[此试题无题干]

Cross Cultural NegotiationsIt's important to understand the cultural differences in negotiations, as different cultures have different ways of negotiation. Here are some advice for cross cultural negotiations.I. Different cultures have different【T1】_____【T1】______— Advice:A. Do some homeworkB. Identify the standard expected negotiating【T2】_____【T2】______C. Develop skills to overcome【T3】_____【T3】______II. A(n)【T4】_____ for cross cultural negotiation【T4】______— Do your research on what will be expected of youA Define your schedule, what to【T5】_____ and bring【T5】______B. Verify standard practices【T6】_____【T6】______— Two options if in a more different environment:A Hire local【T7】_____【T7】______B. Arrange for a local【T8】_____ to accompany you【T8】______III. Eight best practicesA【T9】_____ what is expected of you【T9】______B. Explain that how much you appreciate the business opportunitiesC. Explain that you are【T10】_____ here【T10】______D. State your【T11】_____【T11】______E. Ask for instructionsF. Apologize if you do or say something【T12】_____【T12】______G. Show your desire to【T13】_____ in the negotiations【T13】______H. Reaffirm the intent to do business with them and learn their culture-【T14】_____【T14】______A. Remain constantly aware of your environmentB. In use of each advice, do not go【T15】_____【T15】______

Working a typewriter by touch, like riding a bicycle or strolling on a path, is best done by not giving it a glancing thought. Once you do, your fingers fumble and hit the wrong keys. To do things involving practiced skills, you need to turn loose the systems of muscles and nerves responsible for each maneuver, place them on their own, and stay out of it. There is no real loss of authority in this, since you get to decide whether to do the thing or not, and you can intervene and embellish the technique any time you like; if you want to ride a bicycle backward, or walk with an eccentric loping gait giving a little skip every fourth step, whistling at the same time, you can do that. But if you concentrate your attention on the details, keeping in touch with each muscle, thrusting yourself into a free fall with each step and catching yourself at the last moment by sticking out the other foot in time to break the fall, you will end up immobilized, vibrating with fatigue. It is a blessing to have options for choice and change in the learning of such unconsciously coordinated acts. If we were born with all these knacks inbuilt, automated like ants, we would surely miss the variety. It would be a less interesting world if we all walked and skipped alike, and never fell from bicycles. If we were all genetically programmed to play the piano deftly from birth, we might never learn to understand music. The rules are different for the complicated, coordinated, fantastically skilled manipulations we perform with our insides. We do not have to learn anything. Our smooth-muscle cells are born with complete instructions, in need of no help from us, and they work away on their own schedules, modulating the lumen of blood vessels, moving things through intestines. Secretary cells elaborate their products in privacy; the heart contracts and relaxes; cells communicate with each other by simply touching; all this goes on continually, without ever a personal word from us. The arrangement is that of an ecosystem, with the operation of each part being governed by the state and function of all the other parts. When things are going well, as they generally are, it is an infallible mechanism. But now the autonomy of this interior domain, long regarded as inviolate, is open to question. The experimental psychologists have recently found that visceral organs can be taught to do various things, as easily as a boy learns to ride a bicycle, by the instrumental techniques of operant conditioning. If a thing is done in the way the teacher wants, at a signal, and a suitable reward given immediately to reinforce the action, it becomes learned. Rats, rewarded by stimulation of their cerebral "pleasure centers", have been instructed to speed up or slow down their hearts at a signal, or to alter their blood pressures, or switch off certain waves in their electroencephalograms and switch on others. The same technology has been applied to human beings, with other kinds of rewards, and the results have been startling. It is claimed that you can teach your kidneys to change the rate of urine formation, raise or lower your blood pressure, change your heart rate, write different brain waves, at will. There is already talk of a breakthrough in the prevention and treatment of human disease. According to proponents, when the technology is perfected and extended it will surely lead to new possibilities for therapy. If a rat can be trained to dilate the blood vessels of one of his ears more than those of the other, as has been reported, what rich experiences in self-control and self-operation may lie just ahead for man? There are already cryptic advertisements in the personal columns of literary magazines, urging the purchase of electronic headsets for the training and regulation of one's own brain waves, according to one's taste. You can have it. Not to downgrade it. It is extremely important, I know, and one ought to feel elated by the prospect of taking personal charge, calling the shots, running one's cells around like toy trains. Now that we know that viscera can be taught, the thought comes naturally that we've been neglecting them all these years, and by judicious application of human intelligence, these primitive structures can be trained to whatever standards of behavior we wish to set for them.

