity growth bodes ill for inflation and living standards. Few associate America with limping productivity. Central to its success over the past decade has been its "productivity miracle", the sudden acceleration in workers" efficiency in 1995. After advancing at a measly 1.5% per year for more than two decades, productivity growth soared to an average of 2. o% a year in the late 1990s and over 3% a year between 2002 and 2004. This spurt set America apart from other rich countries. But between mid-2004 and the end of 2006, the growth in business output per hour outside agriculture, the most common gauge of worker efficiency, slowed to an annual rate of just 1. 5% , on average. Judging by the recent jobs figures, its growth in the first few months of 2007 may be lower still. Deciding how worrying this is depends on what lies behind the sluggishness. Productivity growth has two components: a long-term trend(set by the quality of the workforce, the pace of capital investment and the speed of innovation)and more volatile short-term fluctuations driven by the business cycle. Early in an expansion, for instance, productivity takes off temporarily as firms squeeze their existing staff harder before hiring new workers. As an economy slows, it tails off, because firms are loth to sack workers immediately. This time, temporary factors are almost certainly playing the biggest role. Not only has the business cycle reached the point at which productivity growth usually slows, it also has several characteristics that may have exacerbated temporary productivity swings. Unusually savage company cost-cutting early in this cycle is another reason why recent productivity swings have been so extreme. An odd business cycle makes it hard to gauge what has happened to America" s underlying rate of productivity growth. So too do shifts in the sources of productivity growth. In the late 1990s workers" efficiency rose thanks both to rapid investment, particularly in information technology(IT), and to innovation, again mainly in IT. Hence the conventional view that America"s productivity miracle was based on its ability to harness the power of computers.

One reason why shareholder activism has been increasing is that regulators have encouraged it, especially on pay. For a decade Britain has required firms to give shareholders a non-binding annual vote on executive pay. The colossal Dodd-Frank act of 2010 gave shareholders in American companies a "say on pay", too. Now comes two new moves. On March 3rd the Swiss voted to oblige firms to hold a binding annual vote on director's pay: in the small print, the referendum also banned golden handshakes and severance packages for board members, and bonuses that encourage the buying or selling of firms. Then on March 5th EU finance ministers (with only Britain objecting) agreed to cap bankers' bonuses to 100% of their basic salary, or 200% if shareholders vote for it. If the Swiss had merely given shareholders an annual vote on pay, it would have been a good thing; but the accompanying bans are not. There are times when a golden handshake to a talented manager can be in shareholders' interests: far better to let the owners vote on it than restrict the firm from trying it. The EU's proposal has less still to recommend it. The rationale for it is that banking bonuses have encouraged risk taking, because they reward bankers hugely for bets that come off and punish them only slightly for those that don't. But banks have come a long way since the crisis, by deferring bonuses and making them partly payable in their own debt and equity. Blunt laws could undermine such progress. And bonus caps will either hold pay down, thus sending clever people elsewhere, or push up salaries, thus making pay less responsive to performance. Enpowering shareholders is a good idea; requiring them to channel populist fury is not.

You"ve been told that your best roommate Zhichao in senior high school, who is studying in US now, has been admitted to the Graduate College of Cornell University. Write a letter to congratulate him on it. You should write about 100 worts on ANSWER SHEET 2. Do not sign your own name at the end of the letter. Use "Li Ming" instead. Do not write the address.

Scientists are supposed to change their minds. 【F1】 Having adopted their views on scientific questions based on an objective evaluation of empirical evidence, they are expected to willingly, even eagerly, abandon cherished beliefs when new evidence undercuts them. So it is remarkable that so few of the essays in a new book in which scientists answer the question in the title, "What Have You Changed Your Mind About?" express anything like this ideal. Many of the changes of mind are just changes of opinion or an evolution of values. One contributor, a past supporter of manned spaceflight, now thinks it's pointless, while another no longer has moral objections to cognitive enhancement through drugs. Other changes of mind have to do with busted predictions, such as that computer intelligence would soon rival humans'. 【F2】 Rare, however, are changes of mind by scientists identified with either side of a controversial issue. There is no one who rose to fame arguing that a disease is caused by sticky brain plaques and who has now been convinced by evidence that the plaques are mostly innocent bystanders, not culprits. But really, we shouldn' t be surprised.【F3】 Supporters of a particular viewpoint especially if their reputation is based on the accuracy of that viewpoint, cling to it like a shipwrecked man to floats. Studies that undermine that position, they say, are fatally flawed. In truth, no study is perfect, so it would be crazy to abandon an elegant, well-supported theory because one new finding undercuts it. 【F4】 But it's fascinating how scientists with an intellectual stake in a particular side of a debate tend to see flaws in studies that undercut their dearly held views, and to interpret and even ignore "facts" to fit their views. No wonder the historian Thomas Kuhn concluded almost 50 years ago that a scientific paradigm falls down only when the last of its powerful adherents dies. The few essays in which scientists do admit they were wrong—and about something central to their reputation—therefore stand out.【F5】 Physicist Marcelo Gleiser of Dartmouth breaks ranks with almost every physicist since Einstein, and with his Own younger self, in now doubting that the laws of nature can be unified in a single elegant formulation. Gleiser has written dozens of papers proposing routes to the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics through everything from superstrings to extra dimensions, but now concedes that "all attempts so far have failed." Unification may be esthetically appealing, but it's not how nature works.

