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}} Earlier this summer Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's governor, said that the state's penal system was "falling apart in front of our very eyes". Indeed so. Some 172,000 inmates are crowded into institutions—from the state's 33 prisons to its 12 "community correctional facilities"—that are meant to house fewer than 90,000. Drug abuse is rampant; so too are diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. Race-based gangs pose the constant threat of violence, riot and even murder. And with more than 16,000 prisoners sleeping in prison gymnasiums and classrooms, rehabilitation programs are virtually non-existent—which helps to explain why two-thirds of California's convicts, the highest rate in the country, are back in prison within three years of being released. Will the governor's summons of a special session of the state legislature, beginning this week, bring a remedy? The reason for the session is to discuss Mr Schwarzenegger's request for almost $ 5.8 billion of public money to be pumped into the prison system. Bonds for $ 2 billion would finance ten 500-bed "re-entry facilities" for prisoners nearing the end of their sentences; another $ 2 billion would expand existing prisons; $1.2 billion would be earmarked for two new prisons; and $ 50Om would go for new prison hospitals. Money alone will provide neither an immediate solution nor a lasting one. The first problem is that California simply puts too many offenders in prison. The imprisonment rate, which has risen almost eight-fold since 1970 and is way ahead of any European country, has consistently meant overcrowding despite the construction of 22 new prisons in the past 20 years. The 1994 "three-strikes" law, approved by voters in a referendum, means handing out 25-years-to-life sentences for often trivial third offences--and results in the growing presence in prison of elderly inmates who cost the taxpayer far more than the average of $ 34,000 a prisoner. Meanwhile, the practice of returning parole violators to prison, even for relatively trivial missteps such as missing a drugs test, also strains the system; some 11% of inmates are parole violators. Added to all these are more than 5,000 illegal immigrants being held on behalf of the federal government. The second problem is that any attempt to reform California's penal policy becomes hostage to politics. Two years ago, the governor was expressing optimism. He added the word "rehabilitation" to California's department of corrections, appointed Rod Hickman, a reformminded former prison guard, to oversee the system and promised to lessen the power of the 31,000-strong prison guards' union, not least by breaking the "code of silence" that protects corrupt or violent guards. But that was then. The reality now is that Mr Hickman resigned in March. Evidence indicates that the governor's office may have given the code of silence in California's prisons a new lease on life. Many experts say that with no moderation in sentencing policies on the horizon, the prison population is expected to grow by another 21,0O0 over the next five years—enough to outpace any prison-building program. Thus, the dream of prison reforms will never touch the ground.

单选题More than any other industry, the luxury-goods business needs people to feel good about spending money. So at a recent conference in Moscow, Bernard Arnault, the head of Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH), the world's biggest luxury-goods group, went to great lengths to dismiss investors' fears about the impact on the industry of America's credit crisis, a possible recession and the weak dollar. Indeed, Mr. Arnault said he expects the industry's sales almost to double in the next five years, thanks to strong demand from emerging markets and the creation of new wealth across the globe. After a depressing period at the beginning of the decade when the terrorist attacks in America, the outbreak of SARS and the war in Iraq reduced international travel and people's appetite for frivolous things, the industry has had three excellent years. According to Bain, a consultancy, sales of luxury goods grew by 9% in 2006 to 159 billion ($ 200 billion) and will reach about 170 billion this year, which would double the 1996 figure. Europe remains the biggest market, with about 40% of sales, though the strongest growth is in China, Russia, the Middle East and some Latin American countries. Can the industry really double again in half the time? Analysts at Citigroup say that Christmas will be good this year for luxury-goods firms, but they are more cautious about next year because of worries about falling demand in America. It is tempting to think that luxury goods are isolated from the broader economy, because customers are rich enough to ignore it, says Luca Solca, a luxury-goods analyst. But the industry's expansion into a broader "aspirational" market, by selling to the merely affluent, makes it susceptible. And as luxury firms expand in Asia and the Americas, they will continue to suffer currency woes. Most of the industry's production is in the euro-zone, mainly in France and Italy. Even the optimistic Mr. Arnault complained at his firm's recent annual meeting that the euro had reached "incomprehensible" levels against the dollar and the yen. Luxury companies could shift more of their production to countries with weaker currencies and cheap labor (ie, China), but some customers-especially Asian customers-want the elitism and craftsmanship associated with products manufactured in Europe. At least sales in emerging markets are growing fast. But Melanie Flouquet, a luxury analyst at JPMorgan, an investment bank, says that this growth is not enough to offset a slowdown in America. Chinese and Russian consumers account for around 7% and 4% of global luxury sales respectively, compared with 16-18% for Americans. Even so, European firms are sticking to their plans in New York, America's fashion capital. Gucci will open its biggest shop in February in Trump Tower, a shiny skyscraper on New York's Fifth Avenue. Ermenegildo Zegna will also open a shop on Fifth Avenue next year. And this week Dolce Gabbana re-opened its spruced-up shop on Madison Avenue. Claudia D' Arpizio of Bain thinks luxury makers need to follow Giorgio Armani and segment their customers more carefully with different product lines at different price ranges. She predicts that the industry will see solid growth rates of up to 10% a year in the near term. This means that the industry could double in ten years-by which time China is likely to account for more than a quarter and maybe as much as a third of the world's consumption of luxury goods. Yet Mr. Arnault's rosy prediction seems unlikely to come true. As Americans tighten their purse-strings, over-optimism is a luxury even this industry cannot afford.

