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}} Few insects have inspired as much fear and hatred as the diminutive fire ants, less than half an inch long but living in colonies of more than 250,000 others. Everyone in the southern United States gets to know fire ants sooner or later by painful experience. Fire ants live in large earthen mounds and are true social insects—that means they have a caste system (division of labor), with a specialized caste that lays eggs (queen) and a worker caste of sterile females. There are several reasons that they are considered pests. About 60% of people living in areas where fire ants occur are stung every year. Of these, about 1% have some degree of allergic reaction (called anaphylaxis) to the sting. Their large mounds are unsightly and can damage mowing equipment. Fire ants sometimes enter electrical and mechanical equipment and can short out switches or chew through insulation. Finally, as fire ants move into new areas, they reduce diversity of native ants and prey on larger animals such as ground-nesting birds and turtles. Even though fire ants are pests in many circumstances, they can actually be beneficial in others. There is evidence that their predatory activities can reduce the numbers of some other important pests. In cotton, for example, they prey on important pests that eat cotton plants such as bollworms and budworms. In Louisiana sugarcane, an insect called the sugar-cane borer used to be a very important pest before fire ants arrived and began preying on it. Fire ants also prey on ticks and fleas. Whether fire ants are considered pest or not depend on where they are found, but one thing is sure—we had best get used to living with them. Eradication attempts in the 1960s and 1970s failed for a number of reasons, and scientists generally agree that complete elimination of fire ants from the United States is not possible. A new, long-term approach to reducing fire ant populations involves classical biological control. When fire ants were accidentally brought to the United States, most of their parasites and diseases were not. Classical biological control involves identifying parasites and diseases specific to fire ants in South America, testing them to be sure that they don' t attack or infect native plants or animals, and establishing them in the introduced fire ant population in the United States. Since fire ants are about 5 to 7 times more abundant here than in South America, scientists hope to re-duce their numbers using this approach.

单选题The DNA designed by Evan's technology differs strikingly from that synthesized by existing technology in that the former is characterized by its

单选题School authorities often refuse to face the problem of drug-abuse; government drug-abuse agencies have done too little to inform the public about it; many physicians still seem unaware of it when they examine teenagers. As a result, parents may still be the last to know that their children have fallen victim to the drug epidemic that has been raging for more than a decade among American's youth. In a survey of a middle-income Cincinnati suburb, 38 percent of the sixth grade and 89 percent of the senior class said they used drug and alcohol; 48 percent of the parents thought their children used alcohol, but only 8 percent thought their children used drug. Fortunately, there is a new force at work against this epidemic—a nationwide movement of more than 400 parent groups formed to expose and battle drug use among teenagers and preteens. The groups have different approaches and widely varying rates of success. Yet this parental crusade is the only major force in the country to have taken active, organized and effective steps aimed at stopping marijuana use. Why the concentration on marijuana? Marijuana is the illegal drug most used by kids. According to a National High School Survey, 44 percent of U. S. high school seniors had smoked pot during their school years, and one out of seven of these were daily or near daily smokers. There was a close-related connection between pot smoking and subsequent use of cocaine and heroin by young men. Of those who had smoked pot fewer than 100 times, seven percent had graduated to cocaine, four percent to heroin. But of those who had smoked pot at least 1,000 times, 73 percent had gone on to cocaine, and one out of three had graduated to heroin. Parent groups have found that by stopping their kids from smoking pot, they almost automatically stop all other illegal drugs, and cut down on alcohol use as well. The High School Senior Survey's statistics show that heavy pot smokers tend to be heavy drinkers, while those who do not use pot tend not to drink heavily. Since virtually all over the country teenage " partying " has come to mean " getting smashed and getting stoned " on anything from pot to pills to hashish, LSD, and alcohol, some parent groups home in on the partying aspect. Parents Who Care (PWC) was started in 1979 by 15 Palo Alto, Calif., parents who were upset by stories of serious drug problems at parties. They held talk sessions with their children and learned that most of their children had never been to a party where the main activity was not getting high. The parents' solution: workshops showing kids how to give successful drug-and-alcohol-free parties. Says Margery Ranch, PWC director, " We've seen a change in attitude. Young people are feeling more comfortable saying no. /

