单选题American no longer expect public figures, whether in speech or in writing, to command the English language with skill and gift. Nor do they aspire to such command themselves. In his latest book, Doing Our Own Thing. The Degradation of language and Music and why we should like, care, John McWhorter, a linguist and controversialist of mixed liberal and conservative views, sees the triumph of 1960s counter-culture as responsible for the decline of formal English. But the cult of the authentic and the personal, "doing our own thing", has spelt the death of formal speech, writing, poetry and music. While even the modestly educated sought an elevated tone when they put pen to paper before the 1960s, even the most well regarded writing since then has sought to capture spoken English on the page. Equally, in poetry, the highly personal, performative genre is the only form that could claim real liveliness. In both oral and written English, talking is triumphing over speaking, spontaneity over craft. Illustrated with an entertaining array of examples from both high and low culture, the trend that Mr. McWhorter documents is unmistakable. But it is less clear, to take the question of his subtitle, why we should, like care. As a linguist, he acknowledges that all varieties of human language, including non-standard ones like Black English, can be powerfully expressive-there exists no language or dialect in the world that cannot convey complex ideas. He is not arguing, as many do, that we can no longer think straight because we do not talk proper. Russians have a deep love for their own language and carry large chunks of memorized poetry in their heads, while Italian politicians tend to elaborate speech that would seem old-fashioned to most English-speakers. Mr. McWhorter acknowledges that formal language is not strictly necessary, and proposes no radical education reforms-he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful. We now take our English "on paper plates instead of china". A shame, perhaps, but probably an inevitable one.

单选题—How kind of you to come round, but why? —______that all is right. [A] See [B] To see [C] Seeing [D] For seeing

单选题 {{B}}Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following interview.{{/B}}

单选题

单选题Questions 23—26

单选题

单选题Senator Barbara Boxer of California announced this month she intends to move ahead with legislation designed to lower the emission of greenhouse gases that are linked by many scientists to climate change. But the approach she's taking is flawed, and the current financial crisis can help us understand why. The centerpiece of this approach is the creation of a market for trading carbon emission credits. These credits would be either distributed free of charge or auctioned to major emitters of greenhouse gases. The firms could then buy and sell permits under federally mandated emissions caps. If a company is able to cut emissions, it can sell excess credits for a profit. If it needs to emit more, it can buy permits on the market from other firms. "Cap and trade," as it is called, is advocated by several policymakers, industry leaders, and activists who want to fight global warming. But it's based on the trade of highly volatile financial instruments.- risky at best. The better approach to climate change? A direct tax placed on emissions of greenhouse gases. The tax would create a market price for carbon emissions and lead to emissions reductions or new technologies that cut greenhouse gases. This is an approach favored by many economists as the financially sensible way to go. And it is getting a closer look by some industry professionals and lawmakers. At first blush, it might seem crazy to advocate a tax increase during a major recession. But there are several virtues of a tax on carbon emissions relative to a cap-and-trade program. For starters, the country already has a mechanism in place to deal with taxes. Tax collection is something the government has abundant experience with. A carbon trading scheme, on the other hand, requires the creation of elaborate new markets, institutions, and regulations to oversee and enforce it. Another relative advantage of the tax is its flexibility. It is easier to adjust the tax to adapt to changing economic, scientific, or other circumstances. If the tax is too low to be effective, it can be raised easily. If it is too burdensome it can be relaxed temporarily. In contrast, a cap-and-trade program creates emissions permits that provide substantial economic value to firms and industries. These assets limit the program's flexibility once under way, since market actors then have an interest in maintaining the status quo to preserve the value of the assets. What's more, they can be a recipe for trouble. As my American Enterprise Institute colleagues Ken Green, Steve Hayward, and Kevin Hassett pointed out two years ago, "sudden changes in economic conditions could lead to significant price volatility in a cap-and-trade program that would be less likely under a carbon-tax regime. " Recent experience bears this out. Europe has in place a cap-and-trade program that today looks a little like the American mortgage-backed securities market--it's a total mess. The price of carbon recently fell--plummeting from over $ 30 to around $12 per ton--as European firms unloaded their permits on the market in an effort to shore up deteriorating balance sheets during the credit crunch. It is this shaky experience with cap-and-trade that might explain an unlikely advocate of a carbon tax. Earlier this year, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson pointed in a speech to the problems with Europe's cap-and-trade program--such as the program's volatility and lack of transparency--as reasons he prefers a carbon tax. That said, new taxes are a tough sell in Washington, which helps explain the current preference for a cap-and-trade scheme. Despite this, there are ways to make a carbon tax more politically appealing. The first is to insist that it be "revenue neutral. " This means that any revenues collected from the tax are used to reduce taxes elsewhere, such as payroll taxes. The advantage of this approach is that it places a burden on something that is believed by many to be undesirable (greenhouse-gas emissions) while relieving a burden on something that is desirable (work). Another selling point is that the tax can justify the removal of an assortment of burdensome and costly regulations such as CAF? standards for car. These regulations become largely redundant in an era of carbon taxes. But it may be that a carbon tax doesn't need an elaborate sales pitch today when the alternative is trading carbon permits. The nation's recent experience with Fannie Mac, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage-backed securities market should prompt Congress to think twice when a member proposes the creation of a highly politicized market for innovative financial instruments, no matter how well intentioned the program may be.

