单选题Largely for "spiritual reasons", Nancy Manos started home-schooling her children five years ago and has studiously avoided public schools ever since. Yet last week, she was enthusiastically enrolling her 8-year-old daughter, Olivia, in sign language and modern dance classes at Eagleridge Enrichment—a program run by the Mesa, Ariz. , public schools and taught by district teachers. Manos still wants to handle the basics, but likes that Eagleridge offers the extras, "things I couldn't teach. " One doubt, though, lingers in her mind. why would the public school system want to offer home-school families anything? A big part of the answer is economics. The number of home-schooled kids nationwide has risen to as many as 1.9 million from an estimated 345,000 in 1994, and school districts that get state and local dollars per child are beginning to suffer. In Maricopa County, which includes Mesa, the number of home-schooled kids has more than doubled during that period to 7,526, at about $ 4,500 a child, that's nearly $ 34 million a year in lost revenue. Not everyone's happy with these innovations. Some states have taken the opposite tack. Like about half the states, West Virginia refuses to allow home-schooled kids to play public-school sports. And in Arizona, some complain that their tax dollars are being used to create programs for families who, essentially, eschew participation in public life. "That makes my teeth grit," says Daphne Atkeson, whose 10-year-old son attends public school in Paradise Valley. Even some committed home-schoolers question the new programs, given their central irony., they turn home-schoolers into public-school students, says Bob Parsons, president of the Alaska Private and Home Educators Association. "We've lost about one third of our members to those programs. They're so enticing. " Mesa started Eagleridge four years ago, when it saw how much money it was losing from home schoolers—and how unprepared some students were when they re-entered the schools. Since it began, the program's enrollment has nearly doubled to 397, and last year the district moved Eagleridge to a strip mall (between a pizza joint and a laser-tag arcade). Parents typically drop off their kids once a week; because most of the children qualify as quarter-time students, the district collects $ 911 per child. "It's like getting a taste of what real school is like," says 10-year-old Chad Lucas, who's learning computer animation and creative writing. Other school districts are also experimenting with novel ways to court home schoolers. The town of Galena, Alaska, (pop. 600) has just 178 students. But in 1997, its school administrators figured they could reach beyond their borders. Under the program, the district gives home-schooling families free computers and Internet service for correspondence classes. In return, the district gets $ 3,100 per student enrolled in the program—$ 9.6 million a year, which it has used partly for a new vocational school. Such alternatives just might appeal to other districts. Ernest Felty, head of Hardin County schools in southern Illinois, has 10 home-schooled pupils. That may not sound like much— except that he has a staff of 68, and at $ 4,500 a child, "that's probably a teacher's salary," Fehy says. With the right robotics or art class, though, he could take the home out of home schooling.

单选题Earthquake belts are ______.

单选题{{B}}Part A{{/B}}{{B}}Directions:{{/B}}Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B. C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. {{B}}Text 1{{/B}} In s perfectly free and open market economy, the type of employer—government or private should have little or no impact on the earnings differentials between women and men. However. if there is discrimination against one sex. it is unlikely that the degree of discrimination by government and private employers will be the same. Differences in the degree of discrimination would result in earnings differentials associated with the type of employer. Given the nature of government and private employers, it seems most likely that discrimination by private employers would be greater. Thus one would expect that. if women are being discriminated against, government employment would have a positive effect on women's earnings as compared with their earnings from private employment. The results of a study by Fuchs support this assumption. Fuchs's results suggest that the earnings of women in an industry composed entirely of government employees would be 14.6 percent greater than the earnings of women in an industry composed exclusively of private employees, other things being equal. In addition, both Fuchs and Sanborn have suggested that the effect of discrimination by consumers on the earnings of self-employed women may be greater than the effect of either government or private employer discrimination on the earnings of women employees. To test this hypothesis. Brown selected a large sample of White male and female workers from the 1970 Census and divided them into three categories: private employees, government employees, and self-employed. (Black workers were excluded from the sample to avoid picking up earnings differentials that were the result of racial disparities.) Brown's research design controlled for education, labor-force participation, mobility, motivation, and age in order to eliminate these factors as explanations of the study's results. Brown's results suggest that men and women are not treated the same by employers and consumers. For men, self-employment is the highest earnings category, with private employment next and government lowest. For women, this order is reversed. One can infer from Brown's results that consumers discriminate against self-employed women. In addition, self-employed women may have more difficulty than men in getting good employees and may encounter discrimination from suppliers and from financial institutions. Brown's results are clearly consistent with Fuchs's argument that discrimination by consumers has a greater impact on the earnings of women than does discrimination by either government or private employers. Also, the fact that women do better working for government than for private employers implies that private employers are discriminating against women. The results do not prove that government does not discriminate against women. They do, however, demonstrate that if government is discriminating against women, its discrimination is not having as much effect on women's earnings as is discrimination in the private sector.

