You are studying at a Science and Engineering University where a great majority of students are afraid of making public speeches. You want the university to offer such a course as an elective one for those who want to improve themselves in this aspect. 1. You should write about 100 words. 2. Do not sign your own name at the end of the letter. Use "Zhang Wei" instead. 3. Do not write the address.

Whether or not animals feel is not altogether an easy question to answer. A human being has direct awareness only of the pains which he himself suffers. Our knowledge of the pains even of other human beings is only an inference from their words, and to a lesser extent their behaviors. Animals cannot tell us what they feel. We can, of course, study their bodily reactions to the kind of stimuli which would be painful to human beings and this has often been done. When such stimuli are applied to animals, their pupils dilate, their pulse rate and blood pressure rise, they may withdraw the stimulated limb and they may make struggling movements. Nevertheless it has been pointed out that none of these reactions can safely be taken as indications that the animal experiences pain because they can all be evoked when the parts of the body stimulated have been isolated from the higher nervous centres. Furthermore, when disease produces such an isolation in human beings the corresponding stimuli are painless. We must therefore look for other evidence as the capacity of animals to experience pain. Basically, all the nervous elements which underlie the experience of pain by human beings are to be found in all mammalian vertebrates at least; this is hardly surprising as pain is a response to a potentially harmful stimulus and is therefore of great biological importance for survival. Is there any reason, then, for supposing that animals, though equipped with all the necessary neurological structures, do not experience pain? Such a view would seem to presuppose a profound qualitative difference in the mental life of animals and men. The difference between the human and subhuman nervous system lies chiefly in the much greater development of the human forebrain. This would be significant in the present context only if there were reason to believe that it alone was correlated with the occurrence of conscious experiences. But much of our knowledge of the nervous regulation of consciousness is derived from experiments on animals. In everyday life we take it for granted that animals see and hear, and there seems no reason to suppose that they do not feel pain. So, while the reactions of the pupils, pulse rate and blood pressure mentioned above can in exceptional circumstances occur without the conscious experience of pain, it seems likely that in the intact animal they are indications that pain is being experienced.

Writeanessayof160~200wordsbasedonthefollowingdrawing.Inyouressay,youshould1)describethedrawingbriefly,2)explainitsintendedmeaning,and3)giveyourcomments.YoushouldwriteneatlyontheANSWERSHEET.(20points)

Earlier this week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that the Doomsday Clock wouldn't tick any closer to midnight, but that it wouldn't tick any further away, either. The clock will remain at "three minutes to midnight," where the Bulletin set it last year after growing concerned about nuclear modernization programs and climate change. As I wrote in the tech section today, the Clock provides a rare opportunity to talk about "existential risk" :those threats so vast that they could endanger all of humanity. Existential risk is undergoing a bit of a renaissance right now: Nick Bostrom, the Cambridge philosopher whocoined the term, is the subject of skeptical magazine profiles; and millions of tech-made dollars have gone into funding " good A. I." research. In fact, there' s a sort of debate right now among Silicon Valley technologists: Does climate change or artificial intelligence pose a greater existential risk to humanity? To more climate-attuned forecasters, this can seem a little silly. " Worrying about sentient A.I. as the ice caps melt is like standing on the tracks as the train rushes in, worrying about being hit by lightning," once tweeted Bret Victor, a former designer at Apple. Some of the computing industry's figureheads—among them Peter Thiel and Elon Musk—disagree, or, at least, find A.I. sufficiently worrisome to invest their wealth in stopping it. What always strikes me about this is that both sides can imagine their own form of historical irony. Imagine two throwaway lines in a circa-2100 historical review: "Yet even as the planet's atmosphere reached the point of no return, some of America's keenest technical minds poured millions into preventing sentient artificial intelligence, a technological feat now believed to be centuries away." Or ... "Despite urgent warnings from some of the most talented engineers on the planet about what was to come, the United States government stayed focused on the danger of climate change."For me, it demonstrates the limits of conspicuously meta-historical thinking. History is easy to predict in retrospect; to actually live through it is to see thousands of terrifying possibilities that never come to pass. I think vastly more wealth should go to stopping climate change than evil A.I.—but maybe wealth should also go toward handling global pandemics, or reducing extreme poverty, or funding America's sclerotic democratic institutions. For me, the thought that that history might one day judge our own era is a happy one. But that's because, if history is still getting written in 2100, it means there will be people to write it.

