单选题Questions 16～20 In some countries where racial prejudice is acute, violence has so come to be taken for granted as a means of solving differences, that it is not even questioned. There are countries where the white man imposes his rule by brute force; there are countries where the black man protests by setting fire to cities and by looting and pillaging. Important people on both sides, who would in other respects, appear to be reasonable men, get up and calmly argue in favor of violence—as if it were a legitimate solution, like any other. What is really frightening, what really fills you with despair, is the realization that when it comes to the crunch, we have made no actual progress at all. We may wear collars and ties instead of war-paint, but our instincts remain basically unchanged. The whole of the recorded history of the human race, that tedious documentation of violence, has taught us absolutely nothing. We have still not learnt that violence never solves a problem but makes it more acute. The sheer horror, the bloodshed and the suffering mean nothing. No solution ever comes to light the morning after when we dismally contemplate the smoking ruins and wonder what hit us. The truly reasonable men who know where the solutions lie are finding it harder and harder to get a hearing. They are despised, mistrusted and even persecuted by their own kind because they advocate such apparently outrageous things as law enforcement. If half the energy that goes into violent acts were put to good use, if our efforts were directed at cleaning up the slums and ghettos, at improving living standards and providing education and employment for all, we would have gone a long way to arriving at a solution. Our strength is sapped by having to mop up the mess that violence leaves in its wake. In a well-directed effort, it would not be impossible to fulfill the ideals of a stable social programme. The benefits that can be derived from constructive solutions are everywhere apparent in the world around us. Genuine and lasting solutions are always possible, providing we work within the framework of the law. Before we can even begin to contemplate peaceful co-existence between the races, we must appreciate each other's problems. And to do this, we must learn about them: it is a simple exercise in communication, in exchanging information. "Talk, talk, talk," the advocates of violence say, "all you ever do is talk, and we are none the wiser." It's rather like the story of the famous barrister who painstakingly explained his case to the judge. After listening to a lengthy argument the judge complained that after all this talk, he was none the wiser. "Possible, my lord," the barrister replied, "none the wiser, but surely far better informed. " Knowledge is the necessary prerequisite to wisdom: the knowledge that violence creates the evils it pretends to solve.

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题

单选题Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear several short talks and conversations. After each of these, you will hear a few questions. Listen carefully because you will hear the talk or conversation and questions ONLY ONCE. When you hear a question, read the four answer choices and choose the best answer to that question. Then write the letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. Questions 11～14

单选题Questions 16 to 20 are based on the following talk.

单选题 Questions 11～15 For one brief moment in April, Larry Ellison came within a few dollars of being the richest man in the world. The computer tycoon was holding a global conference call on a Wednesday morning, when the value of his company surged. It was the moment he almost overtook Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, as the wealthiest on the planet. For a few seconds, as share of traders marked Microsoft down and Oracle up, Ellison came within US $ 200,000 of Gates. The self-proclaimed "bad boy" of Silicon Valley found himself worth more than US $ 52 billion, up from a mere US $10 billion this time last year. Then Microsoft's share price, which had plunged in recent weeks, recovered and the moment passed. Once, Ellison, founder of the software company Oracle, would have danced around his desk cursing like a pirate at failing to bring down Gates, a rival he had constantly made fun of in public. But Silicon Valley insiders said he remained calm, and muttered: "One day, one day very, very soon." He knew his moment was close. Unlike Gates, he is not big on charity, preferring to spend his money his way. He has his own private air force, a military-style crew based at San Jose airport near Redwood City, to help him fly his Gulfstream V jet (with two marbled bathrooms), a Marchetti fighter plane imported from Italy, and a handful of other aircraft, including a trainer for his son. He also plans to import a Russian Mig-29 fighter (capable of 1,500 mph). Why does he want one? So that, he joked, he can blast Gates' home near Seattle. Cars are cheap and cheerful by comparison. He has a relatively modest Porsche Boxster, two specially altered Mercedes and a US $ 900,000 silver McLaren. In San Francisco he owns a magnificent house in Pacific Heights, one of Western America's most expensive stretches of real estate. The house is a technical marvel. When he inserts his key, the opaque glass door turns transparent, revealing a Japanese garden in the middle of the house. For reasons he knows best, Ellison is obsessed with Japanese culture. Though he says he once briefly dated the actress Sharon Stone, Ellison is better known for the number than the fame of his wives. It is said he introduced himself with: "Can I buy you a car?" In one year he gave at least four US $ 50,000 cars to young ladies. While Gates comes from a strong family, Ellison still does not know who his father was. He was born to an unmarried mother and adopted by his Russian uncle and aunt. A brilliant but unpredictable self-promoter, he dropped out of college, drove to California in a battered Thunderbird car and ended up working with computer technicians at a bank. "He always had a champagne lifestyle on beer money," his first wife said. He set up Oracle in 1977 as a super-salesman with 3 programmers, creating software for businesses. It almost collapsed when it promised more than it could deliver, but since then its fortunes have soared. Now it employs 43,000 people and has designed data-processing systems used by Britain's M15 spy service as well as big western companies. Oracle's software is more Internet- friendly than Gates' Windows, one factor behind the company's recent share price rise. Since his company got big, Ellison has promised shareholders that he will spend more time in the office. But can he escape being the thrill-seeker he is at heart? As summer approaches, he may find it hard to resist the lure of his yachts, Sakura, one of the longest in the world, and Sayonara (Japanese for "see you later"), which he races furiously. It is dangerous sport, even for guests. Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch once nearly lost a finger when he grabbed a rope during a race onboard the Sayonara. Ellison joked at least he could "still wrote checks". Regardless of distractions, Ellison will not give up in his battle against Gates. He hates to lose. Ellison declares that any such dominance by one man, like Microsoft in computer industry, is unhealthy. He has obviously forgotten his own plan for a global empire, which he wanted to call the Universal Titanic Octopus Corporation.