General Ideas about Rhetoric I. The definition understanding of rhetoricA. Dictionary definition: the art of using words【T1】 1【T1】 2in speaking or writingB. The definition in this lecture:— the art of harnessing【T2】 3, etc., through language【T2】 4— the persuasion and convincing of an audiencea)to actb)to【T3】 5【T3】 6c)to identify with given valuesC. Rhetoric in political events: to manipulate II. Rhetoric in historyA. In Ancient【T4】 7【T4】 8— a use of words— a【T5】 9 of words【T5】 10B. Aristotle's discussion on rhetoric as a means of【T6】 11【T6】 12— an appeal to【T7】 13【T7】 14— an appeal to the character of the speakerC. In the Middle Ages: being one of the main subjects of the【T8】 15【T8】 16D. In the Renaissance: the application ofrhetorical principles to【T9】 17【T9】 18III. Later development of rhetoricA Negative【T10】 19 were taken on【T10】 20— a focus on the words themselves— ignore intonations or large, bold typeB. In an English class, one is encouraged to【T11】 21【T11】 22— how the words were【T12】 23【T12】 24— how the way they were laid out on thepage might【T13】 25the meaning of the text【T13】 26C. New definition of rhetoric today— the proficiency in the use of language— the knowledge of how to use graphic and other elementsto【T14】 27the verbal meaning of a message【T14】 28D. Rhetoric of【T15】 29【T15】 30— the coordination of words with other nonverbal elements— purpose: the effective use of language General Ideas about Rhetoric I. The definition understanding of rhetoricA. Dictionary definition: the art of using words【T1】 31【T1】 32in speaking or writingB. The definition in this lecture:— the art of harnessing【T2】 33, etc., through language【T2】 34— the persuasion and convincing of an audiencea)to actb)to【T3】 35【T3】 36c)to identify with given valuesC. Rhetoric in political events: to manipulate II. Rhetoric in historyA. In Ancient【T4】 37【T4】 38— a use of words— a【T5】 39 of words【T5】 40B. Aristotle's discussion on rhetoric as a means of【T6】 41【T6】 42— an appeal to【T7】 43【T7】 44— an appeal to the character of the speakerC. In the Middle Ages: being one of the main subjects of the【T8】 45【T8】 46D. In the Renaissance: the application ofrhetorical principles to【T9】 47【T9】 48III. Later development of rhetoricA Negative【T10】 49 were taken on【T10】 50— a focus on the words themselves— ignore intonations or large, bold typeB. In an English class, one is encouraged to【T11】 51【T11】 52— how the words were【T12】 53【T12】 54— how the way they were laid out on thepage might【T13】 55the meaning of the text【T13】 56C. New definition of rhetoric today— the proficiency in the use of language— the knowledge of how to use graphic and other elementsto【T14】 57the verbal meaning of a message【T14】 58D. Rhetoric of【T15】 59【T15】 60— the coordination of words with other nonverbal elements— purpose: the effective use of language

PASSAGE FOUR

We each has to hand in a paper on the topic of environment before the end of this term.

