Labour is often accused of rushing through ill-considered laws whenever its appearance of competence is cracking. The mental-health bill, which came back to the House of Commons from the Lords this week, hardly fits this pattern. Discussions about a new law began nine years ago, not long after Michael Stone, who suffered from a personality disorder, killed a mother and her daughter with a hammer while they were walking down a lane in Kent. Since then the bill has been introduced, thrown out, brought back, re-worded and tinkered with. And yet it still sets the Mental Health Alliance, which represents 80 organisations that think the bill represents a sinister grab at civil liberties, against the government, which says that those who oppose it are guaranteeing a "right to suicide" by allowing patients of precarious stability to go untreated. Two questions are at the root of the conflict. The first is whether patients who are able to make decisions about their own treatment should sometimes be compelled to take medication. The second is whether people with illnesses that may not respond to treatment should be forced to try anyway. The answer to the question of how far the state should deprive people of their liberty for their own sake and for the sake of everyone else is likely to affect mental-health care not just in England (Scotland and Wales have different systems), but in the rest of Europe too, where England is seen as a model of how to look after the mentally ill. Sick people can be treated either in hospitals or outside them. Britain decided earlier than elsewhere that outside was better. Care in the community, as this is known, has meant a reduction in the number of beds in grim psychiatric hospitals from 150,000 in 1950 to 30,000 now. It was underfunded to begin with, and "the community" sometimes meant a flat next to a motorway rather than a cosy family home. But things have improved over the past ten years. Whereas other west European countries tend to have a single community mental-health team, England has three: one to go out and look for people who have a history of illness; another that concentrates on young people who have become ill for the first time; and a third to treat people at home. Matt Muijen, who studies different systems from his vantage point at the World Health Organisation, reckons that "England is ten years ahead of the rest of Europe". There are still plenty of problems. Lots of mentally-ill people end up behind bars: they constitute some 80% of female prisoners, according to the Howard League, a charity. And patients being cared for at home frequently fail to take their medicines, some of which can have unpleasant side effects. This often leads to a crisis, or worse: some 1,200 patients kill themselves each year. There is also a risk to others as schizophrenics, for example, account for 1% of the population and 5% of murders. When care at home breaks down,, the mentally ill go back to hospital and the cycle begins again. One of the bill's proposals, the introduction of Community Treatment Orders, aims at breaking it. A patient who is deprived of his liberty and taken into hospital, regains it on release. Under the government's plan, a psychiatrist would then assess the patient and decide if nurses should be given the power to try to make sure he takes the pills prescribed, sending him back to hospital if he does not. Each order would be reviewed by a tribunal each year. Doctors in most states in America and in Australia already have this power. Psychiatrists in Scotland gained it in 2005. But compelling patients to take medicines when they may be well enough to decide they do not want to makes doctors nervous. Some patients may prefer the ups and downs of their ill selves to their humdrum medicated versions. The provision in the bill for psychiatrists to supervise people with personality disorders that, unlike schizophrenia or depression, may not respond to treatment, is controversial too. Most psychiatrists are aware that the history of their profession includes a spell as gaolers to the awkward and the extraordinary and do not want to reprise that role. Yet the case for the bill is strong enough to sway some libertarians. For the choice is not between treating patients in institutions and allowing them to roam free, but between treating them in hospital or outside. If the latter is to be made to work, some of the compulsory features of hospitals may have to come into the home.

BA: Spot DictationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear a passage and read the same passage with blanks in it. Fill in each of the blanks with the word or words you have heard on the tape. Write your answer in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. Remember you will hear the passage ONLY ONCE./B