Digital photography is still new enough that most of us have yet to form an opinion about it, (1)_____ develop a point of view. But this hasn"t stopped many film and computer fans from agreeing (2)_____ the early conventional wisdom about digital cameras—they"re new (3)_____ for you. But they"re not suitable for everyday picture taking. The fans are wrong: More than anything else, digital cameras are radically (4)_____ what photography means and what it can be. The venerable medium of photography (5)_____ we know it is beginning to seem out of (6)_____ with the way we live. In our computer and camcorder (7)_____ saving pictures as digital (8)_____ and watching them on TV is no less practical—and in many ways more (9)_____ than fumbling with rolls of film that must be sent off to be (10)_____. Paper is also terribly (11)_____. Pictures that are incorrectly framed, (12)_____,or lighted are nonetheless committed to film and ultimately processed into prints. The digital medium changes the (13)_____. Still images that are (14)_____ digitally can immediately be shown on a computer (15)_____, a TV screen, or a small liquid-crystal display (LCD) built fight into the camera. And since the points of light that (16)_____ an image are saved as a series of digital bits in electronic memory, (17)_____ being permanently etched onto film, they can be erased, retouched, and transmitted (18)_____. What"s it like to (19)_____ with one of these digital cameras? It"s a little like a first date—exciting, confusing and fraught with (20)_____.

"What a difference a word makes." The issue of semantics has been an ongoing complaint against the media, which has been characterized by an increasing level of sensationalism and irresponsible reporting over the years, fostered by increasingly fierce competition and struggle for wider distributions and readerships. A focal point for the criticism is the coverage of high-profile criminal cases. With such headlines as "Mr. X Arrest for First-Degree Murder" prominently displayed across the front page, it has been argued that such provocative language influences public opinion, causing premature assumptions of guilt before the matter can be properly and legally decided in a court of law. The power of the media to influence public opinion and, by extension, legal and political perceptions, has long been established and recognized, spurring outcries when inaccurate or overly embellished stories result in unwarranted destruction of public image or intrusions into privacy of unwilling individuals. Reporters and editors take the utmost care in their choice of words for use in their articles, but with constant pressure to create provocative headlines in order to sell their papers, the distinction between respectable periodicals and trashy tabloids is becoming thinner every day. The predicament is exacerbated by the public"s seeming short attention span, putting the papers under pressure to make their stories as attention-grabbing as they are accurate. Further obfuscating the situation is the fact that the same phrase can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways depending on who reads it, making it hard for one to judge whether a line is excessive or not. Whatever the causes and effects, however, the freedom of press laws in the United States mean that any change to the style employed by the media must be self-imposed. In that respect, it appears that nothing will be changing in the near future, since the public"s insatiable hunger for controversy and scandal continues to dominate and set the pace for marketable reporting. As the sensationalism and its related effects continue into the longer term, however", there will no doubt be more outcry as the trend continues. This will possibly result in an upheaval of the system, favoring more accurate, unembellished reporting, consisting of hard facts with a minimum of supposition or commentary and devoid of minors and other questionable sources of information. If and when that occurs, we can truly state with pride that our media industry is not only a free one, but a responsible and reliable one.