单选题Work hard and get ahead. That's what every American learns growing up, but for millions of them, it's getting harder to tell the difference between working hard and being a workaholic. "The line happens when you come home one day and your husband isn't there, and you didn't realize he left you a week ago," Stephen Viscusi said. Viscusi is CEO of the Viscusi Group. The actual reasons for becoming a workaholic are quite varied. It might involve a need in someone to always stay a step ahead of their co-workers or anyone else they perceive as a competitive threat. It could be a desire to never leave the office at night without tying up any loose ends such as returning an email, writing a memo or getting a package out. It might be a single-minded commitment to being successful, gaining promotion after promotion, no matter what the cost. Workaholics Anonymous—a "fellowship of individuals who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problems and help others to recover from work holism"—lists 20 questions to ask yourself if you think you may be a workaholic, including whether you get more excited about work than anything else and work more than 40 hours per week.viscusi said a good indication that you're a workaholic is if you are constantly electronically connected to the office, whether by cell phone, BlackBerry or laptop. Workaholism’s effects on the family can be devastating, Viscusi said, with the consequences eventually manifesting themselves, as they would with any other addiction, in broken marriages and broken homes. Brian Robinson, a professor at the University of North Carolina, told "20/20" in 1999 that children of workaholics developed the same disorders as children of alcoholics, such as depression and anxiety, that crippled them later in life. Viscusi offered the following tips for workaholics trying to make a change. Don't take on every project. Don't say yes to everyone. Learn the art of saying "I can't handle any more." Also, doesn't it seem like exercise is good for everything? It is recommended as part of every self-help regime— well, this is no difference. Exercise and yoga help you, and it's the hardest place to get any workdone. No cell phones allowed! Similar to a hobby, doing something without asking for any payment in return lets you focus on something other than work or your job. It can give you a different perspective and a different way to meet new people.

单选题The word "siblings" (Line 4, Paragraph 2) most probably means

单选题How will the territorial disputes between China and Japan be settled according to the author?

单选题Is athletic expertise attained or innate? Those who have suffered the tongue-lashing of a cruel games master at school might be forgiven for doubting the idea that anyone and everyone is capable of great sporting achievement, if only they would put enough effort into it. Practice may make perfect, but not all are built in ways that make it worth bothering in the first place. The latest evidence of this truth has been gathered by Sabrina Lee of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver and Stephen Piazza at Pennsylvania State University. They have looked at the physical structure of short-distance runners and found that their feet are built differently from those ofcouch potatoes. Dr. Lee and Dr. Piazza already knew that short-distance runners tend to have a higher proportion of fast-contracting muscle fibres in their legs than more sedentary folk can muster. They suspected, though, that they would find differences in the bone structure as well. And they did. They looked at seven university sprinters who specialize in the 100-metre dash and five 200-metre specialists, and compared them with 12 non-athletic university students of the same height. In particular, they looked at the sizes of bones of the toes and heel. They also used ultrasonic scanning to measure the sliding motion of the Achilles tendons of their volunteers as their feet moved up and down. This allowed them to study the length of the lever created by the tendon as it pulls on the back of the heel to make the foot flex and push off the ground. Dr. Lee and Dr. Piazza found that the toes of their short-distance runners averaged 8.2cm in length, while those of common people averaged 7.3cm. The length of the lever of bone that the Achilles tendon pulls on also differed, being a quarter shorter in short-distance runners. These findings suggest short-distance runners get better contact with the ground by having longer toes. That makes sense, as it creates a firmer platform to push against. In a short-distance running race, acceleration off the block is everything. Cheetahs, the champion of short-distance runners of the animal kingdom, have non-flexible claws that give a similar advantage. It is possible—just—that the differences in physical structure are the result of long and rigorous training. But it is unlikely. Far more probable is that the old saying of coaches, that great short-distance runners are born not made, is true. Everyone else, games masters included, should just get used to the idea.