Educators have known for 30 years that students perform better when given one-on-one tutoring and mastery learning—working on a subject until it is mastered, not just until a test is scheduled. Success also requires motivation, whether from an inner drive or from parents, mentors or peers. Will the rise of massive open online courses(MOOCs)quash these success factors? Not at all. In fact, digital tools offer our best path to cost-effective, personalized learning. I know because I have taught both ways. For years Sebastian Thrun and I have given artificial-intelligence courses at Stanford University and other schools; we lectured, assigned homework and gave everyone the same exam at the same time. Each semester just 5 to 10 percent of students regularly engaged in deep discussions in class or office hours; the rest were more passive. We felt there had to be a better way. So, in the fall of 2011, we tried something new. In addition to our traditional classroom, we created a free online course open to anyone. On our first try, we attracted a city's worth of participants— about 100,000 engaged with the course, and 23,000 finished. Inspired by Nobel laureate Herbert Simon's comment that "learning results from what the student does and thinks and only from what the student does and thinks," we created a course centered on the students doing things and getting frequent feedback. Our "lectures" were short(two- to six-minute)videos designed to prime the attendees for doing the next exercise. Some problems required the application of mathematical techniques described in the videos. Others were open-ended questions that gave students a chance to think on their own and then to hash out ideas in online discussion forums. Our scheme to help make learning happen actively, rather than passively, created many benefits akin to tutoring—and helped to increase motivation. First, as shown in a 2013 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, frequent interactions keep attention from wandering. Second, as William B. Wood and Kimberly D. Tanner describe in a 2012 Life Sciences Education paper, learning is enhanced when students work to construct their own explanations, rather than passively listening to the teacher's. That is why a properly designed automated intelligent tutoring system can foster learning outcomes as well as human instructors can, as Kurt van Lehn found in a 2011 meta-analysis in Educational Psychologist. A final key advantage was the rapid improvement of the course itself. We analyzed the junctures where our thousands of students succeeded or failed and found where our course needed fine-tuning. Better still, we could capture this information on an hour-by-hour basis. For our class, human teachers analyzed the data, but an artificial-intelligence system could perform this function and then make recommendations for what a pupil could try next to improve—as online shopping sites today make automated recommendations for what book or movie you might enjoy. Online learning is a tool, just as the textbook is a tool. The way the teacher and the student use the tool is what really counts.

峨眉山下，伏虎寺旁，有一种蝴蝶，比最美丽的蝴蝶可能还要美丽些，是峨眉山最珍贵的特产之一。 当它阖起两张翅膀的时候，像生长在树枝上的一张干枯了的树叶。谁也不去注意它，谁也不会瞧它一眼。 它收敛了它的花纹，图案，隐藏了它的粉墨、色彩，逸出了繁华的花丛，停止了它翱翔的姿态，变成了一张憔悴的，干枯了的，甚至不是枯黄的，而是枯槁的，如同死灰颜色的枯叶。 它这样伪装，是为了保护自己。但是它还是逃不脱被捕捉的命运。不仅因为它的美丽，更因为它那用来隐蔽它的美丽的枯槁与憔悴。

In early June, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—the club of the world's wealthy and almost wealthy nations—released a 208-page document perversely titled Pensions at a Glance. Inside is a rundown of how generous OECD members are to their burgeoning ranks of retirees. The US is near the bottom, with the average wage earner able to count on a government-mandated pension for just 52.4% of what he got (after taxes) in his working days—and higher-income workers even less. But the picture at the other end of the scale (dominated by Continental Europe) is misleading. Most of these governments haven't put aside money for pensions. As the ranks of retirees grow and workforces do not, countries will have to either renege on commitments or tax the hides off future workers. What the OECD data seem to suggest is that you can run a retirement plan that's fiscally sound but stingy, or you can make big promises that will eventually go sour. The US fits mostly in the former category—for all the gnashing of teeth about Social Security, its funding problems are modest by global standards. But is that really the choice? Actually, no. At least one country appears to have found a better way. In the Netherlands—"the globe's No. 1 pensions country," says influential retirement-plan consultant Keith Ambachtsheer—the average retiree can count on a pension equal to 96.8% of his working income. Ample money is set aside to fund pensions, and it is invested prudently but not timidly. Companies contribute to employees' accounts but aren't stuck with profit-killing obligations if their business shrinks or the stock market tanks. The Dutch have steered a middle way between irresponsible Continental generosity and practical Anglo-American stinginess. They have also, to lapse into pension jargon, split the difference between DB and DC plans. In a defined-benefit (DB) plan, workers are promised a retirement income, and the sponsor—usually a corporation or government—is on the hook to provide it. In a defined-contribution (DC) plan, the worker and sometimes the employer set aside money and hope it will be enough. The big problem with DB is that sponsors are prone to lowball or ignore the true cost. In the US, where corporate pensions provide a key supplement to Social Security, Congress has felt the need to pass multiple laws aimed at preventing companies from underfunding them. In response, some companies spent billions shoring up their funds; many others simply stopped offering pensions. Just since 2004, at least 66 big companies have frozen or terminated their DB plans, estimates Barclays Global Investors. Corporate DB has given way to individual DC plans like the 401 (k) and IRA, But these put too much responsibility on the shoulders of individual workers. Many don't save enough money, and those who do set aside enough earn returns that are on average much lower than those of pension funds. The Netherlands, like the US, has long relied on workplace pensions to supplement its government plan. The crucial difference is that these pensions were mandatory. Smaller employers had to band together to make a go of it, and industry-wide funds became standard. Run more as independent cooperatives than as captive corporate divisions, the Dutch funds were less prone to underfunding than their US counterparts. When they nonetheless ran into financial trouble in 2002 after the stock market crashed and interest rates sank, the country came up with a unique response. The Dutch funds are now no longer on the hook for providing a set income in retirement no matter what happens to financial markets—that is, they've gone DC—but they didn't shunt everything to individual workers. Risks are shared by all the members of a pension fund, and the money is managed by professionals. Pension consultant Ambachtsheer argues that this "collective DC" is just what the US needs. Many companies here are improving 401 (k)s to give employees more guidance, and there's talk in Washington of supplementing (not supplanting) Social Security with near mandatory retirement accounts. But even those changes would fall well short of going Dutch. Countries don't always set aside enough money to pay for the pensions they promise.