Man first appeared on the earth about 2 million years ago. Then he was little more than an animal; but early man had a big advantage over the animals. He had in his brain special groups of nerve cells, not present in animals that enabled him to invent a language and use it to communicate with his fellow men. (46) This ability to speak was of great value because it allowed men to share ideas, and to plan together, so that tasks impossible for a single person could be successfully undertaken by intelligent team-work. Speech also enabled ideas to be passed on from generation to generation so that the stock of human knowledge slowly increased. It was this special ability that put men far ahead of other living creatures in the struggle for existence. (47) He mastered darkness first with dim lights and later with brighter and brighter lamps, until he can now make for himself so dazzling a light with an are lamp that, like the sun, it is too strong for his naked eyes. (48) Man found that his own muscles were too weak for the work which he wanted to do; he explored many other forms of power until now he has his hands on the ultimate source of physical energy, the nuclear power. From man"s earliest days the flight of birds has raised his wonder and desire. Why should he not fly as they did? Then he began to experiment. At last he learnt how to make the right machines to carry him through the air. Now he can fly faster than sound. Already he has plans for conquering space, and a series of experiments has been completed. (49) It will not be long now before man takes a giant step away from his planet and visits the moon, learning what it is like to have no weight to his body, no upward direction and no downward. Man, always a wanderer, has to overcome the difficulty of adapting himself to different climates. (50) Fortunately, in spite of having no. thick skin or warm fur to protect him, he is peculiarly strong compared with other living creatures, most of whom are unable to live far outside the region that suits them best.

[A]"Ijustdon'tknowhowtomotivatethemtodoabetterjob.We'reinabudgetcrunchandIhaveabsolutelynofinancialrewardsatmydisposal.Infact,we'11probablyhavetolaysomepeopleoffinthenearfuture.It'shardformetomakethejobinterestingandchallengingbecauseitisn't—it'sboring,routinepaperwork,andthereisn'tmuchyoucandoaboutit."[B]"Finally,Ican'tsaytothemthattheirpromotionswillhingeontheexcellenceoftheirpaperwork.Firstofall,theyknowit'snottrue.Iftheirperformanceisadequate,mostaremorelikelytogetpromotedjustbystayingontheforceacertainnumberofyearsthanforsomespecificoutstandingact.Second,theyweretrainedtodothejobtheydooutinthestreets,nottofilloutforms.Allthroughtheircareeritisthearrestsandinterventionsthatgetnoticed."[C]"I'vegotarealproblemwithmyofficers.Theycomeontheforceasyoung,inexperiencedmen,andwesendthemoutonthestreet,eitherincarsoronawalk.Theyseemtolikethecontacttheyhavewiththepublic,theactioninvolvedincrimeprevention,andtheapprehensionofcriminals.Theyalsolikehelpingpeopleoutatfires,accidents,andotheremergencies."[D]"Somepeoplehavesuggestedanumberofthingslikeusingconvictionrecordsasaperformancecriterion.However,weknowthat'snotfair—toomanyotherthingsareinvolved.Badpaperworkincreasesthechancethatyouloseincourt,butgoodpaperworkdoesn'tnecessarilymeanyou'11win.Wetriedsettingupteamcompetitionsbasedontheexcellenceofthereports,buttheguyscaughtontothatprettyquickly.Noonewasgettinganytypeofrewardforwinningthecompetition,andtheyfiguredwhyshouldtheylaborwhentherewasnopayoff."[E]"Theproblemoccurswhentheygetbacktothestation.Theyhatetodothepaperwork,andbecausetheydislikeit,thejobisfrequentlyputoffordoneinadequately.Thislackofattentionhurtsuslateronwhenwegettocourt.Weneedclear,factualreports.Theymustbehighlydetailedandunambiguous.Assoonasonepartofareportisshowntobeinadequateorincorrect,therestofthereportissuspect.Poorreportingprobablycausesustolosemorecasesthananyotherfactor."[F]"SoIjustdon'tknowwhattodo.I'vebeengropinginthedarkinanumberofyears.AndIhopethatthisseminarwillshedsomelightonthisproblemofmineandhelpmeoutinmyfuturework."[G]Alargemetropolitancitygovernmentwasputtingonanumberofseminarsforadministrators,managersandexecutivesofvariousdepartmentsthroughoutthecity.Atoneofthesesessionsthetopictobediscussedwasmotivation—howwecangetpublicservantsmotivatedtodoagoodjob.Thedifficultyofapolicecaptainbecamethecentralfocusofthediscussion.Order:

