单选题Passage OneQuestions 26 to 28 are based on the passage you have just heard.

单选题The root cause of the maintenance of consumption level despite the high oil price is that ______.

单选题Questions 12 to 15 are based on the conversation you have just heard.

单选题{{B}}Passage Two{{/B}} Admittedly, minor accidents and slip-ups continue to shake public confidence in nuclear power. Given the unquantifiable risks that nuclear power carries, it is only right that the industry be subjected to the test of public opinion and due political process. However, this argues for exceptional alerts, regulatory scrutiny and accountability — and not for bans or shut-downs. Those nuclear operators with a good safety record deserve to have their licenses renewed, so that existing plants may run to the end of their useful lives. The Bush administration's enthusiastic support goes a lot further than this, however. It also wants to see new plants. Proponents of new nuclear power stations make three arguments in their favor. They will enhance energy security by lessening dependence on fossil fuels; far from being environmentally harmful, they will be beneficial because they will reduce the output of greenhouse gases; and, most crucially, the economics of nuclear power has improved from the days when it was wholly dependent on bail-out (紧急财政支持) and subsidy. Yet these arguments do not stand up to investigation. The claim that governments should support nuclear power to reduce their vulnerability (致使弱点) to the OPEC oil cartel (联合企业) is doubly absurd. Little oil is used in power generation: What nuclear power displaces is mostly natural gas and coal, which are not only more plentiful than oil but also geographically better distributed. Security is enhanced not by seeking energy self-sufficiency but through diversification of supplies. Creating lots of fissile material that might be pinched by terrorists is an odd way to look for security anyway. What about the argument that climate change might be the great savior of nuclear power? Global warming is indeed a risk that should be taken more seriously than the Bush administration has so far done. Nuclear plants do not produce any carbon dioxide, which is the principal greenhouse gas. However, rushing in response to build dozens of new nuclear plants would be both needlessly expensive and environmentally unsound. It would make far more sense to adopt a carbon tax, which would put clean energy sources such as solar and wind on an equal footing with nuclear, whose waste poses an undeniable (if remote) environmental threat of its own for aeons to come. Governments should also dismantle (拆除) all subsidies on fossil fuels — especially for coal, the dirtiest of all. They should adopt reforms that send proper price signals to those who use power, and so reduce emissions: Global warming certainly provides one argument in favor of nuclear power, but it is not sufficient on its own to justify a nuclear renaissance. (427 words)

单选题What is the major poiny that the author is making in the article?

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题Passage One Questions 26 to 28 are based on the passage you have just heard.

单选题{{B}}Section A{{/B}}

单选题 {{B}}Passage Two{{/B}}Questions 29 to 31 are based on the passage you have just heard.

单选题Questions 52 to 56 are based on the following passage. Our government recently has focused on the importance of investment in clean energy and energy efficiency as the best way to sustain ably grow America's dying economy, and President Obama has called for the creation of a high-speed rail system as a way to generate green jobs, enhance economic productivity and reduce carbon emissions. The White House has announced the awarding of $ 8 billion in stimulus funding to kick-start high-speed-rail projects and improve service in 13 corridors across the country. That's a nice move, but America's antiquated (旧式的，过去的) rail system will have to advance a long way just to make it to the present, let alone the future. U. S. intercity railroads are a laughingstock compared with those in most other developed nations. Today you can travel the 250 miles from Paris to Lyon on the high-speed TGV in two hours. Covering a similar distance from Philadelphia to Boston takes some five hours. and that's on an Amtrak Acela train, the closest thing the U.S. has to high-speed rail. "Every other major industrialized nation has recognized that high-speed rail is key to economic growth and mobility," says Petra Todorovich, director of the America 2050 program at the Regional Planning Association. "It's time for America to realize that as well." But whatever the public's vision of a sparkling new 150-m. p. h. bullet train like those in Japan and Europe, the reality is that not all, or even most, of the stimulus money will go toward creating entirely new rail service. Instead, much of the initial funding will be spent improving and speeding up existing service. Still, the initial round of $ 8 billion is just a tiny percentage of what it would cost to significantly overhaul(彻底革新) the country's rail system. And there are concerns that by spreading the funds to so many different projects in so many different states, it won't be possible to make a real difference in any one place, It doesn't help that the one region that could most obviously benefit from truly high-speed rail--the Boston-to Washington corridor-received a mere $112million in funding, in part because building new track in the congested area would be prohibitively expensive and politically challenging. Nevertheless, high-speed rail is an idea whose time has come---at least for environmentalists. According to Environment America, high-speed rail uses a third less energy per mile than auto or air travel, and a nationwide system could reduce oil use by 125 million bbl. a year. In addition, high speed rail represents the kind of long-term infrastructure investment that will pay back for decades. "This is a down payment on a truly national program," said Petra, "It will change the way we travel and change the way we work and live./

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题Questions 19 to 21 are based on the passage you have just heard.