单选题

单选题Questions 27～30

单选题Questions 16～20 In some countries where racial prejudice is acute, violence has so come to be taken for granted as a means of solving differences, that it is not even questioned. There are countries where the white man imposes his rule by brute force; there are countries where the black man protests by setting fire to cities and by looting and pillaging. Important people on both sides, who would in other respects, appear to be reasonable men, get up and calmly argue in favor of violence—as if it were a legitimate solution, like any other. What is really frightening, what really fills you with despair, is the realization that when it comes to the crunch, we have made no actual progress at all. We may wear collars and ties instead of war-paint, but our instincts remain basically unchanged. The whole of the recorded history of the human race, that tedious documentation of violence, has taught us absolutely nothing. We have still not learnt that violence never solves a problem but makes it more acute. The sheer horror, the bloodshed and the suffering mean nothing. No solution ever comes to light the morning after when we dismally contemplate the smoking ruins and wonder what hit us. The truly reasonable men who know where the solutions lie are finding it harder and harder to get a hearing. They are despised, mistrusted and even persecuted by their own kind because they advocate such apparently outrageous things as law enforcement. If half the energy that goes into violent acts were put to good use, if our efforts were directed at cleaning up the slums and ghettos, at improving living standards and providing education and employment for all, we would have gone a long way to arriving at a solution. Our strength is sapped by having to mop up the mess that violence leaves in its wake. In a well-directed effort, it would not be impossible to fulfill the ideals of a stable social programme. The benefits that can be derived from constructive solutions are everywhere apparent in the world around us. Genuine and lasting solutions are always possible, providing we work within the framework of the law. Before we can even begin to contemplate peaceful co-existence between the races, we must appreciate each other"s problems. And to do this, we must learn about them: it is a simple exercise in communication, in exchanging information. "Talk, talk, talk," the advocates of violence say, "all you ever do is talk, and we are none the wiser." It"s rather like the story of the famous barrister who painstakingly explained his case to the judge. After listening to a lengthy argument the judge complained that after all this talk, he was none the wiser. "Possible, my lord," the barrister replied, "none the wiser, but surely far better informed. " Knowledge is the necessary prerequisite to wisdom: the knowledge that violence creates the evils it pretends to solve.

单选题

单选题

单选题Helen Keller was born on June 27, 1880 in Tuscumbia, Alabama to Captain Arthur and Kate Keller. Helen was healthy until the age of nineteen months when she developed a brain fever that may have been scarlet fever. The fever left her unable to hear, see or speak. Captain Keller was a newspaper editor and was determined to find help for his child. He contacted Dr. Alexander Graham Bell to assist him. Dr. Bell found Michael Anagnos, the director of the Perkins Institution for the blind in Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Anagnos sent one of his best students, Annie Sullivan to help Helen. The students at the Perkins Institution made a doll for Annie Sullivan to give Helen. Ms. Sullivan began using the doll to spell the word doll in Helen's hand. Helen learned quickly to make the letters. Helen learned many words and soon wanted to learn to speak. Miss Sarah Fuller of the Horace Mann School was her first speech teacher. Helen learned to use the raised print for reading and soon wanted to go on to college. Helen graduated from Radcliffe College with honors in 1904. Annie Sullivan spelled books and lectures in Helen's hand all through college. Helen Keller spent the rest of her life trying to make it easier for disabled people to learn. She fought for women's rights, equality for minorities and worker's rights. She was a crusader for people who needed help. Helen Keller won many awards for her work for the blind. Helen Keller died on June 1, 1968, a few weeks short of her 88th birthday. She will be remembered by the world as a champion and hero of the blind and disabled people.