Love is romantic, this is the common truth believed by most people who have not married. But, marriage means a couple binds into a family, which distracts the romance to everyday daily life. The following are opinions from netizens of various countries on whether marriage is worth it. Write an article of NO LESS THAN 300 words, in which you should: 1. summarize briefly the arguments on both sides; 2. give your comment.Riz (Pakistan) Make a wise choice. Live the way you want to because life is not rehearsal. Being single doesn't mean you have no responsibilities. Marriage can be fun if you know how to make it fun. I think there are more advantages to being married. It matures you!Laowai2? (UK) Being married doesn't only mean sharing your social life and having consideration for someone else. It also requires compromise and perhaps patience. Having kids is a whole different ball game. You need to be prepared to dedicate your life to them and put your own needs in second (or third or fourth) place. They are your responsibility, don't assume that others will always be there to help and don't expect to be appreciated. If you choose a spouse well, the responsibilities will be shared.blu535 (US) Marriage is what you make of it. It's different for everyone, but one thing is for sure: it takes a lot of work!St_George (UK) It's all testosterone to start with, but when that subsides you find out if it's really love. You must have an emotional attachment to somebody you've lived with every day, regardless, and divorce is the next worst thing to death for most people. The emotional baggage afterwards is a big barrier to loving again. If you say marriage is the grave of love, you're just a coward not to embrace its pain, challenges and hardships. You only want the easy way out. Sad, isn't it? But sometimes, it's true. Marriage has many pains, but celibacy has no pleasures.Smaug (US) If you find the right person, being married is great Getting up and seeing this person you love is a great thing. Even cooking and watching TV together is sometimes great. But you have to make sure the guy you find is a guy you can talk with. Work out difficult issues. If you cannot really communicate with your beloved one well, then it will be nothing but misery.xilaren (China) Is marriage the grave of love? It depends on the couple's behaviors. Women play an important role in keeping the marriage alive and not boring.Symondsez (Expat in China)Marriage is a kind of sweet - You eat it, you will regret... you don't eat it, you will still regret it. This institution called marriage in today's society is a failure.gulfalco (US) Before I was married I thought I never would be. And now that I am divorced it feels weird not to be married. You spend a decade with one person, it really changes you I guess.bdfuns Actually, marriage is a vital content for a person in this world. Do you know what does it means "Marriage"? My knowledge says that marriage is a result of human nature. We need marriage for complete our general needs. By the way, I will also marry in very early future.

A recent BBC documentary in which five Chinese teachers were invited to teach a group of British teenagers using Chinese teaching methods has caused a stir in China and in the UK. What can Chinese and British educators learn from each other? Read the excerpts carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should: 1. summarize briefly the different opinions; 2. give your comment. Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.Eaststar (China) Neither the British nor the Chinese education system is perfect. They can learn from each other to produce disciplined, respectful, well-educated and yet self-motivated, socially competent, creative and socially responsible students. In my course of primary and secondary schooling, I had the privilege of experiencing both systems. In my opinion, the Chinese system is excellent in learning the academic fundamentals, but not so much beyond that.Ted (the UK) Students in China are raised to study for long hours, with great expectations and demands. Yet they have little social life and there is no encouragement for an enjoyment of lifelong learning. In the West, students are taught to enjoy learning, questioning and using initiative with active learning and problem-solving. They have a broad and balanced education to include social learning, but the downside is difficulties with behavior, most evident in the teenage years. The best of both systems is perhaps what is needed.Leonard (Singapore) The Chinese education requires rote learning. It seems boring but it trains the mind to focus on what is important and develop concentration and good study habits. These habits benefit them even at a later age. More could be done to encourage children to express opinions about the things they encounter.Michael (the US) My overall opinion is that the West can learn a lot from China in education. My personal belief is that the biggest benefits of Chinese secondary education are: 1. Longer hours at school. 2. Competitiveness. This is more important in China because there are so many job seekers looking for employment in a highly competitive job market. 3. Higher expectations and demands upon students. 4. More lecture-based lessons. This is great preparation for college. Effective note-taking is essential for college. 5. Team building. This too creates an intellectual environment where synergy is created in addition to developing personal attributes such as tolerance, cooperation and harmony.Tal (China) If I had a child, I think I'd consider Chinese education for part of his learning. I think that perhaps the middle school years are a good time for him to develop strong fundamental skills in math, reading, memory retention, etc. , that the Chinese system teaches well. But in the more formative primary and high school years, I'd opt for an international school in China offering the international business or something similar. Children need the freedom to explore, express, inquire and understand. These are things that the Chinese system simply does not offer to anywhere near the same degree. In my view, the chief weakness in China's system is the lack of room for creativity and individuality among students. Students do not become good learners; they merely become good test takers.Seneca (China) The one achievement of the Chinese teachers in Britain is that they got the British kids to pay more attention to the teacher. Discipline was reintroduced there. Mind you, that is nothing new. Discipline was common just 30 years ago. It's gone out of classroom windows over the past 30 years because Western parents, beneficiaries of the Hippie revolution against the Establishment, have inculcated a much more relaxed attitude to their children. Unfortunately, today Western kids are highly problematic at school. The borderline between adulthood and youth is in flux, with stupid parents giving their children more and more slack so that teachers now are faced with undisciplined, rude and sometimes confrontational students. Write your response on ANSWER SHEET FOUR.