[A] Build friendships at work.[B] Constant challenges breed frustration.[C] Develop self-awareness.[D] Employ emotional self-control.[E] Schedule time for self-reflection.[F] Stress feeds conflict—and conflict breeds anger, resentment, and unhappiness.[G] Toxic emotions are stressful. Bring to mind a conflict at work, and you'll probably have the perpetrator in mind: your incompetent boss, that passive-aggressive colleague, or the resource-hoarding peer in another department. We spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about these people, avoiding them, and fighting with them. If you want less fighting and a more enjoyable, productive workplace, you have to understand your own role in it and what you can do to break a vicious cycle that starts with frustration and stress and ends with workplace wars.【B1】______ A healthy dose of frustration can be good, leading to determination and creativity. Unfortunately, instead of the occasional obstacle at work, we are often buried in an avalanche of problems. We don't have the resources we need to do our job, and the goalposts keep moving. We blame the relentless, do-more-with-less nature of our shortsighted, quarterly-results-driven business climate for our frustration, or we pin responsibility on unending change or corporate culture. Whatever the reason, many of us are chronically frustrated at work.【B2】______ Chronic frustration often morphs into fear and anger. When the alarm rings, our bodies go into high alert, adrenaline and hormones course through our veins, muscles tighten so that we can move quickly, hands sweat, and breathing and heart rates speed up. This would all be well and good if it happened infrequently and saved us from actual danger. Unfortunately, frustration, low-grade fear, irritation, and even rage are familiar companions at work. This is when the vicious cycle becomes an endless loop. A Three-Step Process to Interrupt the Vicious Cycle.【B3】______ To interrupt the frustration-stress-conflict cycle, you need to begin by recognizing what causes you to feel thwarted, scared, or threatened and what drives you to the battleground. This sounds easy, but even well-intentioned people typically put self-reflection last on the list—there just aren't enough hours in the day. Instead, make time and tap into curiosity and courage to try to figure out what kinds of situations send you into the stratosphere. The more you know about your triggers, the better you can control your emotions.【B4】______ Once you're aware of the emotions that are driving your behavior, you can employ another important emotional intelligence competency: emotional self-control. This is what enables us to check and channel our emotions so that we don't get stuck in a permanent amygdala hijack. We can manage negative feelings, see reality through a clear lens, and stop lashing out when we feel threatened.【B5】______. To minimize stress and conflict at work, we need to replace "I, me, mine" with "we, us, ours." We need to stop seeing each other in terms of what we can get, and replace it with what we can give. This shift would result in less stress and fewer negative emotions. It would also lead to warmer, friendlier relationships.

During McDonald's early years French fries were made from scratch every day. Russet Bur-bank potatoes were【C1】______, cut into shoestrings, and fried in its kitchens.【C2】______the chain expanded nationwide, in the mid-1960s, it sought to【C3】______labour costs, reduce the number of suppliers, and【C4】______that its fries tasted the same at every restaurant. McDonald's began【C5】______to frozen French fries in 1966—and few customers noticed the difference.【C6】______the change had a profound effect【C7】______the nation's agriculture and diet. A familiar food had been transformed into a highly processed industrial【C8】______. McDonald's fries now come from huge【C9】______plants that can process two million pounds of potatoes a day. The expansion of McDonald's and the【C10】______of its low-cost, mass-produced fries changed the way Americans eat. The【C11】______of McDonald's French fries played a【C12】______role in the chain's success— fries are much more profitable than hamburgers—and was long【C13】______by customers, competitors, and even food critics. Their distinctive taste does not【C14】______the kind of potatoes that McDonald's【C15】______the technology that processes them, or the restaurant equipment that fries them: other【C16】______use Russet Burbank, buy their French fries from the same large processing companies, and have【C17】______fryers in their restaurant kitchens. The taste of a French fry is【C18】______determined by the cooking oil. For decades McDonald's cooked its French fries in a【C19】______of about 7 per cent cottonseed oil and 93 per cent beef fat. The mixture gave the fries their【C20】______flavour.