单选题Questions 6～10 Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they" re always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around. "It"s iniquitous," they say, "that this entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don"t they stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods? After all, it"s the consumer who pays. " The poor old consumer! He"d have to pay a great deal more if advertising didn"t create mass markets for products. It is precisely because of the heavy advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea if we think the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read. Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding performance, price, etc. , from an advertisement. Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertisements these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think what a railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements. Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway byelaws while waiting for a train? Would you like to read only closely printed columns of news in your daily paper? A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calamities. We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a newspaper would cost if we had to pay its full price! Another thing we mustn"t forget is the "small ads. " which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the "hatch, match and dispatch" column but by far the most fascinating section is the personal or "agony" column. No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into human nature. It"s the best advertisement for advertising there is!

单选题Which of the following is true about the author's attitude towards "litmus test" in America?

单选题If one of your research staff announced that he had worked out a way to propel a vehicle on a cushion of air, would you tell him to concentrate on something practical, or suggest taking it further? If a member of your development team asked if she could come in late because she had her best ideas at 3 am would you insist that she is in the office at 9 am like everyone else? Current business wisdom is that companies need creative, innovative people to beat competitors. The reality is that companies have always needed new ideas to survive and progress, but in the past they weren"t particularly good at encouraging the people who produced them. Original thinkers don"t always fit easily into the framework of an organisation. However, the advice from managing director, John Serrano is "Get rid of the dull people and encourage the unusual ones". Essentially, he believes that companies need to learn how to manage their original thinkers in order to ensure that the business profits from their contribution. He also says, "Original thinkers often find it difficult to drive change within the organisation, so they resign, feeling angry and disappointed. It is essential to avoid this." "You can"t recognise original thinkers by the way they look", says Ian Freeman. An apparently ordinary exterior can conceal a very creative thinker. "His consultancy, IBT Personnel, has devised a structured way to identify original thinkers. We define employees as champions, free-wheelers, bystanders and weak links, and most original thinkers come into the category of free-wheelers. They may miss deadlines if they become involved in something more interesting. They are passionate and highly motivated but have little or no understanding of business directions and systems." Headhunter George Solomon also thinks original thinkers have their disadvantages. "They may have a bad influence within an organisation, especially given the current management trend for working in teams. The original thinkers themselves may be unaware of any problem, but having them around can be disruptive to colleagues, who have to be allowed to point out when they are being driven crazy by the original thinkers behaviour." Yet, in his opinion, the "dream team" in any creative organisation consists of a balanced mixture of original thinkers and more practical, realistic people. So, having identified your original thinkers, how do you handle them? One well-known computer games company has a very inventive approach. "We encourage our games designers by creating an informal working environment", says director Lorna Marsh. "A company cannot punish risk-takers if it wants to encourage creativity. Management has to provide support, coaching and advice-and take the risk that new ideas may not work. Our people have flexible working hours and often make no clear distinction between their jobs and their home lives." Original thinkers may fit into the culture of 21st century organisations, but more traditional organisations may have to change their approach. Business psychologist Jean Row believes that the first step is to check that original thinkers are worth the effort. "Are the benefits they bring worth the confusion they cause? If so, give them what they want, allow plenty of space, but set clear limits. Give them extremely demanding targets. If they fail to meet them, then the game is up. But if they succeed, your organisation stands only to gain."

