单选题 A child who has once been pleased with a tale likes, as a rule to have it retold in identically the same words, but this should not lead parents to treat printed fairy stories as sacred texts. It is always much better to tell a story than read it out of a book, and , if a parent can produce what in the actual circumstances of the time and the individual child, it is an improvement on the printed text, so much the better. A charge made against fairy tales is that they harm the child by frightening him or arousing his sadistic impulses. To prove the latter, one would have to show in a controlled experiment that children who have read fairy stories were more often guilty of cruelty than those who had not. Aggressive, destructive, sadistic impulses every child has and, on the whole their symbolic verbal discharge seems to be rather a safety valve than an incitement to overt action. As to fears, there are, I think, well-authenticated cases of children being dangerously terrified by some fairy story. Very often fear arises from the child who has heard the story only once. Familiarity with the story by repetition turns the pain of fear into the pleasure of a fear faced and mastered. There are also people who object to fairy stories on the grounds that they are not objectively tree, that giants, witches two-headed dragons, magic carpets, etc., do not exist, and that, instead of indulging his fantasies in fairy tales, the child should be taught how to adapt to reality by studying history and mechanics. I find such people. I must confess that they are so unsympathetic and peculiar that I do not know how to argue with them. If their case were sound, the world should be full of madmen attempting to fly from New York to Philadelphia on a broomstick or coveting a telephone with kisses in the belief that it was their enchanted girl-friend. No fairy, story ever claimed to be a description of the external world and no sane child has ever believed that it was.

单选题{{B}}Passage 1{{/B}} In the 1920s demand for American farm products fell, as European countries began to recover from World War I and instituted austerity (紧缩) programs to reduce their imports. The result was a sharp drop in farm prices. This period was more disastrous for farmers than earlier times had been, because farmers were no longer self-sufficient. They were paying for machinery, seed, and fertilizer, and they were also buying consumer goods. The prices of the items farmers bought remained constant, while prices they received for their products fell. These developments were made worse by the Great Depression, which began in 1929 and extended throughout the 1939s. In 1929, under President Herbert Hoover, the Federal Farm Board was organized. It established the principle of direct interference with supply and demand, and it represented the first national commitment to provide greater economic stability for farmers. President Hoover's successor attached even more importance to this problem. One of the first measures proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he took office in 1933 was the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which was subsequently passed by Congress. This law gave the Secretary of Agriculture the power to reduce production through voluntary agreements with farmers who were paid to take their land out of use. A deliberate scarcity of farm products was planned in an effort to raise prices. This law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the grounds that general taxes were being collected to pay one special group of people. However, new laws were passed immediately that achieved the same result of resting soil and providing flood-control measures, but which were based on the principle of soil conservation. The Roosevelt Administration believed that rebuilding the nation's soil was in the national interest and was not simply a plan to help farmers at the expense of other citizens. Later the government guaranteed loans to farmers so that they could buy farm machinery, hybrid (杂交) grain, and fertilizers.

单选题The hotels are full, Japanese tourists throng the designer stores of Waikiki, and the unemployment rate is a mere 3% of the workforce. So what could possibly knock Hawaii, the "aloha" or "welcome" state, off its wave? The answer is that Hawaii's 1.2million residents may one day get fed up with playing host to overseas visitors, 7million of them this year. Indeed, some residents are already fed up. KAHEA, an alliance of environmentalists and defenders of native Hawaiian culture, bemoans the pollution caused by the cruise ships and the risk posed by the tourist hordes to creatures such as the dark-rumped petrel and the Oahu tree snail, or to plants like the Marsilea villosa fern. KAHEA has a point, the US Fish ＆ Wildlife Service currently lists some 317 species, including 273 plants, in the Hawaiian islands as threatened or endangered--the highest number of any state in the nation. Even the state flower, the hibiscus brackenridgei, is on the danger list. The loss of species, says one government report, has been "staggering". As for the impact of tourism on Hawaiian culture, a KAHEA spokeswoman wryly notes the element of exploitation: "Native Hawaiian culture is used as a selling point—come to this paradise where beautiful women are doing the hula on your dinner plate. " So what else is new? Hawaii's environment and culture have been under threat ever since Captain Cook and his germ-carrying sailors dropped anchor in 1778. Foreign imports have inevitably had an impact on species that evolved over the millennia in isolation. Moreover, with up to 25 non-native species arriving each year, the impact will continue. But, as the US Geological Survey argues, the impact can add to biodiversity as well as lessen it. The real challenge, therefore, is for Hawaii to find a balance between the costs and the benefits of development in general and tourism in particular. The benefits are not to be sneezed at. The state's unemployment rate has been below the national average for the past two-and-a-half years. Economists at the University of Hawaii reckon that Hawaiians' real personal income rose by 2.8% last year, will rise by 2.7% this year and will continue through 2007 at 2.5%. According to the state's "strategic plan" for the next decade, tourism should take much of the credit, accounting directly and indirectly for some 22% of the state's jobs by 2007, more than 17% of its economic output and around 26% of its tax revenues. The trouble is that the costs can be high, too. As one economist puts it, "We have a Manhattan cost of living and Peoria wage rates. " That translates into a median house price today on the island of Oahu, home to three-quarters of the state's population, of $ 500, 000, and a need for many workers to take on more than one job.