[此试题无题干]

春节是我国民问最隆重、最热闹的一个传统节日。春节时，家家户户都要做充足的准备。节前十天左右，人们就开始忙碌着采购年货，为小孩子们添置新衣新帽，准备过年时穿。另外，节前人们会在家门口贴上红纸写成的春联，屋里张贴色彩鲜艳、寓意吉祥的年画，窗户上贴着窗花，门前挂上大红灯笼或贴“福”字。“福”字还可以倒贴，路人一念福倒了，也就意味着福气到了。

{{B}}SECTION 5 READING TESTDirections: Read the following passages and then answer IN COMPLETE SENTENCES the questions which follow each passage. Use only information from the passage you have just read and write your answer in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

{{B}}SECTION 3: TRANSLATION TEST(1)Directions: Translate the following passage into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

[此试题无题干]

Starting up a business is easier in the service sector than in manufacturing. A new manufacturer has to invest heavily in factory premises, machinery and staff whereas a service sector start-up requires a much smaller initial investment. However, these new service sector firms often take a long time to build up a client base. They rely heavily on word of mouth to attract customers, a slow process that causes a few uncomfortable months while waiting for customers to arrive. With few customers, cash flow is minimal, but the start-up bank loan still has to be serviced, and there may be promotional costs like price cuts or free samples. In contrast, new manufacturers have to find more start-up capital. They take the risk of a high initial investment only because they know there is a ready market for their product. On the other hand, the service sector start-up is more speculative, based on the hope that people will want the service offered, so payback may be seriously delayed. But service sector start-ups have one big advantage over manufacturing. A restaurant, for example, could be set up in a few weeks, enough time to find premises, buy equipment "off the shelf" and recruit staff. A manufacturer, on the other hand, needs about a year to find suitable premises, install machinery and make deals with suppliers of materials. This delays the time taken for cash inflows to start offsetting the start-up costs for the manufacture. Cash flow is also influenced by the way demand may vary according to the time of year. Many manufacturers face a seasonal pattern of demand for their products, but the seasonality is more acute for many service sector firms. Manufacturers can produce stock before their seasonal peak, thus allowing them to spread the pressure on the production process. But for service providers who make most of their money during one peak period, seasonality increases the level of risk. If the peak season fails, e. g. ice cream sales crash because of a cold summer, the whole business could collapse before the next peak season. Even more importantly, service providers have to respond instantly to changes in customer demand. Any variation, whether caused by seasonal factors or changes in fashion, hits service providers immediately. This implies an even greater need for a market-oriented approach by service providers. There is, however, a positive aspect for service firms: unlike manufacturers, they are less likely to be caught with huge stocks of unwanted products. A firm's financial success depends on adding value to its products, that is, selling its products at a price that is higher than the cost of making them. In setting a price, companies must ensure that their customers believe that the product or service is worth the price being charged. This is harder for service providers. Customers can calculate more or less the cost of providing a restaurant meal or painting a room. It's much harder to judge the cost of manufacturing products like cars or refrigerators. Thus, service providers have to work much harder to add value to their services while avoiding any suspicion of overcharging. The implication of this is that manufacturers are likely to find it easier to trade with higher profit margins than service sector firms.