单选题The economy may be troubled, but one area is thriving: social media. They begin with Facebook and extend through a dizzying array of companies that barely existed five years ago: Twitter, LinkedIn, Groupon, Yammer, Yelp, Flickr, Ning, Digg--and the list goes on. These companies are mostly private but have attracted the ardent attention of Wall Street and investors, with Facebook now worth a purported $ 75 billion and Groupon valued at close to $ 25 billion. There can be little doubt that these companies enrich their founders as well as some investors. But do they add anything to overall economic activity? While jobs in social media are growing fast, there were only about 21,000 listings last spring, a tiny fraction of the 150 million-member U. S. workforce. So do social-media tools enhance productivity or help us bridge the wealth divide? Or are they simply social--entertaining and diverting us but a wash when it comes to national economic health? The answers are vital, because billions of dollars in investment capital are being spent on these ventures, and if we are to have a productive future economy, that capital needs to grow the economic pie~and not just among the elite of Silicon Valley and Wall Street. The U. S. retains a competitive advantage because of its ability to innovate, but if that innovation creates services that don't turn into jobs, growth and prosperity, then it does us only marginal good. The problem is that these tools are so new that it is extremely difficult to answer the questions definitively. As I was about to write this column, I overheard a ceil-phone conversation at an airport with this snippet.- "The company says they are using social media, but who knows if it is making any difference?" Flash back nearly 20 years and the same question was being asked about the first Internet wave. Were Netscape and the Web enhancing our economy, or were people just spending more time at work checking out ESPN. com? Official statistics weren't designed to capture the benefits, and didn't--until statistics mavens at the Federal Reserve, urged on by Alan Greenspan, refined the way they measured productivity. As a result of these somewhat controversial innovations, the late 1990s became a period of substantial technology-driven gains. It is possible that the same gap exists today, that social-media tools are indeed laying the groundwork for new industries and jobs but aren't yet registering on the statistical radar. Many companies believe social media make them more competitive. Ford and Zappos, for instance, use Twitter to market their products and address consumer complaints. Countless corporations have created internal Face-book pages and Yammer accounts for employees to communicate across divisions and regions. Industry groups for engineers, doctors and human-resources professionals have done the same to share new ideas and solutions on a constant basis rather than episodically at conferences. Staffing companies have been especially keen on social media; a senior executive at Manpower told me we should think of social-media tools as today's version of the telephone. Yes, they are used for frivolity and all sorts of noneconomic activity (chatting with friends, passing the time), but they also help communication happen more efficiently. One big question is what proportion of that benefit will be captured economically by consumers vs. corporations. Sure, social media allow people to compare prices and quality and assess which companies are good to work for and where jobs might be. They also may enhance education and idea sharing, but the caveat is that the people who use these tools are the ones with higher education and income to spend on technology, not the tens of millions whose position in today's world has eroded so sharply. According to a recent Pew Foundation study, only 45% of adults making less than $ 30,000 have access to broadband, which is an essential component of using content-rich social media effectively. And that is the tub. Like so many things these days, social media contribute to economic bifurcation. Dynamic companies are benefiting from these tools, even if the gains are tough to nail down in specific figures. Many individuals are benefiting too, using LinkedIn to find jobs and Groupon to find deals. But for now, the irony is that social media widen the social divide, making it even harder for the have-nots to navigate. They allow those with jobs to do them more effectively and companies that are profiting to profit more. But so far, they have done little to aid those who are being left behind. They are, in short, business as usual.

