单选题 Passage One

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

单选题 Long Conversation One Questions 19-22 are based on the conversation you've just heard.

单选题This idea was demonstrated often by my elder relatives, who took pride in reminding younger folk of their "Korean age". With the great enthusiasm, they added on a year every New Year"s Day. By contrast American society has often been described as one that values the vibrant energy of youth over the wisdom and experience gained with age. Which choice would most clearly communicate the elderly relatives" positive attitude toward this practice?

单选题My father bought a nice telephone with a(n)______ dial for my birthday present.

单选题Which of the following statement is NOT hue according to the passage?

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

单选题The remarkable _______ of life on the Galapagos Island inspired Charles Darwin to establish his theory of evolution.

单选题Whoisthewoman?[A]Adoctor.[B]Anurse.[C]Ateacher.

单选题Questions 19 to 22 are based on the conversation you have just heard.

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题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 (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 (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.

单选题Questions 9 to 11 are based on the passage you have just heard.

单选题 Questions 22 to 25 are based on the conversation you have just heard

单选题Questions 19 to 22 are based on the conversation you have just heard.

单选题Food Inflation Kept Hidden in Tinier Bags Chips are disappearing from bags, candy from boxes and vegetables from cans. As an expected increase in the cost of raw materials looms for late summer, consumers are beginning to encounter shrinking food packages. With unemployment still high, companies in recent months have tried to hide price increases by selling their products in tiny and tinier packages. So far, the changes are most visible at the grocery store, where shoppers are paying the same amount, but getting less. For Lisa Stauber, stretching her budget to feed her nine children in Houston often requires careful monitoring at the store. Recently, when she cooked her usual three boxes of pasta for a big family dinner, she was surprised by a smaller yield, and she began to suspect something was up. "Whole wheat pasta had gone from 16 ounces to 13.25 ounces," she said. "I bought three boxes and it wasn't enough—that was a little embarrassing. I bought the same amount I always buy, I just didn't realize it, because who reads the sizes all the time?" Ms. Stauber, 33, said she began inspecting her other purchases, aisle by aisle. Many canned vegetables dropped to 13 or 14 ounces from 16; boxes of baby wipes went to 72 from 80; and sugar was stacked in 4-pound, not 5-pound, bags, she said. Five or so years ago, Ms. Stauber bought 16-ounce cans of com. Then they were 15.5 ounces, then 14.5 ounces, and the size is still dropping. "The first time I've ever seen an 11-ounce can of corn at the store was about three weeks ago, and I was just floored," she said. "It's sneaky, because they figure people won't know." In every economic downturn in the last few decades, companies have reduced the size of some products, disguising price increases and avoiding comparisons on same-size packages, before and after an increase. Each time, the marketing campaigns are coy; this time, the smaller versions are "greener" (packages good for the environment) or more "portable" (little carry bags for the takeout lifestyle) or "healthier" (fewer calories). Where Companies cannot change sizes—as in clothing or appliances—they have warned that prices will be going up, as the costs of cotton, energy, grain and other raw materials are rising. "Consumers are generally more sensitive to changes in prices than to changes in quantity," John T. Gourville, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School, said. "And companies try to do it in such a way that you don't notice, maybe keeping the height and width the same, but changing the depth so the silhouette (轮廓) of the package on the shelf looks the same. Or sometimes they add more air to the chips bag or a scoop in the bottom of the peanut butter jar so it looks the same size." Thomas J. Alexander, a finance professor at Northwood University, said that businesses had little choice these days when faced with increases in the costs of their raw goods. "Companies only have pricing power when wages are also increasing, and we're not seeing that right now because of the high unemployment," he said. Most companies reduce products quietly, hoping consumers are not reading labels too closely. But the downsizing keeps occurring. A can of Chicken of the Sea albacore tuna is now packed at 5 ounces, instead of the 6-ounce version still on some shelves, and in some cases, the 5-ounce can costs more than the larger one. Bags of Doritos, Tostitos and Fritos now hold 20 percent fewer chips than in 2009, though a spokesman said those extra chips were just a "limited time" offer. Trying to keep customers from feeling cheated, some companies are introducing new containers that, they say, have terrific advantages—and just happen to contain less product. Kraft is introducing "Fresh Stacks" packages for its Nabisco Premium saltines and Honey Maid graham crackers. Each has about 15 percent fewer crackers than the standard boxes, but the price has not changed. Kraft says that because the Fresh Stacks include more sleeves of crackers, they are more portable and "the packaging format offers the benefit of added freshness," said Basil T. Maglaris, a Kraft spokesman, in an e-mail. And Procter & Gamble is expanding its "Future Friendly" products, which it promotes as using at least 15 percent less energy, water or packaging than the standard ones. "They are more environmentally friendly, that's true—but they're also smaller," said Paula Rosenblum, managing partner for retail systems research at Focus.com, an online specialist network. "They announce it as great new packaging, and in fact what it is is smaller packaging, smaller amounts of the product," she said. Or marketers design a new shape and size altogether, complicating any effort to comparison shop. The unwrapped Reese's Minis, which were introduced in February, are smaller than the foil-wrapped Miniatures. They are also more expensive—$0.57 an ounce at FreshDirect, versus $0.37 an ounce for the individually wrapped. At H. J. Heinz, prices on ketchup, condiments, sauces and Ore-Ida products have already gone up, and the company is selling smaller-than-usual versions of condiments, like 5-ounce bottles of items like Heinz 57 Sauce sold at places like Dollar General. "I have never regretted raising prices in the face of significant cost pressures, since we can always course-correct if the outcome is not as we expected," Heinz's chairman and chief executive, William R. Johnson, said last month. While companies have long adjusted package sizes to appeal to changing tastes, from supersizes to 100-calorie packs, the recession drove a lot of corporations to think small. The standard size for Edy's ice cream went from 2 liters to 1.5 in 2008. And Tropicana shifted to a 59-ounce Carton rather than a 64-ounce one last year, after the cost of oranges rose. With prices for energy and for raw materials like corn, cotton and sugar creeping up and expected to surge later this year, companies are barely bothering to cover up the shrinking packs. "Typically, the product manufacturers are doing this slightly ahead of the perceived inflationary issues," Ms. Rosenblum said. "Lately, it hasn't been subtle—I mean, they've been shrinking by noticeable amounts." That can work to a company's benefit. In the culture of thinness, smaller may be a selling point. It lets retailers honestly claim, for example, that a snack package contains fewer calories—without having to change the ingredients a smidge. "For indulgences like ice cream, chocolate and potato chips, consumers may say "I don't mind getting a little bit less because I shouldn't be consuming so much anyway,' " said Professor Gourville. "That's a harder argument to make with something like diapers or orange juice." But even while companies blame the recession for smaller packages, they rarely increase sizes in good times, he said. He traced the shrinking package trends to the late 1980s, when companies like Chock full o'Nuts downsized the one-pound tin of ground coffee to 13 ounces. That shocked consumers, for whom a pound of coffee had been as standard a purchase unit as a dozen eggs or a six-pack of beer, he said. Once the economy rebounds, he said, a new "jumbo" size product typically emerges, at an even higher cost per ounce. Then the gradual shrinking process of all package sizes begins anew, he said. "It's a continuous cycle, where at some point the smallest package offered becomes so small that perhaps they're phased out and replaced by the medium-size package, which has been shrunk down," he said.

单选题Questions 16 to 18 are based on the passage you have just heard.