It is nothing new that English use is on the rise around the world, especially in business circles. This also happens in France, the headquarters of the global battle against American cultural hegemony. If French guys are giving in to English, something really big must be going on. And something big is going on. Partly, it's that American hegemony. Didier Benchimol, CEO of a French e-commerce software company, feels compelled to speak English perfectly because the Internet software business is dominated by Americans. He and other French businessmen also have to speak English because they want to get their message out to American investors, possessors of the world's deepest pockets. The triumph of English in France and elsewhere in Europe, however, may rest on something more enduring. As they become entwined with each other politically and economically, Europeans need a way to talk to one another and to the rest of the world. And for a number of reasons, they've decided upon English as their common tongue. So when German chemical and pharmaceutical company Hoechst merged with French competitor Rhone-Poulenc last year, the companies chose the vaguely Latinate Aventis as the new company name—and settled on English as the company's common language. When monetary policymakers from around Europe began meeting at the European Central Bank in Frankfurt last year to set interest rates for the new Euroland, they held their deliberations in English. Even the European Commission, with 11 official languages and traditionally French-speaking bureaucracy, effectively switched over to English as its working language last year. How did this happen? One school attributes English's great success to the sheer weight of its merit. It's a Germanic language, brought to Britain around the fifth century A.D. During the four centuries of French-speaking rule that followed Norman Conquest of 1066, the language morphed into something else entirely. French words were added wholesale, and most of the complications of Germanic grammar were shed while few of the complications of French were added. The result is a language with a huge vocabulary and a simple grammar that can express most things more efficiently than either of its parents. What's more, English has remained ungoverned and open to change—foreign words, coinages, and grammatical shifts—in a way that French, ruled by the purist Academic Francaise, had not. So it's a swell language, especially for business. But the rise of English over the past few centuries clearly owes at least as much to history and economics as to the language's ability to economically express the concept win-win. What happened is that the competition—first Latin, then French, then, briefly, German-faded with the waning of the political, economic, and military fortunes of, respectively, the Catholic Church, France, and Germany. All along, English was increasing in importance: Britain was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, and London the world's most important financial centre, which made English a key language for business. England's colonies around the world also made it the language with the most global reach. And as that former colony the U.S. rose to the status of the world's preeminent political, economic, military, and cultural power, English became the obvious second language to learn. In the 1990s more and more Europeans found themselves forced to use English. The last generation of business and government leaders who hadn't studied English in school was leaving the stage. The European Community was adding new members and evolving from a paper-shuffling club into a serious regional government that would need a single common language if it were ever to get anything done. Meanwhile, economic barriers between European nations have been disappearing, meaning that more and more companies are beginning to look at the whole continent as their domestic market. And then the Internet came along. The Net had two big impacts. One was that it was an exciting, potentially lucrative new industry that had its roots in the U. S., so if you wanted to get in on it, you had to speak some English. The other was that by surfing the Web, Europeans who had previously encountered English only in school and in pop songs were now coming into contact with it daily. None of this means English has taken over European life. According to the European Union, 47% of Western Europeans (including the British and Irish)speak English well enough to carry on a conversation. That's a lot more than those who can speak German (32%)or French (28%), but it still means more Europeans don't speak the language. If you want to sell shampoo or cell phones, you have to do it in French or German or Spanish or Greek. Even the U. S. and British media companies that stand to benefit most from the spread of English have been hedging their bets-CNN broadcasts in Spanish; em>The Financial Times/em> has recently launched a daily German-language edition. But just look at who speaks English: 77% of Western European college students, 69% of managers, and 65% of those aged 15 to 24. In the secondary schools of the European Union's non-English-speaking countries, 91% of students study English, all of which means that the transition to English as the language of European business hasn't been all that traumatic, and it's only going to get easier in the future. In the author's opinion, what really underlies the rising status of English in France and Europe is ______.

He became very ______ when it was suggested that he had made a mistake.

Although the model looks good on the surface

Pundits who want to sound ______ are fond of warning against generalizing.

He speaks Chinese as fluently as if he ______ a Chinese.

She has changed a lot after going through the hardship. She is not the cheerful woman ______ she was five years ago.

Millions of people around the world have some type of physical, mental, or emotional ______ that severely limits their abilities to manage their daffy activities.

One of the requirements for a fire is that the material ______ to its burning temperature.

