单选题The first time I tried shark-fin soup was at Time Warner's annual dinner in Hong Kong. Shark-fin soup is a luxury item ($100 bowl in some restaurants)in Hong Kong and Mainland China, its biggest consumers; it's a dish that embodies east Asia's intertwined notions of hospitality and keeping (or losing) "face". "It's like champagne", says Alvin Leung, owner of Bo Innovation, a Cantonese restaurant in Hong Kong. "You don't open a bottle of Coke to celebrate. It's a ritual. " Unfortunately, this gesture of hospitality comes with a price tag much bigger than that $ 100 bowl. All told, up to 70 million sharks are killed annually for the trade, despite the fact that 30% of shark species are threatened with extinction. "Sharks have made it through multiple mass extinctions on our planet, " says Matt Rand, director of Pew's Global Shark Conservation division. "Now many species are going to go the way of the dinosaur—for a bowl of soup. " The shark-fin industry has gained notoriety in recent years not just because of what it's doing to the global shark population but also because of what's known as finning—the practice of catching a shark, removing its fins and dumping the animal back into the sea. While a pound of shark fin can go for up to $ 300, most shark meat isn't particularly valuable, and it takes up freezer space and weight on fishing boats. Today, finning is illegal in the waters of the E. U. , the U. S. and Australia, among others; boats are required to carry a certain ratio of fins to carcasses(尸体) to prevent massive overfishing. But there are loopholes in antifinning laws that are easy to exploit. In the E. U. , for example, ships can land the fins separately from the carcasses, making the job of monitoring the weight ratio nearly impossible. In the U. S. , a boat found carrying nearly 65, 000 lb. ( 30, 000 kg) of illegal shark fins won a court case because it was registered as a cargo vessel, which current U. S. finning. laws do not cover. Sharks populations can't withstand commercial fishing the way more fertile marine species can. Unlike other fish harvested from the wild, sharks grow slowly. They don't reach sexual maturity until later in life—the female great white, for example, at 12 to 14 years—and when they do, they have comparatively few offspring at a time, unlike, tunas, which release millions of eggs when they spawn. The shark's plight is starting to be weighed against the delicacy's cultural value. The conservation group has lobbied local restaurants that offer the classic nine-course banquet served at Cantonese weddings, of which shark fin is traditionally a part, to offer a no-shark menu as a choice to couples. After my first encounter with shark-fin soup, I decided that, like my colleagues, I would probably skip it next time. Unfortunately, that next time came at an intimate dinner in a small, private dining room, where I was both a guest and a stranger. When the soup—the centerpiece of the meal—was set down before me, I ate it. Apparently, I'm not the only one to cave. "You go to a wedding, and you refused to eat it just because you feel you're insulted— I'm not that extreme, " Leung, the chef, says. "If other people believe that it brings luck .or brings face, I'd be a spoilsport. "To make a dent in the slaughter of the sharks, however, there are going to have to be a lot of people willing to spoil this particular sport.

单选题{{B}}Part A{{/B}}{{B}}Directions:{{/B}}Reading 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}} King Richard III was a monster. He poisoned his wife, stole the throne from his two young nephews and ordered them to be smothered in the Tower of London. Richard was a sort of Antichrist the King --"that bottled spider, that poisonous bunchbacked toad." Anyway, that was Shakespeare's version. Shakespeare did what the playwright does: he turned history into a vivid, articulate, organized dream-repeatable nightly. He put the crouchback onstage, and sold tickets. And who would say that the real Richard known to family and friends was not identical to Shakespeare's memorably loathsome creation? The actual Richard went dimming into the past and vanished. When all the eye-witnesses are gone, the artist's imagination begins to twist. Variations on the King Richard Effect are at work in Oliver Stone's JFK. Richard III was art, but it was propaganda too. Shakespeare took the details of his plot from Tudor historians who wanted to blacken Richard's name. Several centuries passed before other historians began to write about Richard's virtues and suggest that he may have been a victim of Tudor malice and what is the cleverest conspiracy of all: art. JFK is a long and powerful {{U}}harangue{{/U}} about the death of the man Stone keeps calling "the slain young king." What are the rules of Stone's game? Is Stone functioning as commercial entertainer? Propagandist? Documentary filmmaker? Historian? Journalist? Fantasist? Sensationalist? Crazy conspiracy monger? Lone hero crusading for the truth against a corrupt Establishment? Answer: some of the above. The first superficial effect of JFK is to raise angry little scruples like welts in the conscience. Wouldn't it be absurd if a generation of younger Americans, with no memory of 1963, were to form their ideas about John Kennedy's assassination from Oliver Stone's report of it? But worse things have happened--including, perhaps, the Warren Commission report? Stone uses a suspect, mixed art form, and JFK raises the familiar ethical and historical problems of docudrama. But so what? Artists have always used public events as raw material, have taken history into their imaginations and transformed it. The fall of Troy vanished into the Iliad. The Battle of Borodino found its most memorable permanence in Tolstoy's imagining of it in War and Peace. Especially in a world of insatiable electronic storytelling, real history procreates, endlessly conjuring new versions of itself. Public life has become a metaphysical breeder of fictions. Watergate became an almost continuous television miniseries--although it is interesting that the movie of Woodward and Bernstein's All The President's Men stayed close to the known facts and, unlike JFK, did not validate dark conjecture.