他一向嘴硬，从不认错。

Cambridge has taken the top spot in this year's Guardian University Guide league table, breaking its arch rival Oxford's six-year stint as the U. K. 's leading institution. Oxford has come second and St Andrews third, while the London School of Economics has climbed four places from last year to take fourth place. University College London, Warwick, Lancaster, Durham, Loughborough and Imperial College make up the top 10. Our analysis shows that universities with low rankings are almost as likely to be planning to charge maximum tuition fees of ￡9,000 in autumn 2012 as those with high rankings. London Metropolitan University, which comes bottom of the Guardian tables, intends to charge between ￡4,500 and ￡9,000 for its degrees. Salford, Liverpool John Moores, Manchester Metropolitan and the University of East London—all of which rank in the bottom 20—want to charge ￡9,000 for at least some of their courses. The government's access watchdog, the Office for Fair Access, is looking at the fees each university in England wants to charge and will announce in July whether it approves. All the English universities in our top 20 intend to charge ￡9,000 fees, apart from London School of Economics, which has not yet decided. The first university that proposes to charge less than ￡9,000 for all of its courses is Sunderland, which is ranked 48th. There are a total of 120 institutions in the tables: 38 in the top half intend to charge ￡9,000 for at least some of their courses, while 18 in the bottom half propose to do the same. Universities are ranked according to how much they spend per student; their student/staff ratio; the career prospects of their graduates; what grades applicants need; a value-added score that compares the academic achievements of first-years and their final degree results; and how content final-year students are with their courses, based on the annual National Student Survey. Birmingham City University has fallen most since last year—24 places, from 66th to 90th—while Middlesex is the biggest climber, reaching 75th place this year compared with 112th last year. Durham has risen from 17th place to eighth. While the oldest universities dominate the top positions in the tables, the newest have improved their rankings since last year. Winchester has leapt from 96th place to 69th. The tables, compiled by an independent consultancy firm, Intelligent Metrix, are weighted in favour of the National Student Survey. As part of the survey, final-year students are asked to score their universities for overall satisfaction, feedback and contact hours. Other league tables concentrate more on research ratings. The Guardian publishes an overall ranking table, separate tables to show which universities are best—and worst—for each subject and another table for specialist institutions. The more a university spends on each student, the more likely it is to have a high ranking and the more satisfied its students seem. However, our judges took into account that some universities do not teach expensive courses, such as engineering, and so their spending is lower. The tables show that Cambridge has overtaken Oxford in philosophy, law, politics, theology, maths, classics, anthropology and modern languages. However, Oxford overtook Cambridge in psychology and also came top in chemistry, business and management, and art and design. Loughborough is best for sports science, while King's College London is top for dentistry. University College London topped the table for English, while Trinity Laban Conservatoire excelled for drama and dance. Northumbria has shot up the table for modern languages, from 48th last year to third this year. Universities with high rankings tend to have fewer dropouts, and fewer students per academic. The top 20 institutions have a drop-out rate after the first year of just 4%, compared with almost 12% for the bottom 20. Professor David Tidmarsh, vice-chancellor of Birmingham City University, says he expects his university's fall in position to be temporary: "It is caused by student number growth, which has now been curbed, and student satisfaction scores, which we expect to improve significantly as a consequence both of increased investment and of the way in which we are engaging students as partners in their learning experience." He says the university is investing ￡180m in new buildings, facilities and equipment. Swansea Metropolitan, Wolverhampton and Liverpool Hope did not allow the Guardian to use their data. Meanwhile, the government has cut the number of places universities can offer on teacher training courses. Cambridge University, which comes top of our table for education courses, will have 49 fewer places on its teacher training course this September, an 11 % cut. Altogether, almost 4,000 fewer places will be available on teacher training programmes. A spokesman from the Department for Education says pupil numbers are falling sharply in secondary schools and so the need for new teachers has gone down.