单选题We can conclude from the second paragraph that in Ron Van Horssen's club

单选题Bold faced, with a hyphen and ending in the adjectival -ed, was coined by Shake speare in Henry VI, Part I, when Lord Talbot, rescuing his son on a French battlefield, spoke of his "proud desire of bold-faced Victorie". It was picked up in the 19th century by typesetters to describe a type-like Clarendon, Antique or a thick version of Bodoni--that stood out confidently, even impudently, from the page. The adjective was used in an 1880 article in The New York Times (we were hyphenated then): "One of the handbills" distributed by the Ku Klux Klan, noted, a disapproving reporter, was "printed in bold-faced type on yellow paper". Newspaper gossip columnists in the 30's, to catch the reader's eye, began using this bold type for the names that made news in what was then called "cafe society" (in contrast to "high" society, whose members claimed to prefer to stay out of those columns). In our time, the typeface metaphor was applied to a set of famous human faces. A fashion reporter--John Duka of The Times--was an early user of the phrase, as he wrote acerbically on Sept. 22, 1981: "At the overheated parties at Calvin Klein's apartment, Saks Fifth Avenue, Bergdorf Goodman and Studio 54, the bold-faced names said the week had been so crammed that they were feeling a little under the breath, you know. " Rita Kempley of The Washington Post noted in 1987 the sought-after status of "a bold-faced name in People magazine"; by 1999, Alan Peppard of The Dallas Morning News recalled to Texas Monthly that he began with a "social column", but "now we live in an age of celebrity, and there are very few people who care about what the debutantes are doing. So I call it celebrity, society, famous people, rich people, bold-faced names". The New York Times, which never had, does not have and is grimly determined never to have a "gossip column", introduced a "people column" in 2001. (When its current editor, Joyce Wadler, took a six-week break recently, she subheaded that item with a self-mocking "Air Kiss! Smooch! Ciao!") The column covers the doings of celebrities, media biggies, fashion plates, show-biz stars, haut monde notables, perennial personages and others famous for their fame. Its confident, fashionable and modern moniker became the driving force behind the recent popularization of the phrase with the former compound adjective, now an attributive noun: Bold-faced Names.

单选题According to the passage, a rebound in chip sales depends on______.

单选题The significance of open space and 'wild places lies in that

单选题The word "bullish" (Paragraph 1) is closest in meaning to

单选题Sometimes it's just hard to choose. You're in a restaurant and the waiter has his pen at the ready. As you hesitate, he gradually begins to take a close interest in the ceiling, his fingernails, then in your dining partner. Each dish on the menu becomes a blur as you roll your eyes up and down in a growing panic. Finally, you desperately opt for something that turns out to be what you hate. It seems that we need devices to protect us from our hopelessness at deciding between 57 barely differentiated varieties of stuff-be they TV channels, gourmet coffee, downloadable ring tones, or perhaps, ultimately even interchangeable lovers. This thought is opposed to our government's philosophy, which suggests that greater choice over railways, electricity suppliers and education will make us happy. In my experience, they do anything but. Perhaps the happiest people are those who do not have much choice and aren't confronted by the misery of endless choice. True, that misery may not be obvious to people who don't have a variety of luxuries. If you live in Madagascar, say, where average life expectancy is below 40 and they don't have digital TV or Starbucks, you might not be impressed by the anxiety and perpetual stress our decision-making paralysis causes. Choice wasn't supposed to make people miserable. It was supposed to be the hallmark of self-determination that we so cherish in modem society. But it obviously isn't: ever more choice increases the feeling of missed opportunities, and this leads to self-blame when choices fail to meet expectations. What is to be done? A new book by an American social scientist, Barry Schwartz, called The Paradox of Choice, suggests that reducing choices can limit anxiety. Schwartz offers a self-help guide to good decision-making that helps us to limit our choices to a manageable number, and ultimately derive greater satisfaction from the choices we make. But once you realize that your Schwartzian filters are depriving you of something you might have found enjoyable, you will experience the same anxiety as before, worrying that you made the wrong decision in drawing up your choice-limiting filters. Arguably, we will always be doomed to buyers' remorse and the misery it entails. The problem of choice is perhaps more difficult than Schwartz allows.