单选题To which of the arguments does the author agree? ______.

单选题Which of the following does the "Labor market problems" refer to?

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} "WHAT'S the difference between God and Larry Ellison?" asks an old software industry joke. Answer: God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison. The boss of Oracle is hardly alone among corporate chiefs in having a reputation for being rather keen on himself. Indeed', until the bubble burst and the public turned nasty at the start of the decade, the cult of the celebrity chief executive seemed to demand bossly narcissism, as evidence that a firm was being led by an all-conquering hero. Narcissus met a nasty end, of course. And in recent years, boss-worship has come to be seen as bad for business. In his management bestseller, "Good to Great", Jim Collins argued that the truly successful bosses were not the serf-proclaimed stars who adorn the covers of Forbes and Fortune, but instead self-effacing, thoughtful, monkish sorts who lead by inspiring example. A statistical answer may be at hand. For the first time, a new study, "It's All About Me", to be presented next week at the annual gathering of the American Academy of Management, offers a systematic, empirical analysis of what effect narcissistic bosses have on the firms they run. The authors, Arijit Chatterjee and Donald Hambrick, of Pennsylvania State University, examined narcissism in the upper levels of 105 firms in the computer and software industries. To do this, they bad to solve a practical problem: studies of narcissism have hitherto relied on surveying individuals personally, something for which few chief executives are likely to have time or inclination. So the authors devised an index of narcissism using six publicly available indicators obtainable without the co-operation of the boss. These are: the prominence of the boss's photo in the annual report; his prominence in company press releases; the length of his "Who's Who" entry; the frequency of his use of the first person singular in interviews; and the ratios of his cash and non-cash compensation to those of the firm's second-highest paid executive. Narcissism naturally drives people to seek positions of power and influence, and because great self-esteem helps your professional advance, say the authors, chief executives will tend on average to be more narcissistic than the general population. How does that affect a firm? Messrs Chatterjee and Hambrick found that highly narcissistic bosses tended to make bigger changes in the use of important resources, such as research and development, or in spending and leverage; they carried out more and bigger mergers and acquisitions; and their results were both more extreme (more big wins or big losses) and more transient than those of firms run by their humbler peers. For shareholders, that could be good or bad. Although (oddly) the authors are keeping their narcissism ranking secret, they have revealed that Mr Ellison did not come top. Alas for him, that may be because the study limited itseff to people who became the boss after 1991--well after he took the helm. In every respect Mr Ellison seems to be the classic narcissistic boss, claims Mr Chatterjee. There is life in the old joke yet.