Eight Steps to Writing a Great PaperI. Start as soon as possible— Usually you have only one week to write a paper— Do not【T1】_____【T1】______II. Learn to research【T2】_____【T2】______— Read the【T3】______ of a paragraph【T3】______— Move on if it does not interest you— Take notes for cross-referencingIII.【T4】_____【T4】______— Place note cards in order of【T5】_____【T5】______— The most important information should be given in the beginning— Group note cards into similar topicsIV. Analyze your subject— Display both your research and your【T6】_____【T6】______— You may【T7】_____ with what scholars say【T7】______— Never use "【T8】_____" in the paper【T8】______— Go into detailed analysisV. Write a rough draft— Writing a rough draft will【T9】_____ your time【T9】______— You don't have to write a perfect rough draft— Get all your ideas down on the paperVI. Reread, reorganize and rewrite—【T10】_____your rough draft after a day or two【T10】______— Change things where necessaryVII. Learn MLA format— Don't commit【T11】_____【T11】______— Document every idea you took from others— Use MLA format to【T12】_____【T12】______VIII. Mission【T13】______【T13】______— Use a cover sheet with your name,【T14】_____, course number, and date【T14】______— Use stapling or a(n)【T15】_____【T15】______

You are what you eat, or so the saying goes. But Richard Wrangham, of Harvard University, believes that this is true in a more profound sense than the one implied by the old proverb. It is not just you who are what you eat, but the entire human species. And with Homo sapiens, what makes the species unique in Dr. Wrangham's opinion is that its food is so often cooked. Cooking is a human universal. No one other than a few faddists tries to survive on raw food alone. And the consumption of a cooked meal is normal in every known society. Moreover, without cooking, the human brain (which consumes 20-25% of the body's energy) could not keep running. Dr. Wrangham thus believes that cooking and humanity are coeval. In fact, he thinks that cooking and other forms of preparing food are humanity's "killer app": the evolutionary change that underpins all of the other—and subsequent—changes that have made people such unusual animals. Humans became human with the emergence 1. 8m years ago of a species called Homo erectus. This had a skeleton much like modern man's—a big, brain-filled skull and a narrow pelvis and rib cage, which imply a small abdomen and thus a small gut. Hitherto, the explanation for this shift from the smaller skulls and wider pelvises of man's apelike ancestors has been a shift from a vegetable-based diet to a meat-based one. Meat has more calories than plant matter, the theory went. A smaller gut could therefore support a larger brain. Dr. Wrangham disagrees. When you do the sums, he argues, raw meat is still insufficient to bridge the gap. He points out that even modern "raw foodists", members of a town-dwelling, back-to-nature social movement, struggle to maintain their weight—and they have access to animals and plants that have been bred for the table. Pre-agricultural man confined to raw food would have starved. Start cooking, however, and things change radically. Cooking alters food in three important ways. It breaks starch molecules into more digestible fragments. It "denatures" protein molecules, so that their amino-acid chains unfold and digestive enzymes can attack them more easily. And heat physically softens food. That makes it easier to digest, so even though the stuff is no more calorific, the body uses fewer calories dealing with it. In support of his thesis, Dr. Wrangham, who is an anthropologist, has ransacked other fields and come up with an impressive array of material. Cooking increases the share of food digested in the stomach and small intestine, where it can be absorbed, from 50% to 95%. Previous studies had suggested raw food was digested equally well as cooked food because they looked at faeces as being the end product. These, however, have been exposed to the digestive mercies of bacteria in the large intestine, and any residual goodies have been removed from them that way. Another telling experiment, conducted on rats, did not rely on cooking. Rather the experimenters ground up food pellets and then recompacted them to make them softer. Rats fed on the softer pellets weighed 30% more after 26 weeks than those fed the same weight of standard pellets. The difference was because of the lower cost of digestion. Indeed, Dr. Wrangham suspects the main cause of the modern epidemic of obesity is not overeating but the rise of processed foods. These are softer, because that is what people prefer. Indeed, the nerves from the taste buds meet in a part of the brain called the amygdala with nerves that convey information on the softness of food. It is only after these two qualities have been compared that the brain assesses how pleasant a mouthful actually is. The archaeological evidence for ancient cookery is equivocal. Digs show that both modern humans and Neanderthals controlled fire in a way that almost certainly means they could cook, and did so at least 200,000 years ago. Since the last common ancestor of the two species lived more than 400,000 years ago, fire-control is probably at least as old as that, for they lived in different parts of the world, and so could not have copied each other. Older alleged sites of human fires are more susceptible to other interpretations, but they do exist. And traces of fire are easily wiped out, so the lack of direct evidence for them is no surprise. Instead, Dr. Wrangham is relying on a compelling chain of logic. And in doing so he may have cast light not only on what made humanity, but on one of the threats it faces today.