单选题If La Hontan's writing did, in fact, reflect his "philosophical bias", it can be interred that as a philosopher he was most likely motivated by a desire to ______.

单选题 {{B}}Questions 6 to 10 are based on the following news.{{/B}}

单选题

单选题One of the many upsetting aspects to being in your forties, is hearing people your own age grumbling about "young people" the way we were grumbled about ourselves. Old friends will complain, "Youngsters today have no respect like we did", and I'll think: "Hang on. I remember the night you set a puma loose in the soft furnishings section of Pricerite' s. " There's also a "radicals" version of this attitude, a strand within the middle-aged who lament how today's youngsters, "Don't demonstrate like we did", because "we were always marching against apartheid or for the miners but students these days don't seem bothered". It would seem natural if they went on: "The bloody youth of today; they've no disrespect for authority. In my day you started chanting and if a copper gave you any lip you gave him a clip round the ear, and he didn' t do it again. We've lost those values somehow. " You feel that even if they did come across a mass student protest they'd sneer. "That isn't a proper rebellion, they've used the internet. "You wouldn't have caught Spartacus rounding up his forces by putting a message on Facebook saying 'Hi Cum 2 Rome 4 gr8 rite 2 liber8 slaves lets kill emprer lol' ". It doesn't help that many of the student leaders from the sixties and seventies ended up as ministers or journalists, who try to deny they've reneged on their principles by making statements such as: "It's true I used to run the Campaign to Abolish the British Army, but my recent speech in favour of invading every country in the world in alphabetical order merely places those ideals in a modern setting. " Also it's become a tougher prospect to rebel as a student, as tuition fees force them to work while they' re studying. But over the last two weeks students have organised occupations in 29 universities, creating the biggest student revolt for 20 years. In Edinburgh, for example, the demands were that free scholarships should be provided for Palestinian students, and the university should immediately cancel its investments with arms companies. So the first question to arise from these demands must be: what are universities doing having links with arms companies in the first place? How does that help education? Do the lecturers make an announcement that, "This year, thanks to British Aerospace, the media studies course has possession of not only the latest digital recording equipment and editing facilities, but also three landmines and a Tornado bomber"? The occupations involve students selecting an area of the university, then staying there, day and night, and organising a series of events and worthwhile discussions while the authorities pay security guards to stand outside and scowl. Warwick University, for example, organised an "Alternative Careers Fair", in which, presumabiy, if someone was brilliant at maths, the careers adviser would say to them, "I suggest you become an accountant for a Peruvian guerilla army. They're looking for people who can reliably file their tax returns before the deadline, as they're in enough trouble as it is. " But the extraordinary part about this wave of student protest is that in most universities the authorities, having spent the first week insisting the demands were impossible to meet, have now backed down. So dozens of Palestinians, who these days seem to be minus a university in Gaza for some reason, will have places here. And several are reviewing their connections to the arms trade. University College London, for example, could be severing its link to the arms company Cobham. Presumably this will spark outrage from predictable sources, who'll yell: "We don't pay our taxes so that students can go round selflessly helping people who've been bombed. "We fund their education so they can get a degree in business studies and cock up the global economy. If these layabouts can't buckle down it's time we cut off the funding we're now giving them and send them out to work in a job that no longer exists!" And there's another impact of a modern student revolt, which makes it even more threatening than similar protests in the sixties. Because most students now have to work to fund their course, so a protest like this will not only infuriate their authorities, it will also bring every pizza delivery company and chicken nuggets shop to its knees at the same time.