单选题Why were the couple frustrated?

单选题As put by the author, most of the work that most people have to do is ______.

单选题The Carnegie Foundation report says that many colleges have tried to be "all things to all people". In doing so, they have increasingly catered to a narrow-minded careerism while failing to cultivate a global vision among their students. The current crisis, it contends, does not derive from a legitimate desire to put learning to productive ends. The problem is that in too many academic fields, the work has no context; skills, rather than being means, have become ends. Students are offered a variety of options and allowed to pick their way to a degree. In short, driven by careerism, "the nation's colleges and universities are more successful in providing credentials than in providing a quality education for their students." The report concludes that the special challenge confronting the undergraduate college is one of shaping an "integrated core" of common learning. Such a core would introduce students "to essential knowledge, to connections across the disciplines, and in the end, to application of knowledge, to life beyond the campus". Although the key to a good college is a high-quality faculty, the Carnegie study found that most colleges do very little to encourage good teaching. In fact, they do much to undermine it. As one professor observed: "Teaching is important, we are told, and yet faculty know that research and publication matter most." Not surprisingly, over the last twenty years colleges and universities have failed to graduate half of their four-year degree candidates. Faculty members who dedicate themselves to teaching soon discover that they will not be granted tenure, promotion, or substantial salary increases. Yet 70 percent of all faculty say their interests lie more in teaching than in research. Additionally, a frequent complaint among young scholars is that "there is pressure to publish, although there is virtually no interest among administrators or colleagues in the content of the publications./

单选题If you see a diamond ring on the fourth finger of a woman's left hand, you probably know what it means: in America, this has long been the digit of choice for betrothal jewelry, and the lore of the trade traces the symbolism back to ancient times. But if you see a diamond ring on the fourth finger of a woman's right hand, you may or may not know that it signifies an independent spirit, or even economic empowerment and changing gender mores. "A lot of women have disposable income , "Katie Couric said recently on the "Today" show after showing viewers her Chanel right-hander. "Why wait for a man to give her a diamond ring?" This notion may be traced back, approximately, to September. That's when the Diamond Information Center began a huge marketing campaign aimed at articulating the meaning of righthand rings — and thus a rationale for buying them. "Your left hand says 'we, '" the campaign declares. "Your right hand says'me. ' " The positioning is brilliant: the wearer may be married or unmarried and may buy the ring herself or request it as a gift. And while it can take years for a new jewelry concept to work itself thoroughly into the mainstream, the right-hand ring already has momentum. At the higher end of the scale, the jewelry maker Kwiat, which supplies stores like Saks, offers a line of Kwiat Spirit Rings that can retail for as much as $ 5,000, and "we're selling it faster than we're manufacturing it," says Bill Gould, the company's chief of- marketing. At the other end of the scale, mass-oriented retailers that often take a wait-and-see attitude have already jumped on the bandwagon. Firms like Kwiat were given what Gould calls "direction" from the Diamond Information Center about the new ring's attributes — multiple diamonds in a north-south orientation that distinguishes it from the look of an engagement ring, and so on. But all this is secondary to the newly minted meaning. "The idea," Morrison says, "is that beyond a trend, this could become a sort of cultural imperative. " A tall order? Well, bear in mind that "a diamond is forever" is not a saying handed down from imperial Rome. It was handed down from an earlier generation of De Beers marketers. Joyce Jonas, a jewelry appraiser and historian, notes that De Beers, in the 40' s and 50's, took advantage of a changing American class structure to turn diamond rings into a(n) (attainable) symbol for the masses. By now, Jonas observes, the stone alone "is just a commodity. "And this, of course, is what makes its invented significance more crucial than ever.

单选题Questions 11～13 are based on a conversation between two college classmates, You now have 15 seconds to read Questions 11～13.

单选题 Questions 17—20 are based on the following talk on booking tickets. You now have 15 seconds to read questions 17—20.

单选题The word "proven" (Line 4, Para. 1) is closest in meaning to which of the following?

