单选题 How the Shutdown Hammered the U.S. Economy A. How much have the government shutdown and the default threat cost us? Before the latest congressional fierce debate over government spending, the U.S. federal deficit was shrinking and seemed to shrivel even more in the near future. As a percentage of the nation's gross domestic product, the cash shortfall had dropped by half in the past two years, according to StandardPoor's senior credit analyst Marie Cavanaugh, who heads the ratings team in charge of assessing the U.S. credit rating. B .In other words, the United States was on track to slash its deficit and enjoy the spoils of its growing financial recovery— until the shutdown, which has socked (重击) the economy in the nose and soured investors' confidence everywhere. 'Earlier this year, we raised our outlook for the U.S. from negative to stable based on the ability of Congress to negotiate its way out of the fiscal cliff, the nation's strengthening economic recovery and the fact that the nation's deficit had fallen by half of the 2011 level,' Cavanaugh told Newsweek just before Congress cobbled together (胡乱拼凑) a last-minute deal. C. Now the same ratings agency estimates that the government shutdown knocked $24 billion out of the U.S. economy in just two weeks. That is more than $1.5 billion a day. Essentially, the fighting over spending leaves America with less to spend. 'The bottom line is the government shutdown hurt the U.S. economy,' stated SP's chief economist Beth Ann Bovino, on the heels of an eleventh-hour budget compromise that effectively delays key fiscal decisions until next year. D. 'In September, we expected 3 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter, because we thought politicians would have learned from 2011 and taken steps to avoid things like a government shutdown and the possibility of a sovereign default.' (In 2011, consumer confidence hit a 31-year low; just this week a Gallup poll similarly showed investor confidence dropping to its lowest level in almost two years. This is probably not a coincidence, as both polls took place during congressional standoffs.) E. SP, which has been the only ratings agency to slash the nation's top-flight credit rating (also in 2011), now expects this year's fourth quarter GDP to be closer to 2 percent. That is, if the U.S. is lucky. 'With full expectations that consumer confidence will continue to decline suddenly amid the 'short turnaround for politicians to negotiate some sort of lasting deal',' Bovino predicts, 'if people are afraid that the government policy brinkmanship (边缘政策) will resurface and, with it, the risk of another shutdown or worse, they'll remain afraid to open up their checkbooks.' F. Cavanaugh says the agency estimates that for every week the government was shut down, roughly 0.3 percent of the nation's GDP was destroyed. Not really a good thing for a country that, until recently, 'was running one of the highest deficits the world has seen since World War Ⅱ,' according to Nikola Swann, Cavanaugh's predecessor and the credit analyst who led the team that voted the U.S. credit rating down in 2011. G. Swarm, who tracked U.S. fiscal health for some time, traces much of the trouble back to 2001, when the September 11 attacks led to a downturn in the nation's economic growth and soaring spending in the lead-up to the war on terror. 'The U.S. did begin to recover by 2007', he says, 'but then it was hit by the financial crisis. By 2009, the nation's cash deficit—the annual gap between spending and revenue as a percentage of its GDP—had swelled to 11 percent.' H. 'Compare that to a surplus of 3 percent of GDP in 2000, at present, the cash deficit has eased to under 5 percent,' Cavanaugh says, 'but remains at the high end.' 'Remember, the Clinton administration benefitted from very high rates of economic growth, real rates that were around 3 percent to 5 percent of GDP,' Swarm says. 'We increased spending but never got back to the high growth rates.' I. Bovino warns the U.S. still has much to lose if its fiscal game of chicken doesn't end. As the debt ceiling deadline neared, SP was minutes away from automatically demoting (使降级) America's credit rating and tipping it into 'selective default'. (The only other country to have 'SD' status is Grenada.) Fitch, a ratings-agency competitor of SP, already announced it was putting the U.S. on 'credit rating watch negative', citing a lack of'timely' action by Congress to pass a budget. J. Like a troubled teenager, America is repeatedly self-harming. 'It is simply not a characteristic of the most highly rated sovereigns that you have to worry about them not paying their debts,' said John Chambers, global head of SP's sovereign ratings committee and a member of the team that marked down America's debt rating in 2011, from AAA to AA+. He notes that no nation has ever defaulted for such a ridiculous reason—political games of mutually assured destruction. 'It is unheard of in a cohesive civil society, making it all the more puzzling and pathetic that we have these tricks over spending that has already been approved by Congress.' K. When StandardPoor's, which monitors and ranks the credit of 127 countries, slashed the sovereign debt rating of the United States during the 2011 debt-ceiling war, cries of 'unpatriotic' and 'anti-American' echoed up Wall Street. 'We knew what we were doing, that it was a historic decision,' says Swarm. 'The volume of calls coming in was more than we could sort through on our own. We were there until late Friday, doing interviews, investor calls, and teleconferences, all through the weekend and the rest of the following week.' L. The hue and cry was no surprise. After all, nothing less than the world's global reserve currency was at stake. The U.S. rating—alongside that of France, Austria and the Isle of Man—put it behind Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Canada. By losing its gold-star rating, the world's superpower became and remains second best. M. 'The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective and less predictable than what we previously believed,' SP stated to justify its lone decision in 2011. 'The statutory (法定的) debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.' N. Now there are three months for Congress to complete its bargaining, pass a budget, and lift the debt ceiling again. If it fails—and everything suggests a return to the deadlock we just escaped from—America will be back in default territory. Politicians in Washington will put on the motley (小丑装束) , the default circus will resume and the damage to America's economy will start over. O. Whatever was said on either side in the latest showdown about reneging (违约) on the national debts, defaulting will not be pretty. According to Bovino, if America defaulted it 'would be devastating for markets and the economy and worse than the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008' and 'put the economy in a recession and wipe out much of the economic progress made by the recovery from the Great Recession.'