单选题If you intend using humor in your talk to make people smile, you must know how to identify shared experiences and problems. Your humor must be relevant to the audience and should help to show them that you are one of them or that you understand their situation and are in sympathy with their point of view. Depending on whom you are addressing, the problems will be different. If you are talking to a group of managers, you may refer to the disorganized methods of their secretaries; alternatively if you are addressing secretaries, you may want to comment on their disorganized bosses. Here is an example, which I heard at a nurses" convention, of a story which works well because the audience ail shared the same view of doctors. A man arrives in heaven and is being shown around by St. Peter. He sees wonderful accommodations, beautiful gardens, sunny weather, and so on. Everyone is very peaceful, polite and friendly until, waiting in a line for lunch, the new arrival is suddenly pushed aside by a man in a white coat, who rushes to the head of the line, grabs his food and stomps over to a table by himself. "Who is that?" the new arrival asked St. Peter. "Oh, that"s God," came the reply, "but sometimes he thinks he"s a doctor." If you are part of the group which you are addressing, you will be in a position to know the experiences and problems which are common to all of you and it"ll be appropriate for you to make a passing remark about the inedible canteen food or the chairman"s notorious bad taste in ties. With other audiences you mustn"t attempt to cut in with humor as they will resent an outsider making disparaging remarks about their canteen or their chairman. You will be on safer ground if you stick to scapegoats like the Post Office or the telephone system. If you feel awkward being humorous, you must practice so that it becomes more natural. Include a few casual and apparently off-the-cuff remarks which you can deliver in a relaxed and unforced manner. Often it"s the delivery which causes the audience to smile, so speak slowly and remember that a raised eyebrow or an unbelieving look may help to show that you are making a light-hearted remark. Look for the humor. It often comes from the unexpected. A twist on a familiar quote "If at first you don"t succeed, give up" or a play on words or on a situation. Search for exaggeration and understatements. Look at your talk and pick out a few words or sentences which you can mm about and inject with humor.

单选题It can be concluded from the essay that the author's attitude toward the training game is that of ______.

单选题The Great Barrier Reef is more than worthy of its name. Coral of all shapes, sizes and colors cover more than 130,000 sq. mi. off the coast of Australia, making it the world"s largest reef system and supporting an astounding variety of marine life. But today the Great Barrier Reef is dying. The temporary warming effect of a major El Nino event—combined with ongoing climate change—has heated the waters around the reef to nearly unprecedented levels. That warming has in turn driven a mass bleaching that has sucked the color—and the life—out of the coral. And the Great Barrier Reef isn"t alone. "This is the longest bleaching event ever recorded," says David Kline, a Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist. "It"s truly global, and it"s looking very severe." Bleaching occurs when ocean disruptions—warm water, pollution, algae overgrowth-drive away the symbiotic organisms that live on the coral and give it color. Within weeks, the reef could die, leaving behind a forest of lifeless, bone white coral. Scientists believe the bleaching now under way may kill more than 15% of the world"s coral. It"s not just a matter of aquatic aesthetics. Reefs act as natural barriers that protect coastal communities from storms and flooding. Marine life depends on coral reefs as habitats, while coastal towns depend on them as tourist draws. But a bigger worry may be what the bleaching suggests about future climate change. The rapid death of coral reefs demonstrates that climate change is irreversibly affecting the world right now, even as policymakers treat warming as something to be dealt with in the future. "Climate change may be slow-creeping sometimes, but other times it takes great leaps forward," says Steve Palumbi, an ocean scientist at Stanford University. "This is one of those leaps." Local solutions—like reducing fishing and cleaning up pollution-can help slow reef loss, but scientists say a global problem requires a global solution. Nearly 200 countries agreed last year to work to keep global temperatures from rising more than 3.6℉ by 2100, but that goal will be tough to reach. And if governments fail, coral reefs will be only the first victims.

单选题

单选题 {{B}}Questions 15-18{{/B}}