In 1971 a team of experts prepared a report entitled "The Limits of Growth," based (1)_____ a computer analysis of future economic trends. (2)_____, presented in moderate language, the conclusions reached. (3)_____,this inquiry are shocking.. (4)_____, that world production growth is very great and persists unchecked, the experts demonstrate that only one outcome is possible—a rather sudden, uncontrollable decline in population and industrial capacity (5)_____ before the year 2100.@ For this disaster two main factors will be responsible: first, the acute shortage of farming land, which will lead (6)_____ mass starvation, and (7)_____ the absolute increase in industrial production, (8)_____ will cancel any attempt to (9)_____ pollution and will (10)_____ exhaust natural resources. These consequences will follow (11)_____ technology temporarily succeeds (12)_____ multiplying available resources; the sooner they are exploited, (13)_____ they will be used up. There appears to be no alternative to the solution advocated by the authors of the report, (14)_____ the immediate adoption (15)_____ measures to restrict global investment in newplants and machinery to the rate (16)_____ which physical capital now wears out. Unfortunately, (17)_____ most party leaders are either blind to the urgency of these issues (18)_____ are compelled to ignore them (19)_____ the selfish interests of citizens on whose votes they depend (20)_____ political support.

National characteristics are not easy to pin down, and when pinned down they often turn out to be trivialities or seem to have no connection with one another. Spaniards are cruel to animals; Italian can do nothing without making a deafening noise; the Chinese are addicted to gambling. Obviously such things don"t matter in themselves. Nevertheless, nothing is causeless, anti even the fact that Englishmen have bad teeth can tell one something about the realities of English life. Here are a couple of generalizations about England that would be accepted by almost all observers. One is that the English are not gifted artistically. They are not as musical as the Germans or Italians; painting and sculpture have never flourished in England as they have in France. Another is that, as Europeans go, the English are not intellectual. They have a horror of abstract thought; they feel no need for any philosophy or systematic "world-view". Nor is this because they are "practical", as they are so fond of claiming for themselves. One has only to look at their methods of town planning and water supply, their obstinate clinging to everything that is out of date and a nuisance, a spelling system that defies analysis and a system of weights and measures that is intelligible only to the compilers of arithmetic books, to see how little they care about mere efficiency. Another English characteristic which is so much a part of us that we barely notice it is the addiction to hobbies and spare-time occupations, the privateness of English life. We are a nation of flower-lovers, but also a nation of stamp-collectors, pigeon-fanciers, amateur carpenters, coupon-snipers, darts-players, crossword-puzzle fans. All the culture that is most truly native centers round things which even when they are communal are not official—the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the "nice cup of tea". The liberty the individual is still believed in, almost as in the nineteenth century. But this has nothing to do with economic liberty, the right to exploit others for profit. It is the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above.