单选题{{B}}Text 3{{/B}} A wise man once said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. So, as a police officer, I have some urgent things to say to good people. Days after days my men and I struggle to hold back a tidal wave of crime. Something has gone terribly wrong with our once-proud American way of life. It has happened in the area of values. A key ingredient is disappearing, and I think I know what it is: accountability. Accountability isn't hard to define. It means that every person is responsible for his or her actions and liable for their consequences. Of the many values that hold civilization together—honesty, kindness, and so on—accountability may be the most important of all. Without it, there can be no respect, no trust, no law— and, ultimately, no society. My job as a police officer is to impose accountability to people who refuse, or have never learned, to impose it on themselves. But as every policeman knows, external controls on people's behavior are far less effective than internal restraints such as guilt, shame and embarrassment. Fortunately there are still communities—smaller towns, usually—where schools maintain discipline and where parents hold up standards that proclaim: "In this faimily certain things are not tolerated—they simply are not done!" Yet more and more, especially in our larger cities and suburbs, these inner restraints are loosening. Your typical robber has none. He considers your property his property; he takes what he wants, including your life if you enrage him. The main cause of this break-down is a radical shift in attitudes. Thirty years ago, if a crime was committed, society was considered the victim. Now, in a shocking reversal, it's the criminal who is considered victimized: by his underprivileged upbringing, by the school that didn't teach him to read, by the church that failed to reach him with moral guidance, by the parents who didn't provide a stable home. I don't believe it. Many others in equally disadvantaged circumstances choose not to engage in criminal activities. If we free the criminal, even partly, from accountability, we become a society of endless excuses where no one accepts responsibility for anything. We in America desperately need more people who believe that the person who commits a crime is the one responsible for it.

单选题Atheists seem to believe that

单选题"What About the Men?" was the title of a Congressional briefing last week timed to 1 National Work and Family Month. "What about them ?" you may be 2 to yell. When Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute, first went out on the road to talk about her organization"s research into men"s work-family 3 , she received many such grumpy responses. Work-life experts laughed at her. Men are 4 , they said. They don"t have the right to complain. That was in 2008, before the Great Recession had hit. And this year, when Galinsky went out on the road again to talk about the results of a new study on male work-life conflict, she got a very 5 response. Some men became very 6 . They felt they didn"t have permission to feel 7 . ""This is what I think about each and every day, " " she recalled another man telling her. " " I didn"t realize that anyone else did, " " he said. "He thought he was alone, " Galinsky told me. 8 men are 9 work-family conflict isn"t new. Indeed, it"s been some time now that they—and younger men in particular—have been complaining of feeling the 10 in even greater numbers of women. Failure, 11 , uncertainty, the 12 that comes from spending a lifetime playing one game 13 , mid-way through, that the rules have suddenly changed, seem to have 14 the old categories of self, work and meaning for many men. Is this a bad thing? I"d rather see it as a moment ripe 15 possibility. "A new beginning, " said Ellen Galinsky. After all, what men are starting to say sounds an awful lot like the conversational stirrings that 16 the way for the modern women"s movement. For some years now, sociologists have been tracking the patterns of what they call 17 in men and women"s lives. Mostly, when we think of this, we tend to focus 18 how they live, what they do, spend their time, whether they do or do not empty the dishwasher or care for their children. But what about how they feel? Now that this final frontier is being breached, I wonder if we aren"t fully prepared to see more meaningful change in men"s—and women"s and families " —lives than ever before. That is: if we can 19 the change and act 20 it with courage, not fear.