When you have finished with that video tape

There are several girls standing under the tree

Whatever the cause

Global warming was once an uncommon term used by a few scientists who were growing concerned over the effects of decades of pollution on long-term weather patterns. Today, the idea of global warming is well known, if not well understood. It is not unusual to hear someone complaining about a hot day or a freak storm and remark, "It's global warming." Global warming is a significant increase in the Earth's climatic temperature over a relatively short period of time as a result of the activities of humans. In specific terms, an increase of 1 or more degrees Celsius in a period of one hundred to two hundred years would be considered global warming. Over the course of a single century, an increase of even 0.4 degrees Celsius would be significant. Most scientists recognize that global warming does seem to be happening, but a few don't believe that it is anything to be worried about. These scientists say that the Earth is more resistant to climate changes on this scale than we think. Plants and animals will adapt to subtle shifts in weather patterns, and it is unlikely anything catastrophic will happen as a result of global warming. Slightly longer growing seasons, changes in precipitation levels and stronger weather, in their opinion, are not generally disastrous. They also argue that the economic damage caused by cutting down on the emission of greenhouse gases will be far more damaging to humans than any of the effects of global warming. In a way, the scientific consensus may be a moot point. The real power to enact significant change rests in the hands of those who make national and global policy. Some policymakers in the United States are reluctant to propose and enact changes because they feel the costs may outweigh any risks global warming poses. Some common concerns, claims and complaints include: A change in the United States' policies in emissions and carbon production could result in a loss of jobs; India and China, both of which continue to rely heavily on coal for their main source of energy, will continue to cause environmental problems even if the United States changes its energy policies (critics of these policymakers point out that this approach employs the tu quoque logical fallacy); Since scientific evidence is about probabilities rather than certainties, we can't be certain that human behavior is contributing to global warming, that our contribution is significant, or that we can do anything to fix it; Technology will find a way to get us out of the global warming mess, so any change in our policies will ultimately be unnecessary and cause more harm than good. What's the correct answer? It can be hard to figure out. Most scientists will tell you that global warming is real and that it is likely to do some kind of harm, but the extent of the problem and the danger posed by its effects are wide open for debate. Though scientists warn that global warming will likely continue for centuries because of the long natural processes involved, there are a few things we can do to decrease the effects. Basically, they all boil down to this: Don't use as much of the stuff that creates greenhouse gases. On a local level, you can help by using less energy. The electricity that operates many of the devices in our homes comes from a power plant, and most power plants burn fossil fuels to generate that power. Turn off lights when they're not in use. Take shorter showers to use less hot water. Use a fan instead of an air conditioner on a warm day. Here are some other specific ways you can help decrease greenhouse-gas emissions: Make sure your car is properly tuned up. This allows it to run more efficiently and generate fewer harmful gases; Walk or ride your bike if possible, or carpool on your way to work. Cars burn fossil fuel, so smaller, more fuel-efficient cars emit less CO2, particularly hybrid cars; Turn lights and other appliances off when you're not using them. Even though a light bulb doesn't generate greenhouse gas, the power plant that generates the electricity used by the light bulb probably does. Switch from incandescent light bulbs to fluorescent bulbs, which use less energy and last longer; Recycle. Garbage that doesn't get recycled ends up in a landfill, generating methane. Recycled goods also require less energy to produce than products made from scratch; Plant trees and other plants where you can. Plants take carbon dioxide out of the air and release oxygen; Don't burn garbage. This releases carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. To really stem the emission of greenhouse gases, we need to develop non-fossil fuel energy sources. Hydro-electric power, solar power, hydrogen engines and fuel cells could all create big cuts in greenhouse gases if they were to become more common. At the international level, the Kyoto treaty was written to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Thirty-five industrialized nations have committed to reducing their output of those gases to varying degrees. Unfortunately, the United States, the world's primary producer of greenhouse gases, did not sign the treaty. In March, 2007, former Vice President A1 Gore testified in front of Congress and urged them to make some very challenging changes in national policy. These include: Freeze carbon production at the current level and create programs to reduce carbon production by 90 percent by 2050; Shift taxation from employment and production to a taxation upon pollution; Create an international treaty that would effectively comply with the Kyoto treaty without carrying the same perceived political baggage; Halt the construction of all new coal-based power facilities unless they comply with restrictions on carbon production; Increase emission standards across the board for both the automobile industry and power facilities; Ban incandescent light bulbs. Gore admits that the decision to enact these and other proposed responses to global warming can be difficult. He also says that climate change is not just a crisis, but the most important crisis mankind has ever faced. Which of the following statement will the author agree with?

$30 billion might seem a lot of money

Although cosmetic surgery(and non-surgically cosmetic 1 procedures

The doctor opened the door and ______ the room ______ a boy with a ball in his hand.

There is a real possibility that these animals could be frightened, ______ a sudden loud noise.

There ______ never been hard feelings between the families living on this book.

Most people would describe water like a colorless liquid

文艺复兴三杰 在文学界， (08) 是人文主义文学的发源地，诗人 (09) 、学者兼诗人并被誉为人文主义之父的弗朗西斯克. (10) 和作家乔万尼. (11) 是文艺复兴的先驱，被称为“文艺复兴三巨星”，也称为“ (12) ”。(09) 君子博学而日参醒乎己 的代表作Divine Comedy汉语译为《 (13) 》； (11) 的名作Decam-eron汉语译为《 (14) 》 在艺术界，16世纪文艺复兴时期 (15) 绘画艺术臻于成熟，其代表画家被誉为“艺术三杰”或“ (16) ”，他们分别是多项领域博学者列奥纳多. (17) 、杰出的雕塑家、建筑师、画家和诗人 (18) .迪.洛多维科.博纳罗蒂.西蒙尼和画家、建筑师 (19) .桑西。 (A)毕加索 (B)波提切利 (C)薄伽丘 (D)达.芬奇 (E)德卡梅伦 (F)但丁 (G)凡.高 (H)浮士德 (I)哥白尼 (J)画坛三杰 (K)拉斐尔 (L)拉.封丹 (M)罗马 (N)米开朗基罗 (O)彼特拉克 (P)塞万提斯 (Q)神曲 (R)十日谈 (S)天方夜谭 (T)文坛三杰 (U)西班牙 (V)席勒 (W)仙境喜事 (X)雪莱 (Y)艺坛三杰 (Z)意大利

In the face of the disaster