Belgium may appear to outsiders as a good example of ethnic power sharing, but the last time the French-speaking Walloons supplied the country's Prime Minister was in 1978. So, in Sunday's national elections, they are itching to smash the Flemish grip on the top job. A victory by the leading French-speaking candidate, Elio Di Rupo, would make history not only because of his language, but as Europe's first openly gay Prime Minister. As leader of the Socialist Party (PS) in Wallonia— and also the region's minister-president—Di Rupo, 55, is the heavyweight of Francophone politics. And the fact that his origins are Italian, Belgium's second-largest immigrant community after Moroccans, adds a third dimension to the identity challenge represented by his candidacy. But the dapper, bow-tied Di Rupo is handicapped by recurrent scandals in his Socialist Party, and has been criticized for his poor command of the Flemish language. His main rival from Wallonia is Didier Reynders, the head of the liberal Reform Movement (MR), a 48-year-old energetic business-oriented conservative who hopes to catch some of the bounce from Nicolas Sarkozy's recent victory in France. Reynders, who is also Finance Minister, was even in Paris on May 6 to celebrate Sarkozy's triumph. Both Di Rupo and Reynders believe that Francophones are long overdue a turn at the premiership. Their community accounts for just 40% of the country's 10.6 million population, but they believe they are in their best position for over a generation to claim the premiership, believing they have overcome negative perceptions of the Walloon community by their Flemish neighbors. Still, even doing well in the election is no guarantee of getting the top job. Pierre Blaise of the Crisp political research center, explains: "Forming a government in Belgium is a two-step process. You have to first hold the election and see the arithmetic of the results. Then you have to negotiate on the coalition, which is not just about the Prime Minister, but all the other ministers and the overall government mandate. If Di Rupo or Reynders do well in the election, we would then have to see if they can negotiate as well." Belgium became independent in 1830 after a Francophone revolt against the country's Dutch rulers. Cultural and linguistic tensions have been a constant throughout its history, but Belgium's politicians have been remarkably adept at developing compromise mechanisms to maintain a tenuous balance between Flemish and French-speakers whose famously separate communities have different economic profiles, tastes, influences and habits. Talk of devolution is rife, and last December French state broadcaster RTBF interrupted its regular programming to announce that Flanders had declared independence. Viewers were shocked by the grainy footage of King Albert II and Queen Paola heading for the airport to flee the country. The program was an elaborate hoax, but the outrage it provoked appeared to underline the fragility of the country. Under the circumstances, the election campaign has been comparatively restrained on the issues that divide the two communities. Despite their differences, the evidence suggests that both the Flemish and the Walloons are loath to split: A survey March revealed that both 93% Flemings and 98% Walloons wanted Belgium to continue to exist in some form—although only 40% believed it would 50 years from now. Despite the optimism of Di Rupo and Reynders, the favorites for the Prime Minister's job remain Flemish: Christian Democrat leader Yves Leterme: Socialist Party leader Johan Vande Lanotte; and Flemish Liberal leader and outgoing Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. Front-runner Leterme, 46, has sparked anger by saying that the Belgian nation is an "accident of history" with "no intrinsic value", and accusing Francophones of "lacking the mental capacity to learn Dutch". But even if he emerges as Prime Minister, French speakers should not be too distraught. As Leterme is the son of a Francophone father, they could even claim he is one of theirs.

BSectence TranslationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear 5 sentences in English. You will hear the sentences ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each sentence, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET./B

[此试题无题干]

BSECTION 2: STUDA SKILLSDirections: In this section, you will read several passages. Each passage is followed by several questions based on its content. You are to choose one best answer, (A), (B), (C) or (D), to each question. Answer all the questions following each passage on the basis of what is stated or implied in that passage, and write the letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET./B