单选题Sometimes the biggest changes in society are the hardest to spot precisely because they are hiding in plain sight. It could well be that way with wireless communications. Something that people think of as just another technology is beginning to show signs of changing lives, culture, politics, cities, jobs, even marriages dramatically. In particular, it will usher in a new version of a very old idea: nomadism. Futurology is a dangerous business, and it is true that most of the important arguments about mobile communications at the moment are to do with technology or regulation—bandwidth, spectrum use and so on. Yet it is worth jumping ahead and wondering what the social effects will be, for two reasons. First, the broad technological future is pretty clear: there will be ever faster cellular networks, and many more gadgets to connect to these networks. Second, the social changes are already visible: parents on beaches waving at their children while typing furtively on their BlackBerrys; entrepreneurs discovering they don't need offices after all. Everybody is doing more on the move. Wireless technology is surely not just an easier-to-use phone. The car divided cities into work and home areas; wireless technology may mix them up again, with more people working in suburbs or living in city centers. Traffic patterns are beginning to change again: the rush hours at 9am and 5pm are giving way to more varied patterns, with people going backwards and forwards between the office, home and all sorts of other places throughout the day. Already, architects are redesigning offices and universities, more flexible spaces for meeting people, fewer private enclosures for sedentary work. Will it be a better life? In some ways, yes. Digital nomadism will liberate ever more knowledge workers from the cubicle prisons as depicted in Mr. Dilbert's cartoons. But the old tyranny of place could become a new tyranny of time, as nomads who are "always on" all too often end up— mentally—anywhere but here. As for friends and family, permanent mobile connectivity could have the same effect as nomadism: it might bring you much closer to family and friends, but it may make it harder to bring in outsiders. Sociologists fret about constant e-mailers and texters losing the everyday connections to casual acquaintances or strangers sitting next to them in the cafe or on the Bus. The same tools have another dark side, turning everybody into a fully equipped paparazzo. Some fitness clubs have started banning mobile phones near the treadmills and showers lest exercising people find themselves pictured, flabby and sweaty, on some website. As in the desert, so in the city: nomadism promises the heaven of new freedom, but it also signals the hell of constant surveillance by the tribe.

单选题Suggestions have been raised on the issue of INS except ______.

单选题Until recently, the main villains of the piece had seemed to be the teachers" unions, who have opposed any sort of reform or accountability. Now they face competition from an unexpectedly destructive force: the court. Fifty years ago, it was the judges who forced the schools to desegregate through Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Now the courts have moved from broad principles to micromanagement, telling schools how much money to spend and where - right down to the correct computer or textbook. Twenty four states are currently Stuck in various court cases to do with financing school systems, and another 21 have only recently settled various suits. Most will start again soon. Only five states have avoided litigation entirely. Nothing exemplifies the power of the courts better than an 11-year-old case that is due to be settled (sort of) in New York City, the home of America"s biggest school system with 1. lm students and a budget nearing $13 billion. At the end of this month, three elderly members of the New York bar serving as judicial referees are due to rule in a case brought By the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, a leftish advocacy group, against the state of New York: they will decide how much more must Be spent to provide every New York City pupil with a "sound basic" education. Rare is the politician willing to argue that more money for schools is a bad thing. But are the courts doing any good? Two suspicions arise. First, judges are making a lazy assumption that more money means better schools. As the international results show, the link between "inputs" and "outputs" is vague--something well documented by, among others, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. Second, the courts are muddling an already muddled system. Over time, they have generally made it harder to get rid of disruptive pupils and bad teachers. The current case could be even worse. The courts have already said that, in order to determine the necessary spending, they may consider everything from class size to the availability of computers, textbooks and even pencils. This degree of intervention is all the more scandalous because the courts have weirdly decided to ignore another set of "inputs"--the archaic work practices of school teachers and janitors. David Schoenbrod and Ross Sandier of New York Law School reckon the demands of the court will simply undermine reform and transform an expensive failure into a more expensive one. And of course, the litigation never ends. Kentucky, for example, is still in court 16 years after the first decision. A lawsuit first filed against New Jersey for its funding of schools in 1981 was "decided" four years later--but it has returned to the court nine times since, including early this year, with each decision pushing the court deeper into the management of the state"s schools. Bad iudges are even harder to boot out of school than bad pupils.