单选题 Despots and tyrants may have changed the course of human evolution by using their power to force hundreds of women to bear their children, says new research. It shows that the switch from hunter-gathering to farming about 8,000 - 9,000 years ago was closely followed by the emergence of emperors and elites who took control of all wealth, including access to young women. Such men set up systems to impregnate hundreds, or even thousands, of women while making sure other men were too poor or oppressed to have families. It means such men may now have hundreds of millions of descendants, a high proportion of whom may carry the genetic traits that drove their ancestors to seek power and oppress their fellow humans. "In evolutionary terms this period of human existence created an enormous selective pressure, with the guys at the top who had the least desirable traits passing on their genes to huge numbers of offspring," said Laura Betzig, an evolutionary anthropologist. She has studied the emergence of the world's first six great civilisations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, Mexico and Peru. In each she found that emperors created systems to "harvest" hundreds of the prettiest young women and then systematically impregnate them. Betzig has studied the records left by the six civilisations to work out how many children were born to emperors. "In China they had it down to a science. Yangdi, the 6th-century Sui dynasty emperor, was credited by an official historian with 100,000 women in his palace at Yangzhou alone," she said. "They even had sex handbooks describing how to work out when a woman was fertile. Then they would be taken to the emperor to be impregnated. It was all organised by the state so the emperor could impregnate as many women as possible. And they had rules, like all the women had to be under 30 and all had to be attractive and symmetrical. This was the system in China for more than 2,000 years." Others relied on violence. One genetic study showed that Genghis Khan, the 13th-century Mongol warlord, who was renowned for sleeping with the most beautiful women in every territory he conquered, now has about 16m male descendants. This compares with the 800 people descended from the average man of that era. Betzig also studied primitive societies. She found that the small bands of hunter-gatherers were the most egalitarian, with men and women able to have the number of children they wanted. "This freedom is probably because they were so mobile. If their group got taken over by a big guy who tried to control resources, the others could simply leave and find somewhere else," she said. This system broke down when the world's first civilisations emerged about 8,000 years ago based on farming. All began on fertile river plains surrounded by mountains or deserts that made it difficult to leave. Such situations were perfect for the emergence of elites and emperors. In a paper published recently, Betzig has catalogued the same trend in each of the great early civilisations. Such systems arose in Britain as well, especially in the feudal era. "Lords then had sexual access to hundreds of dependent serfs ... with up to a fifth of the population 'in service'," Betzig said. She is to publish a book, The Badge of Lost Innocence, exploring why that era has ended. "The European discovery of the Americas changed everything," she said. "Along with the emergence of democracy it offered millions of people the chance to emigrate or get rid of despotic regimes. The literature of that time shows people wanted to have families of their own and for the first time in thousands of years they had that chance. "

单选题Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following interview.

单选题 {{B}}Questions 16 to 20 are based on the following talk.{{/B}}

单选题

单选题The number of women directors appointed to corporate boards in the United States has increased dramatically, but the ratio of female to male directors remains low. Although pressure to recruit women directors, unlike that to employ women in the general work force, does not derive from legislation, it is nevertheless real. Although small companies were the first to have women directors, large corporations currently have a higher percentage of women on their boards. When the chairs of these large corporations began recruiting women to serve on boards, they initially sought women who were chief executive officers (CEOs) of large corporations. However, such women CEOs are still rare. In addition, the ideal of six CEOs (female or male) serving on the board of each of the largest corporations is realizable only if every CEO serves on six boards. This raises the specter of director over commitment and the resultant dilution of contribution. Consequently, the chairs next sought women in business- who had the equivalent of CEO experience. However, since it is only recently that large numbers of women have begun to rise in management, the chairs began to recruit women of high achievement outside the business world. Many such women are well known for their contributions in government, education, and the nonprofit sector. The fact that the women from these sectors who were appointed were often acquaintances of the boards" chairs seems quite reasonable: chairs have always considered it important for directors to interact comfortably in the boardroom. Although many successful women from outside the business world are unknown to corporate leaders, these women are particularly qualified to serve on boards because of the changing nature of corporations. Today a company"s ability to be responsive to the concerns of the community and the environment can influence that company"s growth and survival. Women are uniquely positioned to be responsive to some of these concerns. Although conditions have changed, it should be remembered that most directors of both sexes are over fifty years old. Women of that generation were often encouraged to direct their attention toward efforts to improve the community. This fact is reflected in the career development of most of the outstandingly successful women of the generation now in their fifties, who currently serve on corporate boards: 25 percent are in education and 22 percent are in government, law, and the nonprofit sector. One organization of women directors is helping business become more responsive to the changing needs of society by raising the level of corporate awareness about social issues, such as problems with the economy, government regulation, the aging population and the environment. This organization also serves as a resource center of information on accomplished women who are potential candidates for corporate boards.