我已经到了望九之年，可谓长寿矣。因此经常有人向我询问长寿之道，养生之术。我敬谨答日：“养生无术是有术。”因此，我首创了三“不”主义：不锻炼，不挑食，不嘀咕，名闻全国。 我这个三不主义，容易招误会，我现在利用这个机会解释一下。我并不绝对反对适当的体育锻炼。但不要过头。 一个人如果天天望长寿如大旱之望云霓，而又绝对相信体育锻炼，则此人心态恐怕有点失常，反不如顺其自然为佳。 至于不挑食，常见有人年才逾不惑，就开始挑食，每到吃饭，战战兢兢，如履薄冰，窘态可掬，看了令人失笑。以这种心态而欲求长寿，岂非南辕而北辙! 我个人认为，第三点最为重要。对什么事情都不嘀嘀咕咕，心胸开朗，乐观愉快，吃也吃得下，睡也睡得着，有问题则设法解决之，有困难则努力克服之，决不视芝麻绿豆大的窘境如苏迷庐山般大，也决不毫无原则地随遇而安，决不玩世不恭。 有这样的心境，焉能不健康长寿?

PASSAGE TWO

PASSAGE FOUR

得病以前，我受父母宠爱，在家中横行霸道。一旦隔离，拘禁在花园山坡上一幢小房子里，我顿感打入冷宫，十分郁郁不得志起来。一个春天的傍晚，园中百花怒放，父母在园中设宴，一时宾客云集，笑语四溢。我在山坡的小屋里，悄悄掀起窗帘，窥见园中大千世界一片繁华，自己的哥姐、堂表弟兄也穿插其间，个个喜气洋洋。一霎时，一阵被人摒弃、为世所遗的悲愤兜上心头，禁不住痛哭起来。

How to Solve Research Problems?I. 【T1】______【T1】______— Problem: hard to devise a thesis or topic— Solutiona)Digest your notesb)【T2】_____ aspects of the subject that interest you【T2】______c)Read researches in the same aread)Change the chosen topic if necessarye)Start with something【T3】_____【T3】______II. False start— Problem: a well-begun project turns out to be【T4】_____【T4】______— Solution 1a)If time allows:【T5】_____【T5】______b)If not: make different use of the same material— Solution 2a)Choose a different【T6】_____ of the initial idea and material【T6】______b)Chop out parts and replace them with new materialIII. Getting bogged down— Problem: lost【T7】_____ in the subject【T7】______— Solutiona)Take a(n)【T8】_____【T8】______b)Use a different writing strategyc)Do it from a different angleIV. Changing your title or subject— Problem: repeated【T9】_____ end up in a completely different topic【T9】______— Solutiona)Know what you intend to dob)Think about the【T10】_____ of new evidence【T10】______c)Resist the temptation to make【T11】_____ changes【T11】______V.【T12】_____【T12】______— Causesa)An interesting discoveryb)【T13】_____【T13】______— Solutiona)Create a realistic timetable or a schedule of workb)【T14】_____【T14】______c)【T15】_____ a new cut-off date【T15】______