单选题There has been no lack of theories on the cause of war. But we do lack theories that hold up when tested against the facts of history. This deficiency of all existing theories has led a group of scholars to try to reverse the typical way of arriving at an explanation for war. Instead of coming up with a theory and then looking for the evidence, they have decided to look first at the evidence. Their first undertaking was to collect the most precise information possible about wars, their length, destructiveness, and participants. But before they could do even this they needed careful definitions of terms, so it would be clear which events belonged in the category of "war", when a state could be considered "participating in a war", what in fact a "state" was, and so on. Like all definitions, theirs were somewhat arbitrary, but they carefully justified their choices and, more important, they drew up their definitions first, before arriving at their conclusions so that they could not be accused of defining events in a way that would prove their presuppositions. After agreeing on definitions, they set out to collect data. Even though they confined themselves to wars fought in the last 150 years, they encountered difficulties in getting precise information on items such as the number of casualties. Nevertheless, they argue, their results are better than any that preceded them. These basic facts about wars were published in a handbook, The Wages of War 1865—1965, edited by two leaders of the project, J. David Singer and Melvin Small. Even though this is only the beginning of the project, it already provides some answers to questions about wars. You might hear a street corner preacher tell you that the end of the world is at hand, because the number of wars is increasing just as the Bible prophesies. If you want to check the validity of such an assertion, you could turn to The Wages of War and answer the question using the best available data. The next step in the project is to identify conditions or events that seem to be associated with wars. They are not looking for explanations, but just for correlations, that is, items that usually accompany each other. It is for this reason that they have named their project "The Correlates of War". Starting with their collection of data on wars, they could examine the hypothesis of Woodrow Wilson that autocracies are the cause of wars. If this were true, then autocracies would fight other autocracies and democracies might fight autocracies in defense, but democracies would never fight democracies. After defining "democracy" in a way that could be measured (for example, the frequency with which officeholders change office) they would see if any of the wars they had identified in the last 150 years had been fought between two countries clearly identifiable as democracies. If they could find no such wars, they could say there was a correlation between democracy and peace. It would not yet be a proof that autocracies cause war. There could be other explanations—the world might contain only one or two democracies. But a correlation would be an important first step. The Correlates of War project is just entering this second stage. It will be some time before a full theory appears. Even when the project does produce a theory of war (if it finds evidence to warrant such a theory), it may not provide the final word on the subject. Any such project must make decisions early in the research, such as what counts as a war and what does not. These decisions can crucially affect the outcome, even though it might not be evident for a long time that they will. Here is an example of this problem. The Correlates of War project counts the wars fought by Prussia under Bismarck as three separate wars because each stopped before the next one started. On the other hand, Hitler"s belligerent moves against neighboring countries in 1939 and 1940 (Poland, Denmark, Belgium, France, Norway) are counted as only one war because they took place in rapid succession. If these data are used in specific ways, they could "demonstrate" that Bismarck was more warlike than Hitler. For some purposes this might be satisfactory but not for others. Another problem is revealed by this example. Because the Danes capitulated to the Germans in 1940, that encounter is not listed as a war at all. Because the Belgians did resist, that is counted as part of World War Ⅱ. But the difference between these two situations was not the willingness of German to fight but the willingness of Germany"s victim to resist. What is measured, then, is not so much the willingness of states to go to war (which may be the most important phenomenon to explain), but the willingness of other states to resist aggression. In spite of such objections, however, the Correlates of War project is an important effort, in many ways superior to earlier studies on the causes of war.

单选题

单选题{{B}}Directions:{{/B}} In this part of the test, you will hear several short talks and conversations. After each of these, you will hear a few questions. Listen carefully because you will hear the talk or conversation and questions {{B}}ONLY ONCE.{{/B}} When you hear a question, read the four answer choices and choose the best answer to that question. Then write the letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your {{B}}ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}} {{B}}Questions 11—14{{/B}}

单选题

单选题 Questions 19～22

单选题Questions 27-30

单选题

单选题