单选题 Methods of studying vary; what works {{U}}(21) {{/U}} for some students doesn't work at all for others. The only thing you can do is experiment {{U}}(22) {{/U}} you find a system that does work for you. But two things are sure: {{U}}(23) {{/U}} else can do your studying for you, and unless you do find a system that works, you won't go through college. Meantime, there are a few rules that {{U}}(24) {{/U}} for everybody. The hint is "don't get {{U}}(25) {{/U}} ". The problem of studying, {{U}}(26) {{/U}} enough to start with, becomes almost {{U}}(27) {{/U}} when you are trying to do {{U}}(28) {{/U}} in one weekend. {{U}}(29) {{/U}} the fastest readers have trouble {{U}}(30) {{/U}} that. And ff you are behind in written work that must be {{U}}(31) {{/U}} , the teacher who accepts it {{U}}(32) {{/U}} late will probably not give you good credit. Perhaps he may not accept it {{U}}(33) {{/U}} . Getting behind in one class because you are spending so much time on another is really no {{U}}(34) {{/U}} . Feeling pretty virtuous about the seven hours you spend on chemistry won't {{U}}(35) {{/U}} one bit if the history teacher pops a quiz. And many freshmen do get into trouble by spending too much time on one class at the {{U}}(36) {{/U}} of the others, either because they like one class much better or because they find it so much harder that they think, they should {{U}}(37) {{/U}} all their time to it. {{U}}(38) {{/U}} the reason, going the whole work for one class and neglecting the rest of them is a mistake, if you face this {{U}}(39) {{/U}} , begin with the shortest and easiest {{U}}(40) {{/U}} . Get them out of the way and then go to the more difficult, time consuming work.

单选题Questions 11—13 are based on the following passage. You now have 15 seconds to read Questions 11—13.

单选题Our public debates often fly off into the wild blue yonder of fantasy. So it's been with the Federal Communications Commission's new media-ownership rules. We're told that, unless the FCC's decision is reversed, it will worsen the menacing concentration of media power and that this will--to exaggerate only slightly--imperil free speech, the diversity of opinion and perhaps democracy itself. All this is more than overwrought; it completely misrepresents reality. In the past 30 years, media power has splintered dramatically; people have more choices than ever. Travel back to 1970. There were only three major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC); now, there's a fourth (Fox). Then, there was virtually no cable TV; now, 68 percent of households have it. Then, FM radio was a backwater; now there are 5, 892 FM stations, up from 2, 196 in 1970. Then, there was only one national newspaper (The Wall Street Journal); now, there are two more (USA Today and The New York Times). The idea that "big media" has dangerously increased its control over our choices is absurd. Yet much of the public, including journalists and politicians, believe religiously in this myth. They confuse size with power. It's true that some gigantic media companies are gettingeven bigger at the expense of other media companies. But it's not true that their power is increasing at the public's expense. Popular hostility toward big media stems partly from the growing competition, which creates winners and losers--and losers complain. Liberals don't like the conservative talk shows, but younger viewers do. A June poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that viewers from the ages of 18 to 29 approved of "hosts with strong opinions" by a 58 percent to 32 percent margin. Social conservatives despise what one recently called "the raw sewage, ultrawiolence, graphic sex and raunchy languages of TV. But many viewers love it. Journalists detest the cost and profit pressures that result from stiff competition with other news and entertainment outlets. It's the tyranny of the market: a triumph of popular tastes. Big media companies try to anticipate, shape and profit from these tastes. But media diversity frustrates any one company from imposing its views and values on an unwilling audience. People just click to another channel or cancel their subscription. The paradox is this:the explosion of choices means that almost everyone may be offended by something. A lot of this free-floating hostility has attached itself to the FCC ownership rules. The backlash is easily exaggerated. In the Pew poll, 51 percent of respondents knew "nothing" of the rhles; an additional 36 percent knew only "a little". The rules would permit any company to own television stations in areas with 45 percent of U. S. households, up from 35 percent now. The networks could buy more of their affiliate stations-a step that, critics say, would jeopardize "local" control and content. At best, that's questionable. Network programs already fill most of affiliates' hours. To keep local audiences, any owner must satisfy local demands, especially for news and weather programming. But the symbolic backlash against the FCC and big media does pose one hidden danger. For some U. S. households, over-the-air broadcasting is the only TV available, and its long term survival is hardly ensured. Both cable and the Internet are eroding its audience. In 2002 cable programming had more prime-time viewers than broadcast programming for the first time (48 percent vs. 46 percent). Streaming video, now primitive, will improve; sooner or later--certainly in the next 10 or 15 years-many Web sites will be TV channels. If overthe-air broadcasting declines or disappears, the big losers will be the poor. Broadcast TV will survive and flourish only if the networks remain profitable enough to bid for and provide competitive entertainment, sports and news programming. The industry's structure must give them a long-term stake in over-the air broadcasting. Owning more TV stations is one possibility. If Congress prevents that, it may perversely hurt the very diversity and the people that it's trying to protect.

单选题Which of the following words can replace the word "as" in the second paragraph?

单选题A physician with medical license