As quoted in Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom, what is wrong with being number two? Nevertheless, under the competitive conditions that many of us face, being number two is not, generally, the result of trying to come in second. The following is an article presenting comments of being number two. Read it carefully and write your response of NO LESS THAN 300 words, in which you should: 1. summarize briefly the author's opinion; 2. give your comment When we think about it honestly, trying to be "number one" in a competition is not so healthy for one's character. If I can only succeed by putting you down, doesn't that make me wish for you to fail, more than drive me to succeed? You have to wonder about professional sports leagues. Every team begins the season thinking and hoping that they will win the championship. Yet everyone knows that only one team will be smiling at the end of the season. Every other team will look back at the season as having been a failure. Why? Because we have created a society which preaches that if you are not the best, then you are not worth much. No one really believes the old sports saying, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." The other often-quoted saying is everyone's real philosophy, "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." We live in an environment that motivates through rivalry. And this is a tragedy. As E.R. Holman said, "The desire to win must be wedded to an ideal, an ethical way of life. It must never become so strong that it dwarfs every other aspect of the game of life." Even our schools have student-comparison charts on the bulletin board to determine who knows the material best. The focus has shifted from "who knows things well" to "who knows things best." If all I have to do to be successful is to beat you, it's a whole lot easier to cause you to do worse than me, rather than to get myself to do better than you. The result students will not push themselves to truly reach their personal maximum if all they have to do to flourish is defeat someone else. And what happens to the weaker students who know that they cannot actually win the competition? What is their drive to do their best? Does it really make sense to reward the brightest students more for easily winning than the slower ones who are doing their best? It is true that "The envy of scholars increases wisdom", but this does not mean we should compete with someone else. We are supposed to observe the accomplishments of those around us, learning from them in motivating ourselves to excel as best as we can. We don't rival others; we learn from their example. Yes, we should be competitive, but only with ourselves. If I ran the track in 10 minutes last week, let me try to run it in 9 minutes today. Winning does not have to mean defeating someone else. It can be accomplished by struggling against ourselves, trying to improve upon our personal past performance. We don't have to be Number One. We can be Number Two or even Seventy-three, as long as we are striving to attain personal greatness. May God grant us life and prosperity in both the spiritual and physical realms and may He guide us to become all that we can be.

Today, the outbreak of AIDS has given a new sense of urgency to sex education. However, whether to perform sex education in schools for students at a younger age is being given increasing importance. In the following excerpt, the journalist reports the current situation about sex education in the United States. Read the report carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should: 1. summarize briefly the author's opinion; 2. give your comment. Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks. The debate over whether to have sex education in American schools is over. A new poll by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government finds that only 7 percent of Americans say sex education should not be taught in schools. Moreover, in most places there is even little debate about what kind of sex education should be taught, although there are still pockets of controversy. Parents are generally content with whatever sex education is offered by their children's school, and public school principals, in a parallel NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School survey, report little serious conflict over sex education in their communities nowadays. Nearly three-quarters of the principals (74 percent) say there have been no recent discussions or debate in PTA, school board or other public meetings about what to teach in sex education. Likewise, few principals report being contacted by elected officials, religious leaders or other people in their communities about sex education. However, this does not mean that all Americans agree on what kind of sex education is best. There are major differences over the issue of abstinence. Fifteen percent of Americans believe that schools should teach only about abstinence from sexual intercourse and should not provide information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraception. A plurality (46 percent) believes that the most appropriate approach is one that might be called "abstinence-plus"—that while abstinence is best, some teens do not abstain, so schools also should teach about condoms and contraception. Thirty-six percent believe that abstinence is not the most important thing, and that sex education should focus on teaching teens how to make responsible decisions about sex.Advocates of abstinence have had some success. Federal funds are now being made available for abstinence programs; in his State of the Union address President Bush called for an increase in the funding. And in spite of the fact that only 15 percent of Americans say they want abstinence-only sex education in the schools, 30 percent of the principals of public middle schools and high schools where sex education is taught report that their schools teach abstinence-only. Forty-seven percent of their schools taught abstinence-plus, while 20 percent taught that making responsible decisions about sex was more important than abstinence. (Middle schools were more likely to teach abstinence-only than high schools. High schools were more likely than middle schools to teach abstinence-plus. High schools and middle schools were equally likely to teach that abstinence is not the most important thing. ) In many ways, abstinence-only education contrasts with the broad sex education curriculum that most Americans want—from the basics of how babies are made to how to put on a condom to how to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases. Some people thought that some topics were better suited for high school students than middle school students, or vice versa, but few thought any of the topics suggested were inappropriate at all. Write your response on ANSWER SHEET FOUR.