When young people who want to be journalists ask me what subject they should study after leaving school, I tell them: "Anything except journalism or media studies." Most veterans of my trade would say the same. It is practical advice. For obvious reasons, newspaper editors like to employ people who can bring something other than a knowledge of the media to the party that we call our work. On The Daily Telegraph, for example, the editor of London Spy is a theologian by academic training. The obituaries editor is a philosopher. The editor of our student magazine, Juice, studied physics. As for myself, I read history, ancient and modern, at the taxpayer"s expense. I am not sure what Charles Clarke, the Education Secretary, would make of all this. If I understand him correctly, he would think that the public money spent on teaching this huge range of disciplines to the staff of The Daily Telegraph was pretty much wasted. The only academic course of which he would wholeheartedly approve in the list above would be physics—but then again, he would probably think it a terrible waste that Simon Hogg chose to edit Juice instead of designing aeroplanes or building nuclear reactors. By that, he seems to mean that everything taught at the public expense should have a direct, practical application that will benefit society and the economy. It is extremely alarming that the man in charge of Britain"s education system should think in this narrow-minded, half-witted way. The truth, of course, is that all academic disciplines benefit society and the economy, whether in a direct and obvious way or not. They teach students to think—to process information and to distinguish between what is important and unimportant, true and untrue. Above all, a country in which academic research and intelligent ideas are allowed to flourish is clearly a much more interesting, stimulating and enjoyable place than one without "ornaments", in which money and usefulness are all that count. Mr. Clarke certainly has a point when he says that much of what is taught in Britain"s universities is useless. But it is useless for a far more serious reason than that it lacks any obvious economic utility. As the extraordinarily high drop-out rate testifies, it is useless because it fails the first test of university teaching—that it should stimulate the interest of those being taught. When students themselves think that their courses are a waste of time and money, then a waste they are. The answer is not to cut off state funding for the humanities. It is to offer short, no- nonsense vocational courses to those who want to learn a trade, and reserve university places for those who want to pursue an academic discipline. By this means, a great deal of wasted money could be saved and all students—the academic and the not-so-academic—would benefit. What Mr. Clarke seems to be proposing instead is an act of cultural vandalism that would rob Britain of all claim to be called a civilised country.

In a game the moves are set up beforehand. In a non-game situation the moves are supposed to arise out of events as these develop. A girl wants to encourage her boyfriend so she pretends to be busy when he phones her or she pretends that someone else is courting her. (46) A young child who is reluctant to go to bed deliberately spills milk from a cup onto the carpet so that the ensuing fuss and scolding the immediacy of his bedtime will be forgotten. Diplomats at a conference make a great fuss over the shape of the table as they play the procedural game. (47) An agent selling the film rights in a first novel casually mentions other parties who have shown an interest in buying the rights. A hostess deliberately places a seductive lady next to a husband with a jealous wife. Union negotiators go through a ritual of complains before setting down to discuss the current issue. The characteristic of a game is that a sequence of moves are recognizable as part of the game. The game may be played very seriously; it may also be played for a purpose rather than as an end in itself. Nevertheless each move in the sequence is determined by the requirements of the game rather than the realities of the situation itself. (48) Someone who is aware that a game is being played sits back and waits for the game to be played out. Someone who is not aware that it is a game gets involved and manipulated by the games player who knows the moves of the game better. It is this expertise in the moves of the game which makes it worth playing. If the player knows, from long experience, the moves, reactions and counter-moves then he only has to entice the other person to play the game to achieve success. If the situation works it out naturally neither side has an advantage. But if one side sets up a game with which only he is familiar then that side immediately acquires the advantage of skill and fore-knowledge. A good games player not only knows how to make the next move, he can think one, two or three moves ahead. This is extremely difficult for an inexperienced player. (49) Thus the player who sets up a familiar game can lay traps several moves ahead with very little chance of the opponent noticing what is being done. (50) Just as a philosopher will always try to run an argument according to his own definitions so a games player will always try to make an opponent play his special game.