单选题

单选题The appeal of hydrogen fuel cells has long been obvious. Because these devices use electrochemical reactions to generate electricity from hydrogen, emitting only heat and water in the process, they offer a particularly green source of power, especially for vehicles. What has not been so obvious, however, is how to make hydrogen fuel cells practical. In 2009, Steven Chu, then the U. S. Secretary of Energy, told an interviewer that in order for hydrogen fuel-cell transportation to work, "four miracles" needed to happen. First, scientists had to find an efficient and low-cost way to produce hydrogen. Second, they had to develop a safe, high-density method of storing hydrogen in automobiles. Third, an infrastructure for distributing hydrogen had to be built so that fuel-cell vehicles would have ample refueling options. Fourth, researchers had to improve the capacity of the fuel-cell systems themselves, which were not as durable, powerful, and low cost as the internal combustion engine. Chu concluded that achieving all four big breakthroughs would be unlikely. "Saints only need three miracles," he added. Accordingly, the U. S. Department of Energy dramatically cut funding for fuel cells, reducing its support for various programs to nearly a third of previous levels. For the rest of Chu"s tenure, the department awarded nearly no new grants to develop the technology at universities, national labs, or private companies. Although the department"s total expenditures on fuel cells and hydrogen had always amounted to a small fraction of overall global investment in the sector, the change in posture sent a deeply pessimistic signal worldwide. Immediately after Chu"s comments made the rounds, the hydrogen community issued a defense, contending that major progress had been made. But the damage was done. Universities stopped hiring faculty in an area perceived to be dying, top students fled to other subjects, and programs at national labs were forced to reconfigure their efforts. Established scientists saw an abrupt decrease in funding opportunities for hydrogen and refocused their research on other technologies. The overall effect was a drastic shrinking of the human-resource pipeline feeding hydrogen and fuel-cell research. All of this was not necessarily a bad thing: new technologies come along all the time, pushing aside older ones that are no longer bound for the market. In the case of hydrogen fuel cells, however, scientists really had made big breakthroughs, and the technology was finally in the process of hitting the market. Rather than redirecting limited resources to more realistic technologies, the U. S. government"s policy arguably amounted to pulling the rug out from under hydrogen and fuel-cell research and development in the United States and handing over leadership in the sector to other countries. Patents are perhaps the best indicator of how much practical progress a technology is making, and even as the U. S. government decreased its support for research into hydrogen fuel cells (and increased its support for other clean energy technologies), the number of U. S. patents related to fuel cells continued to dwarf those of other energy technologies, with the exception of solar power.