单选题For nearly half of my professional career, I was wrong about how to help students achieve. I had the wrong focus, made inaccurate assumptions, used faulty logic, and came to the wrong conclusions about how to increase students' achievement. Although a high percentage of students persisted in and graduated from the programs in which I worked, they seldom became top achievers. Here is where and how I went wrong. I designed procedures to identify the students who were least prepared so that we could build programs and services that would help more students achieve. I assumed that there were certain levels of preparation that students needed in order to succeed: that if students met or exceeded these preparation levels, everything would take care of itself; that if students were prepared and met the expectations of their professors, then the normal courses of study and interactions with faculty would be sufficient to help students accomplish their goals. Believing that student success depended on acquiring certain skills and knowledge, I used a combination of standardized tests, institutionally developed instruments, and interview procedures to get a clear picture of whether each student was prepared or underprepared. This was good practice in many ways, but I eventually came to see that I had structured my practice with the tenets of the Deficit Remediation Educational Model, which has been predominant in education for decades and remains the most prevalent approach in use today. This model assumes that the first and most important thing to do is to "fix" the student. Programs and services based on this model are dedicated to helping students achieve by first diagnosing student needs, problems, ignorance, concerns, defects, and deficits. Those who use the Deficit Remediation Educational Model have the challenge of designing classes, workshops, programs, and services to help students improve in areas in which they are underprepared. Based on the diagnosis, participation in remedial programs and services is often required. Students are usually prevented from pursuing other areas of study and from pursuing their interests until their "deficits" have been removed and their "problems" have been overcome. Typically, if students are unable to overcome their deficiencies by an established date, they are dismissed or told that they aren't college material. What would happen if we turned our traditional retention effort on its head? What would happen if we developed programs that helped students assess their strengths and then apply those strengths to their studies? Of course, we would still assist students in improving their ability to write well or to master mathematics or to read their political science text more efficiently and critically, but all this would be in the context of helping them identify, further develop, and apply what they can already do well. In my experience, this approach is tremendously motivating, contributes to a sense of agency, and helps young people stay in college.

单选题{{B}}Section A{{/B}}

单选题From the passage we get the impression that______.

单选题Questions 16 to 19 are based on the passage you have just heard.

单选题Which of the following is NOT mentioned in the passage as the reason for babies' cry?

单选题Call it the "learning paradox" : the more you struggle and even fail while you"re trying to learn new information, the better you"re likely to recall and apply that information later. The learning paradox is at the heart of "productive failure," a phenomenon identified by researcher Manu Kapur. Kapur points out that while the model adopted by many teachers when introducing students to new knowledge - providing lots of structure and guidance early on, until the students show that they can do it on their own - makes intuitive sense, it may not be the best way to promote learning. Rather, it"s better to let the learners wrestle (较劲) with the material on their own for a while, refraining from giving them any assistance at the start. In a paper published recently, Kapur applied the principle of productive failure to mathematical problem solving in three schools. With one group of students, the teacher provided strong "scaffolding" - instructional support - and feedback. With the teacher"s help, these pupils were able to find the answers to their set of problems. Meanwhile, a second group was directed to solve the same problems by collaborating with one another, without any prompts from their instructor. These students weren"t able to complete the problems correctly. But in the course of trying to do so, they generated a lot of ideas about the nature of the problems and about what potential solutions would look like. And when the two groups were tested on what they"d learned, the second group "significantly outperformed" the first. The apparent struggles of the floundering (挣扎的) group have what Kapur calls a "hidden efficacy" : they lead people to understand the deep structure of problems, not simply their correct solutions. When these students encounter a new problem of the same type on a test, they"re able to transfer the knowledge they"ve gathered more effectively than those who were the passive recipients of someone else"s expertise. In the real world, problems rarely come neatly packaged, so being able to discern their deep structure is key. But, Kapur notes, none of us like to fail, no matter how often Silicon Valley entrepreneurs praise the beneficial effects of an idea that fails or a start-up company that crashes and burns. So we need to " design for productive failure" by building it into the learning process. Kapur has identified three conditions that promote this kind of beneficial struggle. First, choose problems to work on that "challenge but do not frustrate. " Second, provide learners with opportunities to explain and elaborate on what they"re doing. Third, give learners the chance to compare and contrast good and bad solutions to the problems. And to those students who protest this tough-love teaching style: you"ll thank me later.