单选题 What's the world's greatest moral challenge, as judged by its capacity to inflict human tragedy? It is not, I think, global warming, whose effects—if they become as grim as predicted—will occur over many years and provide societies time to adapt. A case can be made for preventing nuclear proliferation, which threatens untold deaths and a collapse of the world economy. But the most urgent present moral challenge, I submit, is the most obvious: global poverty. The solution to being poor is getting rich. It's economic growth. We know this. The mystery is why all societies have not adopted the obvious remedies. Just recently, the 21-member Commission on Growth and Development examined the puzzle. Since 1950, the panel found, 13 economies have grown at an average annual rate of 7 percent for at least 25 years. The panel identified five common elements of success: Openness to global trade and, usually, an eagerness to attract foreign investment; political stability and "capable" governments "committed" to economic growth; high rates of saving and investment, usually at least 25 percent of national income; economic stability, keeping government budgets and inflation under control and avoiding a broad collapse in production; a willingness to "let markets allocate resources," meaning that governments didn't try to run industry. Of course, qualifications abound, still, broad lessons are clear. Globalization works. Countries don't get rich by staying isolated. Those that embrace trade and foreign investment acquire know-how and technologies, can buy advanced products abroad, and are forced to improve their competitiveness. The transmission of new ideas and products is faster than ever. There is a role for foreign aid, technical assistance and charity in relieving global poverty. But it is a small role. It can improve health, alleviate suffering from natural disasters or wars, and provide some types of skills. But it cannot single: handedly stimulate the policies and habits that foster self-sustaining growth. Japan and China have grown rapidly not because they received foreign aid but because they pursued pro-growth policies and embraced pro-growth values. The hard question is why all societies haven't adopted them. One reason is politics; some regimes are more interested in preserving their power and privileges than in promoting growth. But the larger answer, I think, is culture, as Lawrence Harrison of Tufts University argues. Traditional values, social systems or religious views are often hostile to risk-taking, wealth accumulation and economic growth. In his latest book, Harrison contends that politics can alter culture, hut it isn't easy. Globalization has moral as well as economic and political dimensions. The United States and other wealthy countries are experiencing an anti-globalization backlash. Americans and others are entitled to defend themselves from economic harm, but many of the allegations against globalization are wildly exaggerated. By making globalization an all-purpose scapegoat for economic complaints, many "progressives" are actually undermining the most powerful force for eradicating global poverty.

单选题 Nobody, it seems, wants to be left out of Argentina's current boom in television reality shows. After the success of local versions of "Big Brother" and "Survivor", a camera is now to be{{U}} (1) {{/U}}in the presidential palace, the Casa Rosada, to film everything (well, almost){{U}} (2) {{/U}}President Fernando de la Rua gets{{U}} (3) {{/U}}to. The results will be edited and{{U}} (4) {{/U}}several times a day,{{U}} (5) {{/U}}the state channel, Canal 7: thus dispell, it is{{U}} (6) {{/U}}, the notion that the president spends his time twiddling his thumbs to his economy minister, Domingo Cavallo, runs the country. This is a dangerous strategy. Mr. de la Rua's predecessor, Carlos Menem, was famous for his love of show business, even closing his 1995 presidential campaign{{U}} (7) {{/U}}an appearance on the hit show "Videomatch". In deliberate{{U}} (8) {{/U}}, before his election victory two years{{U}} (9) {{/U}}. Mr. de la Rua{{U}} (10) {{/U}}in television commercials that he was a very boring man. Audiences agree: his appearances last year on several leading talk{{U}} (11) {{/U}}made their ratings fall. Worse, when he decided to make his own appearance on "Videomatch" last December, a member of the audience blamed him and left him{{U}} (12) {{/U}}embarrassed. With a congressional election{{U}} (13) {{/U}}in October, opinion{{U}} (14) {{/U}}suggest that over three-quarters of Argentines{{U}} (15) {{/U}}dissatisfied with Mr. de la Rua. That, says his circle, is at least partly due to his{{U}} (16) {{/U}}portrayal by Freddy Villarreal, an impressionist on "Videomatch", and by leading newspaper cartoonists, such as Nik in La Naeion. Mr. de la Rua's team is apparently pressing the{{U}} (17) {{/U}}to be nicer. But it is unclear whether blanket{{U}} (18) {{/U}}will help the president win{{U}} (19) {{/U}}viewers, or whether they will vote that Fernando should{{U}} (20) {{/U}}the house in 2003