单选题Questions 19-22

单选题

单选题We live in an age when everyone is a critic. "Criticism" is all over the Internet, in blogs and chat rooms, for everyone to access and add his two cents" worth on any subject, high or low. But if everyone is a critic, is that still criticism? Or are we heading toward the end of criticism? If all opinions are equally valid, there is no need for experts. Democracy works in life, but art is undemocratic. The result of this ultimately meaningless barrage is that more and more we are living in a profoundly- or shallowly-uncritical age. A critic, as T.S. Eliot famously observed, must be very intelligent. Now, can anybody assume that the invasion of cyberspace by opinion upon opinion is proof of great intelligence and constitutes informed criticism rather than uninformed artistic chaos? Of course, like any self-respecting critic, I have always encouraged my readers to think for themselves. They were to consider my positive or negative assessments, which I always tried to explain, a challenge to think along with me: here is my reasoning, follow it, then agree or disagree as you see fit. In an uncritical age, every pseudonymous chat-room chatterbox provides a snappy, self-confident judgment, without the process of arriving at it becoming clear to anyone, including the chatterer. Blogs, too, tend to be invitations to leap before a second look. Do the impassioned ramblings fed into a hungry blogosphere represent responses from anyone other than longheads? How has it come to this? We have all been bitten by television sound bites that transmute into Internet sound bytes, proving that brevity can also be the soul of witlessness. So thoughtlessness multiplies. Do not, however, think I advocate censorship, an altogether unacceptable form of criticism. What we need in this age of rampant uncritical criticism is the simplest and hardest thing to come by: a critical attitude. How could it be fostered? For starters, with the very thing discouraged by our print media: reading beyond the hectoring headlines and bold-type boxes embedded in reviews, providing a one-sentence summary that makes further reading unnecessary. With only slight exaggeration, we may say that words have been superseded by upward or downward pointing thumbs, self-destructively indulging a society used to instant self-gratification. Criticism is inevitably constricted by our multinational culture and by political correctness. As society grows more diverse, there are fewer and fewer universal points of reference between a critic and his or her readers. As for freedom of expression. Arthur Miller long ago complained about protests and pressures making the only safe subjects for a dramatist babies and the unemployed. My own experience is that over the years, print space for my reviews kept steadily shrinking, and the layouts themselves toadied to the whims of the graphic designer. In a jungle of oddball visuals, readers had difficulties finding my reviews. Simultaneously, our vocabulary went on a starvation diet. Where readers used to thank me for enlarging their vocabularies, more and more complaints were lodged about unwelcome trips to the dictionary, as if comparable to having to keep running to the toilet. Even my computer keeps questioning words I use, words that can be found in medium-size dictionaries. Can one give language lessons to a computer? What may be imperiled, more than criticism, is the word. I keep encountering people who think "critical" means carping or fault-finding, and nothing more. So it would seem that the critic"s pen, once mightier than the sword, has been supplanted by the ax. Yet I have always maintained that the critic has three duties, to write as well as a novelist or playwright; to be a teacher, taking off from where the classroom, always prematurely, has stopped, and to be a thinker, looking beyond his specific subject at society, history, philosophy. Reduce him to a consumer guide, run his reviews on a Web site mixed in with the next-door neighbor"s pontifications, and you condemn criticism to obsolescence. Still, one would like to think that the blog is not the enemy, and that readers seeking enlightenment could find it on the right blog— just as in the past one went looking through diverse publications for the congenial critic. But it remains up to the readers to learn how to discriminate.

单选题

单选题It is said that in England death is pressing, in Canada inevitable and in California optional Small wonder. Americans" life expectancy has nearly doubled over the past century. Failing hips can be replaced, clinical depression controlled, cataracts removed in a 30-minute surgical procedure. Such advances offer the aging population a quality of life that was unimaginable when I entered medicine 50 years ago. But not even a great health-care system can cure death, and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of ours. Death is normal; we are genetically programmed to disintegrate and perish, even under ideal conditions. We all understand that at some level, yet as medical consumers we treat death as a problem to be solved. Shielded by third-party payers from the cost of our care, we demand everything that can possibly be done for us, even if it"s useless. The most obvious example is late-stage cancer care. Physicians—frustrated by their inability to cure the disease and fearing loss of hope in the patient—too often offer aggressive treatment far beyond what is scientifically justified. In 1950, the U.S. spent $12.7 billion on health care. In 2002, the cost will be $1,540 billion. Anyone can see this trend is unsustainable. Yet few seem willing to try to reverse it. Some scholars conclude that a government with finite resources should simply stop paying for medical care that sustains life beyond a certain age—say 83 or so. Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has been quoted as saying that the old and infirm "have a duty to die and get out of the way", so that younger, healthier people can realize their potential. I would not go that far. Energetic people now routinely work through their 60s and beyond, and remain dazzlingly productive. At 78, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone jokingly claims to be 53. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O"Connor is in her 70s, and former surgeon general C. Everett Koop chairs an Internet start-up in his 80s. These leaders are living proof that prevention works and that we can manage the health problems that come naturally with age. As a mere 68-year-old, I wish to age as productively as they have. Yet there are limits to what a society can spend in this pursuit. As a physician, I know the most costly and dramatic measures may be ineffective and painful. I also know that people in Japan and Sweden, countries that spend far less on medical care, have achieved longer, healthier lives than we have. As a nation, we may be overfunding the quest for unlikely cures while underfunding research on humbler therapies that could improve people"s lives.