Who would have believed it? After what seems like an eternity of tantalizing hype about "high-definition" television, the first digital sets are actually on their way to the market. This much anticipated debut would seem to be terrific news for tube lovers. As promised, the sets deliver super-sharp digital pictures, wide-format movie-style screens and magnificent stereo surround sound. So should everybody rush out to buy one? Well...maybe not. HDTV"s obvious advantages over conventional sets are offset by significant disadvantages. For openers, there"s the price tag. Sony"s small set, with a 34-in screen, lists for a fairly large $8,999. Prices will eventually drop, of course, but Bill Mannion, general manager of Panasonic"s TV division, acknowledges, "It"s going to be a while, maybe years before most consumers can afford HDTV." Even if you"re a gadget freak with deep pockets, you may think twice about buying for another reason: "high definition" will not be equally high. Some programs will be broadcast at 480 lines of resolution (compared with 330 or so on conventional televisions), others at a sharper 720 lines, and still others at the maximum of 1,080. NBC says it plans to start by offering 480-line quality for day-time programming and 1,080 for some prime-time shows and specials. But cable-TV customers—a full two-thirds of American households—may get a sinking feeling of another sort if they try to tune in. Cable companies are refusing, for now, to carry broadcasters" HDTV signals, saying information-rich HDTV channels overtax their systems. Therefore viewers, who want decent reception, will have to buy clumsy, old-fashioned TV antennas if they plan to pull in digital broadcasts. One decision consumers won"t have to make is whether to buy a set that uses one format or another. Back in the days when VCRs were new, you could buy a VHS or a Beta-format machine; neither could read or record on the other"s tapes. Those who chose Beta generally regretted it, as VHS took over the market, video companies stopped releasing Beta-format movies, and Beta sets became essentially useless. Most reassuring of all, the new sets will be able to pick up conventional TV broadcasts. You won"t need two TV sets sitting side by side. Will that be enough to talk consumers into putting down the better part of $10,0007 Manufactures hope that wide-eyed excitement over this genuinely revolutionary new technology will help hide the fact that it"s still a work in progress. Realistically, they expect the revolution to be a slow one.

We have known for a long time that the organization of any particular society is influenced by the definition of the sexes and the distinction drawn between them. But we have realized only recently that the identity of each sex is not so easy to pin down, and that definitions evolve in accordance with different types of culture known to us, that is, scientific discoveries and ideological revolutions. Our nature is not considered as immutable, either socially or biologically. As we approach the beginning of the 21st century, the substantial progress made in biology and genetics is radically challenging the roles, responsibilities and specific characteristics attributed to each sex, and yet, scarcely twenty years ago, these were thought to be "beyond dispute". We can safely say, with a few minor exceptions, that the definition of the sexes and their respective functions remained unchanged in the West from the beginning of the 19th century to the 1960s. The role distinction, raised in some cases to the status of uncompromising dualism on a strongly hierarchical model, lasted throughout this period, appealing for its justification to nature, religion and customs alleged to have existed since the dawn of time. The woman bore children and took care of the home. The man set out to conquer the world and was responsible for the survival of his family, by satisfying their needs in peacetime and going to war when necessary. The entire world order rested on the divergence of the sexes. Any overlapping or confusion between the roles was seen as a threat to the time-honored order of things. It was felt to be against nature, a deviation from the norm. Sex roles were determined according to the "place" appropriate to each. Women"s place was, first and foremost, in the home. The outside world, i.e. workshops, factories and business firms, belonged to men. This sex-based division of the world (private and public) gave rise to a strict dichotomy between the attitudes, which conferred on each its special identity. The woman, sequestered at home, "cared, nurtured and conserved". To do this, she had no need to be daring, ambitious, tough or competitive. The man, on the other hand, competing with his fellow men, was caught up every day in the struggle for survival, and hence developed those characteristics which were thought natural in a man. Today, many women go out" to work, and their reasons for doing so have changed considerably. Besides the traditional financial incentives, we find ambition and personal fulfillment motivating those in the most favorable circumstances, and the wish to have a social life and to get out of their domestic isolation influencing others. Above all, for all women, work is invariably connected with the desire for independence.Notes:immutable 不可改变的dualism 双重论divergence 分歧，偏离overlapping 部分巧合、一致time-honored 由来已久的dichotomy 一分为二，对立sequester 使隔离be caught up in 被缠住于：He is caught up in the trivia (琐事) of everyday thingsunduly 过渡地，不恰当地