单选题The first great cliche of the Internet was, "Information wants to be free." The notion was that no one should have to pay for "content" words and pictures and stuff like that and, in the friction-free world of cyberspace, no one would have to. The reigning notion today is that the laws of economics are not, after all, suspended in cyberspace like the laws of gravity in outer space. Content needs to be paid for on the Web just as in any other medium. And it probably has to be paid for the same way most other things are paid for. by the people who use it. We tried charging the customers at Slate. It didn't work. Future experiments may be more successful. But meanwhile, let's look again at this notion that in every medium except the Internet, people pay for the content they consume. It's not really true. TV is the most obvious case. A few weeks ago a producer from "Nightline" contacted Slate while researching a possible show on the crisis of content on the Internet. He wanted to know how on earth we could ever be a going business if we gave away our content for free. I asked how many people pay to watch "Nightline". Answer. none. People pay for their cable or satellite transmission, and they pay for content on HBO, but "Nightline" and other broadcast programs thrive without a penny directly from viewers. There are plenty of differences, of course, and the ability of Web sites to support themselves on advertising is unproven. But "Nightline" itself disproves the notion that giving away content is suicidal. Now, look at magazines. The money that magazine subscribers pay often doesn't even cover the cost of persuading them to subscribe. A glossy monthly will happily send out $ 20 of junk mail--sometimes far more to find one subscriber who will pay $12 or $15 for a yearly subscription. Why? Partly in the hope that she or he will renew again and again until these costs are covered. But for many magazines including profitable ones--the average subscriber never pays back the cost of finding, signing and keeping him or her. The magazines need these subscribers in order to sell advertising. Most leading print magazines would happily send you their product for free, if they had any way of knowing (and proving to advertisers) that you read it. Advertisers figure, reasonably, that folks who pay for a magazine are more likely to read it, and maybe see their ad, than those who don't. So magazines make you pay, even if it costs them more than they get from you. This madcap logic doesn't apply on the Internet, where advertisers pay only for ads that have definitely appeared in front of someone's "eyeballs". They can even know exactly how many people have clicked on their ads. So far advertisers have been insufficiently grateful for this advantage. But whether they come around or not, there will never be a need on the Internet to make you pay just to prove that you're willing. So maybe the Internet's first great cliche had it exactly backward: Information has been free all along. It's the Internet that wants to enslave it.

单选题The ruling of America's Supreme Court

单选题The word" arbiters" (Line 6,Paragraph 4) most probably refers to those______.A. who work as coordinators B. who function as JudgesC. who supervise transactions D. who determine the price

单选题 Do patents help or hinder innovation? Instinctively, they would seem a blessing. Patenting an idea gives its inventor a 20-year monopoly to exploit the fruit of his labor in the marketplace, in exchange for publishing a full account of how the new product, process or material works for everyone to see. For the inventor, that may be a reasonable trade-off. For society, however, the loss of competition through the granting sole tights to an individual or organization is justified only if it stimulates the economy and delivers goods that change people's lives for the better. Invention, though, is not innovation. It may take a couple of enthusiasts working evenings and weekends for a year or two-not to mention tens of thousands of dollars of their savings-to get a pet idea to the patenting stage. But that is just the beginning. Innovations based on patented inventions or discoveries can take teams of researchers, engineers and marketing experts a decade or more, and tens of millions of dollars, to transfer to the marketplace. And for every bright idea that goes on to become a commercial winner, literally thousands {{U}}fall by the wayside{{/U}}. Most economists would argue that, without a patent system, even fewer inventions would lead to successful innovations, and those that did would be kept secret for far longer in order to maximize returns. But what if patents actually discourage the combining and recombining of inventions to yield new products and processes-as has happened in biotechnology, genetics and other disciplines? Or what about those ridiculous business-process patents, like Amazon.com's "one-click" patent or the "name-your-price" auction patent assigned to Priceline.com? Instead of stimulating innovation, such patents seem more about extracting "rents" from innocent bystanders going about their business. One thing has become clear since business-process patents took off in America during the 1990s: the quality of patents has deteriorated markedly. And with sloppier patenting standards, litigation has increased. The result is higher transaction costs all ronnd. It is not simply a failure of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to examine applications more rigorously. The Federal Circuit has been responsible for a number of bizarre rulings. Because of its diverse responsibilities, the Federal Circuit-unlike its counterparts in Europe and Japan-has never really acquired adequate expertise in patent law. To be eligible for a patent, an invention must not just be novel, but also useful and non-obvious. Anything that relies on natural phenomena, abstract ideas or the laws of nature does not qualify. The USPTO has taken to requiring a working prototype of anything that supposedly breaches the laws of physics. So, no more perpetual-motion machines, please.