单选题A new catastrophe faces Afghanistan. The American bombing campaign is conspiring with years of civil conflict and drought to create an environmental crisis. Humanitarian and political concerns are dominating the headlines. But they are also masking the disappearance of the country's once rich habitat and wildlife, which are quietly being crushed by war. The UN is dispatching a team of investigators to the region next month to evaluate the damage. "A healthy environment is a prerequisite for rehabilitation," says Klaus Topfer, head of the UN environment Programme. Much of south-east Afghanistan was once lush forest watered by monsoon rains. Forests now cover less than 2 per cent of the country. "The Worst deforestation occurred during Taliban rule, when its timber mafia denuded forests to sell to Pakistani markets," says Usman Qazi, an environmental consultant based in Quetta, Pakistan. And the intense bombing intended to flush out the last of the Taliban troops is destroying or burning much of what remains. The refugee crisis is also wrecking the environment, anti much damage may be irreversible. Forests and vegetation are being cleared for much-needed farming, but the gains are likely to be short-term. "Eventually the land will be unfit for even the most basic form of agriculture,' warns Hammed Naqi of the World Wide Fund for Nature in Pakistan. Refugees—around 4 million as the last county—are also cutting into forests for firewood. The hail of bombs falling on Afghanistan is making life particularly bard for the country's wildlife. Birds such as the pelican and endangered Siberian crane cross eastern Afghanistan as they follow one of the world's great migratory thoroughfares from Siberia to Pakistan and India. But the number of the birds flying across the region has dropped by a staggering 85 per cent. "Cranes are very sensitive and they do not use file route if riley see any danger," says Ashiq Ahgmad, an environmental scientist for file WWF in Peshawar, Pakistan, who has tracked the collapse of the birds' migration this winter. The rugged mountains also usually provide a safe haven for mountain leopards, gazelles, bears and Marco Polo sheep—the world's largest species. "The same terrain that allows fighters to strike and disappear back into the frills has also historically enabled wild life to survive," says Peter Zahler of the Wildlife Conservation society, based in New York. But he warns they are now under intense pressure from file bombing and invasions of refugees and fighters. For instance, some refugees are hunting rare snow leopards to buy a safe passage across the border, A single fur can fetch $2,000 on the black market, says Zahler. Only 5,000 or so snow leopards are thought to survive in central Asia, and less than 100 in Afghanistan, their numbers already decimated by extensive hunting, and smuggling into Pakistan before the conflict." Timber, falcons and medicinal plants are also being smuggled across the border. The Taliban once controlled much of this trade, but the recent power vacuum could exacerbate the problem. Bombing will also leave its mark beyond file obvious craters. Defence analysts say that while depleted uranium has been used less in Afghanistan than in file Kosovo conflict, conventional explosives will litter the country with pollutants. They contain toxic compounds such as cyclonite, a carcinogen, and rocket propellants contain perchlorates, which damage thyroid glands.