Global Shortage of Fresh Water

At the start of the year, The Independent on Sunday argued that there were three overwhelming reasons why Iraq should not be invaded: there was no proof that Saddam posed an imminent threat; Iraq would be even more unstable as a result of its liberation; and a conflict would increase the threat posed by terrorists. What we did not know was that Tony Blair had received intelligence and advice that raised the very same points. Last week"s report from the Intelligence and Security Committee included the revelation that some of the intelligence had warned that a war against Iraq risked an increased threat of terrorism. Why did Mr. Blair not make this evidence available to the public in the way that so much of the alarmist intelligence on Saddam"s weapons was published? Why did he choose to ignore the intelligence and argue instead that the war was necessary, precisely because of the threat posed by international terrorism? There have been two parliamentary investigations into this war and the Hutton inquiry will reopen tomorrow. In their different ways they have been illuminating, but none of them has addressed the main issues relating to the war. The Foreign Affairs Committee had the scope to range widely, but chose to become entangled in the dispute between the Government and the BBC. The Intelligence Committee reached the conclusion that the Government"s file on Saddam"s weapons was not mixed up, but failed to explain why the intelligence was so hopelessly wrong. The Hutton inquiry is investigating the death of Dr. David Kelly, a personal tragedy of marginal relevance to the war against Iraq. Tony Blair has still to come under close examination about his conduct in the building-up to war. Instead, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is being fingered as if he were master-minding the war behind everyone"s backs from the Ministry" of Defence. Mr. Hoon is not a minister who dares to think without consulting Downing Street first. At all times he would have been dancing to Downing Street"s tunes, Mr. Blair would be wrong to assume that he can draw a line under all of this by making Mr. Hoon the fall-guy. It was Mr. Blair who decided to take Britain to war, and a Cabinet of largely skeptical ministers that backed him. It was Mr. Blair who told MPs that unless Saddam was removed, terrorists would pose a greater global threat—even though he had received intelligence that suggested a war would lead to an increase in terrorism. Parliament should be the forum in which the Prime Minister is called more fully to account, but lain Duncan Smith"s support for the war has neutered an already inept opposition. In the absence of proper parliamentary scrutiny, it is left to newspapers like this one to keep asking the most important questions until the Prime Minister answers them.

BSection I Use of EnglishDirections: Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D./B

CountlessExamsWriteanessayof160-200wordsbasedonthedrawing.Inyouressay,youshould1)describethedrawingbriefly,2)explainitsintendedmeaning,and3)giveyourcomments.

Technology is supposed to make our lives easier, allowing us to do things more quickly and efficiently. But too often it seems to make things harder. This spiral of complexity, often called "feature creep," costs consumers time, but it also costs businesses money. Product returns in the U.S. cost a hundred billion dollars a year, and a recent study by Elke den Ouden, of Philips Electronics, found that at least half of returned products have nothing wrong with them. Consumers just couldn"t figure out how to use them. Companies now know a great deal about problems of usability and consumer behavior, so why is it that feature creep proves unstoppable? In part, feature creep is the product of the so-called internal-audience problem: the people who design and sell products are not the ones who buy and use them, and what engineers and marketers think is important is not necessarily what"s best for consumers. The engineers tend not to notice when more options make a product less usable. And marketing and sales departments see each additional feature as a new selling point, and a new way to lure customers. You might think, then, that companies could avoid feature creep by just paying attention to what customers really want. But that"s where the trouble begins, because although consumers find overloaded gadgets unmanageable, they also find them attractive. It turns out that when we look at a new product in a store we tend to think that the more features there are, the better. It"s only once we get the product home and try to use it that we realize the virtues of simplicity. It seems odd that we don"t anticipate feature fatigue and thus avoid it. But, as numerous studies have shown, people are not, in general, good at predicting what will make them happy in the future. As a result, we will pay more for more features because we systematically overestimate how often we"ll use them. We also overestimate our ability to figure out how a complicated product works. The fact that buyers want bells and whistles but users want something clear and simple creates a peculiar problem for companies. A product that doesn"t have enough features may fail to catch our eye in the store. But a product with too many features is likely to annoy consumers and generate bad word of mouth, as BMW"s original iDrive system did.

BSection III Writing/B