单选题The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that, on average, each person in the United States throws out about 328 pounds of edible food each year. Food bought with the best (1) sits for weeks on end as busy consumers (2) it in the refrigerator and forget about it. And when it seems time to either eat it or (3) it, most people (4) the freshness dates (a.k.a. 'use by', 'sell by', and 'best if used by') printed on the packages. But, these dates don't really (5) food safety, nor do they mean (6) food is always bad. Poultry, seafood, and ground meats such as hamburger, have the shortest (7) lives. They should be (8) within two days of (9) if stored in the refrigerator. They last (10) six months in the freezer. Steak, beef, (11) , and other fresh-cut meats last a little longer—three to five days in the refrigerator and six months in the freezer. The date (12) on milk products is set by the dairy. Most of the dates on dairy products are totally driven by (13) —not necessarily spoilage. In general, milk lasts five to seven days after the (14) date. Eggs generally have long shelf lives—three to five weeks from the time you take them home. Don't (15) your eggs just because they're past the expiration date; (16) one open first. If it still smells and looks good, (17) . When you cook them, make sure you do so thoroughly. About (18) every 10, 000 eggs contains salmonella bacteria. Thorough cooking (19) salmonella. Once cooked, a boiled, (20) egg will last a week.

单选题 Forget Iraq and budget deficits. The most serious political problem on both sides of the Atlantic is none of these. It is a difficulty that has dogged the ruling classes for millennia. It is the servant problem. In Britain David Blunkett, the home secretary, has resigned over an embarrassment ( or one of many embarrassments, in a story involving his ex-girlfriend, her husband, two pregnancies and some DNA) concerning a visa for a Filipina nanny employed by his mistress. His office speeded it through for reasons unconnected to the national shortage of un skilled labour. Mr Blunkett resigned ahead of a report by Sir Alan Budd, an economist who is investigating the matter at the government' s request. In America Bernard Kerik, the president' s nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, withdrew last week because he had carelessly employed a Mexican nanny whose Play-Doh skills were in better order than her paperwork. Mr Kerik also remembered that he hadn' t paid her taxes. The nominee has one or two other "issues" ( an arrest warrant in 1998, and allegations of dodgy business dealings and extra-marital affairs). But employing an illegal nanny would probably have been enough to undo him, as it has several other cabinet and judicial appointees in recent years. There is an easy answer to the servant problem--obvious to economists, if not to the less clear-sighted. Perhaps Sir Alan, a dismal scientist of impeccable rationality, will be thoughtful enough to point it out in his report. Parents are not the only people who have difficulty getting visas for workers. All employers face restrictive immigration policies which raise labour costs. Some may respond by trying to fiddle the immigration system, but most deal with the matter by exporting jobs. In the age of the global economy, the solution to the servant problem is simple: rather than importing the nanny, offshore the children.