单选题Questions 1-5 Each summer, no matter how pressing my work schedule, I take off one day exclusively for my son. We call it dad-son day. This year our third stop was the amusement park, where he discovered that he was tall enough to ride one of the fastest roller coasters in the world. We blasted through face-stretching turns and loops for ninety seconds. Then, as we stepped off the ride, he shrugged and, in a distressingly calm voice, remarked that it was not as exciting as other rides he"d been on. As I listened, I began to sense something seriously out of balance. Throughout the season, I noticed similar events all around me. Parents seemed hard pressed to find new thrills for indifferent kids. Surrounded by ever-greater stimulation, their young faces were looking disappointed and bored. Facing their children"s complaints of "nothing to do". Parents were shelling out large numbers of dollars for various forms of entertainment. In many cases the money seemed to do little more than buy transient relief from the terrible moans of their bored children. This set me pondering the obvious question. "How can it be so hard for kids to find something to do when there"s never been such a range of stimulating entertainment available to them?" Why do children immersed in this much excitement seem starved for more? That was, I realized, the point. I discovered during my own reckless adolescence that what creates excitement is not going fast, but going faster. Thrills have less to do with speed than changes in speed. I"m concerned about the cumulative effect of years at these levels of feverish activity. It is no mystery to me why many teenagers appear apathetic and burned out, with a "been there, done that" air of indifference toward much of life. As increasing numbers of friends" children are prescribed medications-stimulants to deal with inattentiveness at school or anti-depressants to help with the loss of interest and joy in their lives, I question the role of kids" boredom in some of the diagnoses. My own work is focused on the chemical imbalances and biological factors related to behavioral and emotional disorders. These are complex problems. Yet I"ve been reflecting more and more on how the pace of life and the intensity of stimulation may be contributing to the rising rates of psychiatric problems among children and adolescents in our society.

单选题 Everyone seems to hate America's latest stab at immigration reform, which went before the full Senate this week. Immigrant groups think it offers little hope to low-skilled, mostly Hispanic would-be migrants. Right-wingers snarl that it is nothing but an "amnesty" for illegals. Companies, who it had been hoped would support the new compromise, hate it because it imposes bureaucratic burdens on employers. And the left is complaining because it fears it will depress low-end wages. It would be nice to be able to report that opposition across so full a spectrum is a sign that the bill is a well-crafted compromise. In fact, it may well tom out to be doomed. That would be a pity, because there are some good things in the proposal. Most important, it produces a reasonably fair solution to the problem of what to do about the 12 minion or so illegal immigrants already in America, most of them working hard at low-paid and disagreeable jobs. Deporting a population the size of Ohio's is impossible, economically illiterate and morally wrong. The new bill would make the 12 million legal, and offer them a path, though a winding one, to full citizenship. The right doesn't like this, of course, and points out that amnesties (which this really isn't, given the fines and hurdles involved) have in the past drawn fresh waves of migrants. So the other side of the bargain gives conservatives everything they could wish for in terms of razor-wired fences, surveillance drones, armed border guards and a programme that will force companies to check the legality of their workers. Such measures are probably necessary to win support and rebuild trust in the immigration system. No bill would pass without them. The bad part of the deal is what happens to would-be immigrants once all those sensors and spy-planes are in place. The bill proposes a dual system. A guest-worker programme would allow 400,000 people a year to enter the country to work for two years, after which they must go home for a year, with a six-year cap on the total time they can spend in America. The other part is a new method of granting residence permits, carrying the right to work. Such "green cards" currently go mostly to relatives of American citizens or to people sponsored by an employer. The bill would bring in a "points" system for 380,000 people a year, similar to those in use in Canada and Australia. Permits for family members would be restricted, to cover only spouses and young children. Employers would have less ability to sponsor the people they need. There are several problems. One is that extended families help build vibrant communities in a way that guest workers don't. Second, the government should not be in the business of telling companies whom they ought to him. There are ways round this, such as awarding points not for specific jobs, but still the problem is that most of the green cards will be used up by Indian software designers, Bosnian engineers or the similarly blessed. America does indeed need such folk, but it also needs legions of the less-skilled, too. That will continue to mean a large, poorly paid and constantly rotating alien underclass with little stake in American society. On May 23rd, the Senate voted to scale the guest worker programme back to 200,000. So the illegals will keep coming—except that now their journey will be still more dangerous and they will be even further beyond the law. The current bill is better than nothing; but unless it is improved, it will not solve the main problem of the illegals.