单选题Could money cure sick health-care systems in Britain, which will be the place to look for proof in 2003. The National Health Service (NHS), which offers free health care financed by taxes, is receiving an emergency no-expense-spared injection of cash. By 2007, total health spending in Britain will reach over 9 % of GDP——the same share France had when it was rated the world's best health service by the World Health Organization in 2000. The Labor government's response was not to conduct a fundamental review about how best to reform health care for the 21st century. Rather, it concluded that shortage of money, not the form of financing or provision, was the main problem. In 2002, Gordon Brown, the powerful chancellor of the exchequer, used a review of the NHS'S future financing requirements to reject alternative funding models that would allow patients to sign up with competing insurers and so exercise greater control over their own health care. Alan Milburn, the health minister, has made some tentative steps back towards the internal market introduced by the Conservative government. It means that a dozen top-ranking hospitals will also have been given greater freedom to run their own affairs. However, these reforms will not deliver real consumer power to patients. As a result, the return on the money pouring into the NHS looks set to be disappointingly meager. Already there are worrying signs that much of the cash cascade will be soaked up in higher pay and shorter hours for staff and bear little relation to extra effort, productivity and quality. Some improvements will occur but far less than might be expected from such a financial windfall. Health-care systems in the developed world share a common history, argues David Cutler at Harvard University. First governments founded generous universal systems after the second world war. With few controls over the demand for medical care or its supply, costs then spiraled up. Starting in the 1980s there was a drive to contain expenditure, often through crude constraints on medical budgets which ran counter to rising patient expectations. Now this strategy has run its course: a third wave of reforms is under way to increase efficiency and restrain demand through cost-sharing between insurers and patients. Viewed from this perspective, the government's plan to shower cash on a largely unreformed NHS looks anomalous. But before more fundamental change can be contemplated in Britain, the old system must be shown to be incapable of cure through money. This harsh lesson is likely to be learnt as early as 2003.

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}} About three-quarters of Americans, according to surveys, think the country is on the wrong track. About two-thirds of the public disapprove of the job performance of President Bush, and an even higher number disdain Congress. The media are excited about the prospect of a wealthy businessman running for President as an independent who could tap into broad public disgruntlement with the partisan politicians in Washington. 2007? Yes. But also 1992. The main difference between the two situations is that Michael Bloomberg is richer—and saner—than Ross Perot. But one similarity might be this: the American people were wrong then and may be wrong now. The widespread pessimism in the early 1990s about the course of the country turned out to be unwarranted. The rest of the decade featured impressive economic growth, a falling crime rate, successful reform of the welfare system and a reasonably peaceful world. Perhaps the problems weren't so bad in the first place, or perhaps the political system produced politicians, like Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, who were able to deal with the problems. But, in any case, the country got back on course. That's not to say all was well in the 1990s, especially in foreign policy. Responsibilities in places ranging from Bosnia to Rwanda to Afghanistan were shirked, and gathering dangers weren't dealt with. Still, the sour complaints and dire predictions of 1992—oh, my God, the budget deficit will do us in! —were quickly overtaken by events. What' s more, the fear of many conservatives that we might be at the mercy of unstoppable forces of social disintegration turned out to be wrong. Indeed, the dire predictions were rendered obsolete so quickly that one wonders whether we were, in 1992, really just indulging in some kind of post-cold-war victory. Sometimes the public mood is…well, moody. Today we're moody again. We are obviously fighting a difficult and, until recently, badly managed war in Iraq, whose outcome is uncertain. This accounts for much of the pessimism. It also doesn't help that the political system seems incapable of dealing with big problems like immigration, an energy policy and health care. Still, is the general feeling that everything is going to the dogs any more justified today than it was 15 years ago? Not really. Think of it this way: Have events in general gone better or worse than most people would have predicted on Sept. 12, 2001? There's been no successful second attack here ill the U. S. —and very limited terrorist successes in Europe or even in the Middle East. We've had 5 1/2 years of robust economic growth, low unemployment and a stock-market recovery. Social indicators in the U. S. are mostly stable or improving—abortions, teenage births and teenage drug use are down and education scores are up a bit. As for American foreign policy since 9/11, it has not produced the results some of us hoped for, and there are many legitimate criticisms of the Bush Administration's performance. But, in fact, despite the gloom and doom from critics left and right (including, occasionally, me), the world seems to present the usual mixed bag of difficult problems and heartening developments. The key question, of course, is the fate of Iraq. A decent outcome—the defeat of al-Qaeda in what it has made the central front in the war on terrorism and enough security so there can be peaceful rule by a representative regime—seems to me achievable, if we don' t lose our nerve here at home. With success in Iraq, progress elsewhere in the Middle East will be easier. The balance sheet is uncertain. But it is by no means necessarily grim.