It's never easy to plumb the reading habits of children, but teachers and parents perennially knock themselves out with worry over any sign of a decline. Among US teenagers, reading skills haven't improved in high schools since 1999, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a standardized test. To many educators, the wild success of the "Harry Potter" books only underscores the paucity of reading in the lives of today's children, who somehow manage to find copious amounts of time for videogames, Web surfing and text messaging. "Fast-paced lifestyles, coupled with heavy media diets of visual immediacy, beget brains misfitted to traditional modes of academic learning," writes psychologist Jane Healy in Endangered Minds. The lure of the visual in today's electronic media, it would seem, is proving too much for the increasingly antiquated pleasures of the written word. What should be done? Healy and others would have us mount a vigorous campaign to restore reading to its rightful place, or risk raising a generation cut off from a rich cultural heritage. Before we jump on our high horses, however, it might be helpful to look at the conflict between visual media and the written would not so much as a battle between technology and culture, but between two technologies, each representing a different mode of communication. It's easy to forget after all this time that writing is as much a form of technology as the Internet. Humans roamed the earth for thousands of year without language, and then for thousands more before coming up with an alphabet to represent the sounds they uttered. In his book Orality and Literacy, the late scholar Walter Ong points out that when Homer set down the Iliad. He was adapting a long oral tradition—in which stories were passed from one speaker to the next—to a relatively new medium. In fifth century B.C. Athens, writing and reading has become part of the culture, but it was still new enough for Plato to express skepticism. In the Phaedrus, Socrates asserts the superiority of oral argument: writing is a crutch, Plato wrote, that would lead to the decline of memory, and a passive medium that cannot defend its arguments. It might seem that the advent of the computer is as big a change in the technology of expression as the written word was. But the real revolution may not yet have arrived. To the extent that computers merely extend the original invention of writing (by allowing the word to be published electronically), they aren't wholly new. What may come to represent a truly revolutionary mode of communicating is the visual aspect of new media—in particular, the visual interactivity of videogames. Whereas language, writing, printing, e-books and text messaging form a continuum based on the written word, videogames and their ilk appeal to a completely different part of the brain. Visual media are, if anything, a more natural mode for humans than the written word, at least according to neuroscientist Marcel Just of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Evolution created Homosapiens with a finely honed visual sense: an ability to take in the vast sweep of a landscape and pick out the smallest movement—a lion in the shadows?—or a partially hidden grove of berries. Whereas reading is a technically difficult skill that takes years to learn, our visual brains take almost effortlessly to videogames. "It's an accident that our culture invented writing and reading," says Just. "It's a cultural artifact we've developed, but it's not in the nature of man. Two hundred years from now, we won't need this medium to transmit knowledge." Some people defend electronic media by arguing that it encourages the use of the written word on Web sites and in blogs. This may be true at the moment, but it's probably false comfort. Bigger bandwidth and greater computing power seem destined to lead to an increase of video at the expense of the written word; when teens get instant video messaging, for instance, it's hard to imagine that they'll prefer text. Does this mean that future generations will be unable to concentrate long enough to finish a novel? Perhaps. But visual media, using technologies we don't yet know about, may rise to the level of literature. Using brain imaging, Just has found that the brain takes in written and visual input differently at the level of perception, but that higher function— following a plot, grasping irony—are the same regardless of how the brain gets the signals. The intellectual health of future generations may ride not only on whether they read books, but on whether they can come up with another medium as good, or better.