单选题Eccentric people tend to form into groups because ______.

单选题Questions 15-18

单选题I am sure the soup tastes ______ . A. well B. deliciously C. goodly D. good

单选题Years ago, when I first started building websites for newspapers, many journalists told me that they saw the Internet as the end of reliable journalism. Since anyone could publish whatever they wanted online, "real journalism" would be overwhelmed, they said. Who would need professional reporters and editors if anyone could be a reporter or an editor? I would tell them not to worry. While my personal belief is that anyone can be a reporter or editor, I also know that quality counts. And that the "viral" nature of the Internet means that when people find quality, they let other people know about it. Even nontraditional media sites online will survive only if the quality of their information is trusted. The future of online news will demand more good reporters and editors, not fewer. So I was intrigued when Newsweek recently published a story called "Revenge of the Expert". It argued that expertise would be the main component of "Web 3.0". "The wisdom of the crowds has peaked," says Jason Calacanis, founder of the Maholo "people-powered search engine" and a former AOL executive. "Web 3.0 is taking what we"ve built in Web 2.0—the wisdom of the crowds—and putting an editorial layer on it of truly talented, compensated people to make the product more trusted and refined." Well, yes and no. Sure, it is important for people to trust the information they find online. And as the Newsweek article argues, the need for people to find trusted information online is increasing, thus the need for more expertise. But the article fails to mention the most important feature of the world of digital information. It"s not expertise—it"s choice. In many cases the sites that people come to trust are built on nontraditional models of expertise. Look at sites like Digg.com, Reddit.com, or Slashdot.com. There, users provide the expertise on which others depend. When many users select a particular story, that story accumulates votes of confidence, which often lead other users to choose that story. The choices of the accumulated community are seen as more trustworthy than the "gatekeeper" model of traditional news and information. Sometimes such sites highlight great reporting from traditional media. But often they bring forward bits of important information that are ignored (or missed) by "experts". It"s sort of the "open source" idea of information—a million eyes looking on the Web for information is better than a few. Jay Rosen, who writes the PressThink blog, says in an e-mail that he"s seen this kind of story before, calling it a "kind of pathetic" trend reporting. "I said in 2006, when starting NewAssignment. Net, that the strongest editorial combinations will be pro-am. I still think that. Why? Because for most reporters covering a big sprawling beat, it"s still true what Dan Gillmor said: "My readers know more than I do." And it"s still the case that tapping into that knowledge is becoming more practical because of the Internet." J. D. Lasica, a social-media strategist and former editor, also says he sees no departure from the "wisdom of the crowds" model. "I"ve seen very little evidence that the sweeping cultural shifts we"ve seen in the past half dozen years show any signs of retreating," Mr. Lasica says. "Young people now rely on social networks ... to take cues from their friends on which movies to see, books to read... And didn"t "Lonely Planet Guide" explore this terrain for travel and Zagat"s for dining back in the "90s?" In many cases, traditional media is still the first choice of online users because the reporters and editors of these media outlets have created a level of trust for many people—but not for everyone. When you combine the idea of expertise with the idea of choice, you discover nontraditional information sites that become some of the Internet"s most trusted places. Take SCOTUSblog.com, written by lawyers about cases in the Supreme Court. It has become the place to go for other lawyers, reporters, and editors to find in-depth information about important cases. The Internet also allows individuals to achieve this level of trust. For instance, the Scobleizer.com blog written by Robert Scoble. Mr. Scoble, a former Microsoft employee and tech expert, is widely seen as one of the most important people to read when you want to learn what"s happening in the world of technology. He built his large audience on the fact that people trust his writing. To me, it"s the best of all possible information worlds.

单选题