单选题Some drug makers pay key leaders in a field of medicine, such as chairs of departments in medical schools, tens of thousands of dollars if they are saying the right things about their product. They manipulate medical education sessions, lectures, articles in medical journals, research studies, even personal conversations between physicians to get their product message across. Now a huge collection of drug company internal documents--revealed as part of a lawsuit--offers a wealth of detail. In 1996, Dr. David Franklin, an employee of the drug company Parke-Davis, filed the lawsuit under federal whistleblower statutes alleging that the company was illegally promoting a drug called Neurontin for so called "off-label" uses. Under federal law, once the FDA approves a drug, a doctor can prescribe it for anything. But the law specifically prohibits the drug company from promoting the drug for any unapproved uses. In 2004, the company, by then a division of Pfizer admitted guilt and agreed to pay $ 430 million in criminal and civil liability related to promoting the drug for off- label use. Spokespeople for Pfizer say that any wrong doing occurred before Pfizer acquired the company. But Pfizer fought hard to keep all the papers related to the suit under seal. A judge denied the request and they are now part of the Drug Industry Document Archive at the University of California, San Francisco. What is most interesting is not the illegal actions they reveal, but the details of activities that are perfectly legal. And according to people familiar with the industry, the methods detailed in these company memos are routine. One tactic identifies certain doctors as " thought leaders,"--those whose opinions influence the prescribing pattern of other doctors. Those whose views converge with the company goals are then showered with rewards, research and educational grants. In the Parke-Davis case 14 such big shots got between $10,250 and $158,250 between 1993 and 1997. "Medical education drives this market," wrote the author of one Parke-Davis business plan in the files. Many state licensing boards require physicians to attend sessions in what is called continuing medical education (CME) to keep current in their field. At one time, medical schools ran most CME courses. Now, an industry of medical education and communications committees (MECCs) run most of the courses. These companies with innocent sounding names like Medical Education Systems set up courses, sometimes in conjunction with medical meetings, at other times often in fancy restaurants and resorts. The drug companies foot the bill, with the program usually noting it was financed by an "unrestricted educational grant" from the company. Using MECCs, Parke-Davis set up conference calls so that doctors could talk to one another about the drugs. The moderators of the calls, often thought leaders or their younger assistants, received $ 250 to $ 500 a call. Drug company reps were on the line, instructed to stay in a "listen only" mode, but monitoring to be sure the pitch met their expectations. Clearly, many of the physicians in these schemes are not innocent bystanders. Whether it is ghost writing, making telephone calls to colleagues or leading a CME session, many of the doctors got paid well. Others received a free meal or transportation to a resort to listen to an "educational session. " Physicians often claim they are not influenced by payments from the pharmaceutical industry. But with the methods so thoroughly detailed in these papers, drug companies clearly believe they are getting their money's worth.