单选题The word "it" (Line 3, Paragraph 5) most probably refers to

单选题After September 11, long delays of express air shipping often arise because of

单选题BBC's Casualty programme on Saturday evening gave viewers a vote as to which of two patients should benefit from a donation. But it failed to tell us that we would not need to make so many life-and-death decisions if we got to grip with the chronic organ shortage. Being pussyfooting around in its approach to dead bodies, the Government is giving a kicking to some of the most vulnerable in our society. One depressing consequence of this is that a significant number of those on the waiting list take off to foreign countries to purchase an organ from a living third-world donor, something that is forbidden in the United Kingdom. The poor have no option but to wait in vain. The Human Tissue Authority's position on the retention of body parts for medical research after a post-mortem examination is equally flawed. The new consent forms could have been drafted by some evil person seeking to stop the precious flow of human tissue into the pathological laboratory. The forms are so lengthy that doctors rarely have time to complete them and, even if they try, the wording is so graphic that relatives tend to leg it before signing. In consequence, the number of post mortems has fallen quickly. The wider worry is that the moral shortsightedness evident in the Human Tissue Act seems to infect every facet of the contemporary debate on medical ethics. Take the timid approach to embryonic stem cell research. The United States, for example, refuses government funding to scientists who wish to carry out potentially ground-breaking research on the surplus embryos created by IVF treatment. Senators profess to be worried that embryonic research fails to respect the dignity of "potential persons". Rarely can such a vacuous concept have found its way into a debate claming to provide enlightenment. When is this "potential" supposed to kick in? In case you were wondering, these supposedly precious embryos are at the same stage of development as those that are routinely terminated by the Pill without anyone crying. Thankfully, the British Government has refused the position of the United States and operates one of the most liberal regimes in Europe, in which licences have been awarded to researchers to create embryos for medical research. It is possible that, in years to come, scientists will be able to grow organs in the lab and find cures for a range of debilitating diseases. The fundamental problem with our approach to ethics is our inability to separate emotion from policy. The only factor that should enter our moral and legal deliberations is that of welfare, a concept that is meaningless when applied to entities that lack self-consciousness. Never forget that the research that we are so reluctant to conduct upon embryos and dead bodies is routinely carried out on living, pain-sensitive animals.

单选题Paragraph 5 intends mainly to show Warner's ______.

单选题{{B}}Directions:{{/B}} Read the following text. Choose the best word (s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C, and D on ANSWER SHEET 1. Selection to participate in a top executive-education program is an important rung on the ladder to top corporate jobs. U. S. corporations {{U}}(1) {{/U}} billions of dollars in this form of management development -- and use it to {{U}}(2) {{/U}} and train fast-track managers. Yet one {{U}}(3) {{/U}} of executive education found that less than 5% of the managers {{U}}(4) {{/U}} to these high-profile programs are women -- and minorities are terribly {{U}}(5) {{/U}} as well. The numbers are {{U}}(6) {{/U}}. In regular business {{U}}(7) {{/U}} usually paid for by the participant, not an employer -- there are plenty of women and minorities. Women, for example, {{U}}(8) {{/U}} for about 30% of MBA candidates. Yet in the {{U}}(9) {{/U}} programs paid for by corporations that round out a manager's credentials at a {{U}}(10) {{/U}} career point, usually at age 40 or 45, companies are making only a {{U}}(11) {{/U}} investment in developing female and minority executives. A case {{U}}(12) {{/U}} point: Only about 30% of the 180 executives in Stanford's recent {{U}}(13) {{/U}} management program were women. Most companies say these days they are {{U}}(14) {{/U}} hiring and promoting women and minorities-- and there are some {{U}}(15) {{/U}} trends in overall employment and pay levels so why are companies {{U}}(16) {{/U}} the ball when it {{U}}(17) {{/U}} executive education? The schools {{U}}(18) {{/U}} that they are neither the cause of nor the cure for the problem. A Harvard Business School dean figures that companies are {{U}}(19) {{/U}} of sending their female executives {{U}}(20) {{/U}} they don't want to lose them to competitors.

单选题Special labor laws protecting women workers tend to

单选题The first sentence in Paragraph 3 can be best interpreted as______

单选题The views of Kass and O. T.A. on cloning research are

单选题One of the driving forces behind the recent prevalence of Customer innovation is

单选题 Every day, employees make decisions about whether to act like givers or like takers. When they act like givers, they contribute to others without seeking anything in return. They might offer assistance, share knowledge, or make valuable introductions. When they act like takers, they try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully guarding their own expertise and time. Organizations have a strong interest in fostering giving behavior. A willingness to help others achieve their goals lies at the heart of effective collaboration, innovation, quality improvement, and service excellence. In workplaces where such behavior becomes the norm, the benefits multiply quickly. But even as leaders recognize the importance of generous behavior and call for more of it, workers receive mixed messages about the advisability of acting in the interests of others. As a matter of fact, various situations put employees against one another, encouraging them to undercut rather than support their colleagues' efforts. Even without a dog-eat-dog scoring system, strict delineation of responsibilities and a focus on individual performance metrics can cause a "not my job" mentality to take hold. As employees look around their organizations for models of success, they encounter further reasons to be wary of generosity. A study by the Stanford professor Frank Flynn highlighted this problem. When he examined patterns of favor exchange among the engineers in one company, he found that the least- productive engineers were givers-workers who had done many more favors for others than they'd received. I made a similar discovery in a study of salespeople: The ones who generated the least revenue reported a particularly strong concern for helping others. This creates a challenge for managers. Can they promote generosity without cutting into productivity and undermining fairness? How can they avoid creating situations where already-generous people give away too much of their attention while selfish coworkers feel they have even more license to take? How, in short, can they protect good people from {{U}}being treated like doormats{{/U}}? Part of the solution must involve targeting the takers in the organization-providing incentives for them to collaborate and establishing repercussions for refusing reasonable requests. But even more important, my research suggests, is helping the givers act on their generous impulses more productively. The key is for employees to gain a more subtle understanding of what generosity is and is not. Givers are better positioned to succeed when they distinguish generosity from three other attributes-timidity, availability, and empathy-that tend to travel with it.