单选题 上海博物馆 上海博物馆位于人民广场的南侧，是一座大型的中国古代艺术博物馆。它的陈列面积为2800平方米，馆藏珍贵文物12万件，其所收藏的青铜器(ancient Chinese bronze)、陶瓷(ceramics)、书法、绘画等质量精湛，在国内外享有盛誉。上海博物馆创建于1952年，发展迅速，在文物收藏、保护、研究、展出以及与其他机构的文化交流方面均有不俗的成就。1992年上海市政府作出决策，开始在市中心建造新馆。新的上海博物馆设有11个专馆和3个展览厅。目前，它正以崭新的面貌迎接着八方来客。

单选题The selfishness of humans is a central assumption of orthodox (传统的) economics, where it is thought to lead to benefits for the economy as a whole. It is what the 18th-centuiy Scottish economist Adam Smith described as the 'invisible hand'. But evolutionary biologists have come to see cooperation and selflessness as a big part of our 29 as a species. During the course of our evolution, they point out, cooperative groups 30 outcompeted groups of cheats. So we are inherently cooperative when operating within our own groups. We have also 31 social mechanisms to reinforce actions that benefit the group. 'You could say teamwork at the scale of small groups is the signature 32 of our species,' says evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson from Binghamton University in New York. But 33 teamwork can include a competition mechanism to promote actions that benefit the group, particularly in larger groups. It's also important; to remember that in-group cooperation evolved partly in response to competition between groups. This evolutionary perspective is radically new to economics, and it could be relevant to grand-scale economic problems that require solutions involving cooperation between nations. Take the challenge of getting nations to work together over economic solutions to climate change—a 34 focus in the run-up to climate negotiations in Paris, France, later this year. This is a gargantuan (巨大的) problem from any perspective, but it is 35 an issue of coordination for the sake of the common good at a massive scale, says Wilson. 'The challenge is therefore to 36 at larger scales the coordination and control that takes place more spontaneously at smaller scales,' he says—from multicellular (多细胞的) organisms to village-sized groups of humans. 'Morality evolved out of cooperation within and competition between groups, so when acting as a single group to tackle global problems we will have to 37 the role of natural selection ourselves,' Wilson says. This might involve pursuing a wide variety of 38 , identifying those that work best, and then creating incentives to cooperate on implementation. 'In some ways it's the opposite of the invisible hand.' A.adaptation B.assume C.compel D.consistently E.developed F.effective G.essentially H.implement I.particular J.promptly K.remarkable L.rumor M.strategies N.success O.suspicion

单选题 For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write a short essay on the topic Conducting Moral Education in Colleges. You should write at least 150 words but no more than 200 words. 主要内容如下： 1.大学生的道德现状。 2.开展道德教育的意义。 3.如何在大学开展道德教育。

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, refrain tug 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'—insturctional 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 straggles 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 bums. 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.