Along Washington State's rocky coastline and inland waters, the red-and-white patrol boats and helicopters of the United States Coast Guard are a familiar sight. More than a dozen coastguard ships and aircraft and nearly 6,000 personnel work there, rescuing stricken boaters, helping with seaport security, enforcing maritime laws and so on. The job can be dangerous: in late March a coastguard petty officer fell overboard and died, and last summer two divers serving on a Seattle-based coastguard icebreaker drowned while training near the Arctic Circle. Although it is busy and obvious and well known, the coastguard has long been a poor sibling to the navy, army and air force. At the same time, its responsibilities have grown. In 2003 it became part of the Department of Homeland Security, with increased emphasis on protecting America's 361 ports and 95,000 miles (153,000km) of coastline from terrorists. Yet the 40,000-member service has to scratch desperately for money from Congress. Its boats are often in poor shape; some patrol cutters are over 50 years old. In 2005 USA Today ran a story on life aboard a 210-foot (64-metre) cutter, where equipment regularly malfunctioned and raw sewage flooded the sleeping quarters. In an attempt to remedy all this, and to win back prestige, the coastguard launched "Deepwater" in the 1990s. This was a $24 billion upgrade of its ships and aircraft. The goal was a modernised fleet and air arm with complementary communications and tracking equipment, lower maintenance and better conditions for the crew. Contracts to start building were signed in 2002. Five years on, Deepwater is plagued by catastrophe. A plan to enlarge the coastguard's 110-foot cutters into more capable 123-foot boats was scrapped last autumn after the first eight refitted boats showed signs of cracking apart. The flagships of Deepwater—eight state-of-the-art 418-foot National Security Cutters, the first of which is nearing completion—have structural flaws that will probably shorten their projected 30-year service life and lead to costly repairs. Then, in the middle of last month, the coastguard cancelled a $600 million contract to build the first 12 of 58 fast cutters. The vessels were going to be so heavy that one critic suggested they would be more like bricks than boats. These miseries have added millions of dollars to the Deepwater budget—and hampered the coastguard's ability to do its work. What went wrong? Two things, says Steve Ellis, a graduate of the US Coast Guard Academy and vice-president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group based in Washington, DC. The first mistake was the decision by the coastguard's admirals to think big: they wanted to attract the attention of contractors and, more important, Congress. Rather than incrementally improving its ships and planes, the service tried to create what coastguard leaders called a "system-of-systems". The idea was to build scores of new cutters, small boats, manned and unmanned aircraft, all with complementary electronics and design features that worked in unison. At one fell swoop, thought the high-ups, all their troubles would be solved. But Deepwater was an unwieldy concept built round an unwieldy buzzword. And no one in the coastguard had the vaguest idea how to manage it, says Mr. Ellis. So—its second mistake—the service had to rely on outside contractors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, to run almost the whole programme as a joint venture. According to Kevin Jarvis, a retired coastguard captain who worked on Deepwater and testified before a Senate committee in February, these "world-class" contractors kept coastguard leaders in the dark about many of the problems. Meanwhile, design and performance goals became moving targets that the contractors regularly changed. The coastguard is now trying to correct its mistakes, but most of these are not easily undone. It is borrowing ships from the navy to cover for the remodeled 123-foot patrol boats that don't float. It intends to use its own bidding process to find replacements for the failed fast-cutter design. Procurement procedures have been sharpened. Most dramatically, on April 17th the coastguard announced that it is wresting control of Deepwater from the contractors, while the contract itself is being investigated by the Justice Department. But the hope of a unified set of equipment seems to have gone. And the flaws in some of the service's most important vessels, such as the National Security Cutter, will take years to correct. At least Deepwater achieved one goal: the coastguard is now receiving plenty of attention. The Government Accountability Office, the federal government's budgetary supervisor, has released scathing reports. In the Senate, Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington State, is holding hearings where the coastguard's admirals have been flame-broiled. She is also pushing a bill that would overhaul Deepwater's management. Mr. Ellis remarks that the coastguard has long been the Boy Scout of America's armed services. It is now more like its drunken sailor.

中国的传统节日文化内涵丰富，历史悠久，是我们中华民族灿烂文化的重要组成部分。我国古代的这些节日，大多和天文、历法、数学，以及后来划分出的节气有关。大部分节日在先秦时期，就已初露端倪。节日的风俗活动和原始祭拜、迷信禁忌有关；神话传奇故事为节日平添了几分浪漫色彩；还有宗教也对节日有冲击与影响；一些历史人物被赋予永恒的纪念渗入节日，使中国的节日有了深沉的历史感。节日发展到唐代，已经从原始祭拜、禁忌神秘的气氛中解放出来，转为娱乐礼仪型，成为真正的佳节良辰。 在漫长的历史长河中，历代的文人雅士、诗人墨客，为一个个节日谱写了许多千古名篇，这些诗文脍炙人口，被广为传颂，使我国的传统节日渗透出深厚的文化底蕴，大俗中透着大雅，雅俗共赏。中国的节日有很强的内聚力和广泛的包容性，一到过节，举国同庆，这与我们民族源远流长的悠久历史一脉相承，是一份宝贵的精神文化遗产。

[此试题无题干]

{{B}}Part A Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in English. After you have heard each paragraph, interpret it into Chinese. Start interpreting at the signal.., and stop it at the signal...You may take notes while you are listening. Remember you will hear the passages ONLY ONCE. Now let us begin Part A with the first passage.{{/B}}