单选题The word "fiasco" as used in Para. 4 is closest in meaning to ______.

单选题The phrase "litmus test" is in bad odor for good reason: politicians should be judged on a variety of positions, not just one. But deep down, nearly every voter has at least one litmus test— an issue so personally important that a politician who fails the test is forever tainted, or at least excluded from consideration for the presidency. I inherited my one litmus test from my father, Jim Alter, who flew 33 harrowing missions over Nazi Germany during World War 11. My father is not just a veteran who by all odds should not have survived. He is a true patriot. His litmus test is the proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, which will come up for a vote next week in the U. S. Senate. For dad—and me—any member of Congress who supports amending the Bill of Rights for the first time in the history of this country for a nonproblem like flag burning is showing serious disrespect for our Constitution and for the values for which brave Americans gave their lives. Such disrespect is a much more serious threat than the random idiots who once every decade or so try (often unsuccessfully) to burn a flag. Our understandable outrage at flag burning shouldn"t turn our brains to mush. "I feel the same sense of outrage, but I would not amend that great shield of democracy (the Constitution) to hammer a few miscreants," Colin Powell said when the issue last came up (his position has not changed). "The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away." Powell argues that a constitutional ban on flag burning is a sign of weakness and fear. John Glenn, another of the thousands of combat veterans against the amendment (they have banded together in a group called Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights), notes that "those 10 amendments we call the Bill of Rights have never been changed or altered by one iota, not by one word, not a single time in all of American history. There was not a single change during any of our foreign wars, and not during recessions or depressions or panics. Not a single change when we were going through times of great emotion and anger like the Vietnam era, when flag after flag was burned or desecrated. There is only one way to weaken our nation. The way to weaken our nation would be to erode the freedom that we all share." Actually, even during the Vietnam War, flag burning was rare. By one count, there have been only 45 such incidents in 200 years, and fewer than half a dozen since it was outlawed in 1989. Should the Constitution be amended, however, the incidence of flag burning is expected to surge as a form of civil disobedience. What began as a phony issue designed to prove patriotism (usually on the part of those who never served, the primary sponsors) could become a real concern. The flag-burning amendment, which already passed the House, is apparently just short of the 67 needed in the Senate. With one or two absences, the amendment would be approved. It would then go to the states for ratification, where its chances for approval appear good. Senators afraid of being seen as soft on flag burners should just adopt the Hillary Clinton dodge: support for a statute, but not an amendment. Another law is a dopey idea (an earlier one was struck down by the Supreme Court), but it"s politically safe and better than perverting the Constitution. To make matters worse, the amendment is vaguely worded, which led to fatuous debate in the Senate over whether a woman wearing a skimpy bathing suit patterned with stars and stripes was guilty of desecration. Bloggers wondered the same thing about President Bush"s new habit of autographing flags when he shakes hands on rope lines. Unconstitutional? With a war on and a hundred other pressing problems, it"s nice to see our elected representatives focused on what really counts. The usual litmus tests-abortion, gun control, Iraq-shouldn"t be. Reasonable and sincere people can disagree, with at least one or two principled arguments on each side. The flag burning amendment is in a category by itself: the only argument for it is based on pure emotion. But ours is supposed to be a government of reason, not emotion, especially when it comes to the most precious repository of, our rights. The American Constitution, the apogee of reason in the history of self government, is real; the American flag, for all of its beauty and deep meaning, is symbolic. For more than 200 years, we"ve occasionally used the amendment process to expand rights. This would be the first time we would enshrine their restriction. Polluting the Constitution is far more dangerous than burning the flag.

单选题For several days I saw little of Mr. Rochester. In the morning he seemed much occupied with business, and in the afternoon gentlemen from the neighbourhood called and sometimes stayed to dine with him. When his foot was well enough, he rode out a great deal. During this time, all my knowledge of him was limited to occasional meetings about the house, when he would sometimes pass me coldly, and sometimes bow and smile. His changes of manner did not offend me, because I saw that I had nothing to do with the cause of them. One evening, several days later, I was invited to talk to Mr. Rochester after dinner. He was sitting in his armchair, and looked not quite so severe, and much less gloomy. There was a smile on his lips, and his eyes were bright, probably with wine. As I was looking at him, he suddenly turned, and asked me, "do you think I"m handsome, Miss Eyre?" The answer somehow slipped from my tongue before I realized it: "No, sir. " "Ah, you really are unusual! You are a quiet, serious little person, but you can be almost rude. " "Sir, I"m sorry. I should have said that beauty doesn"t matter, or something like that." "No, you shouldn"t! I see, you criticize my appearance, and then you stab me in the back! You have honesty and feeling. There are not many girls like you. But perhaps I go too fast. Perhaps you have awful faults to counterbalance your few good points. I thought to myself that he might have too. He seemed to read my mind, and said quickly, ""Yes, you"re right. I have plenty of faults. I went the wrong way when I was twenty-one, and have never found the right path again. I might have been very different. I might have been as good as you, and perhaps wiser. I am not a bad man, take my word for it, but I have done wrong. It wasn"t my character, but circumstances which were to blame. Why do I tell you all this? Because you"re the sort of person people tell their problems and secrets to, because you"re sympathetic and give them hope. " It seemed he had quite a lot to talk to me. He didn"t seem to like to finish the talk quickly, as was the case for the first time. "Don"t be afraid of me, Miss Eyre. " He continued. "You don"t relax or laugh very much, perhaps because of the effect Lowood School has had on you. But in time you will be more natural with me, and laugh, and speak freely. You"re like a bird in a cage. When you get out of the cage, you"ll fly very high. Good night. "

单选题Questions 11—14

单选题{{B}}Questions 1 to 5 are based on the following conversation.{{/B}}

单选题Questions 15-18

单选题 Directions: 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. Questions 1-5 To understand the marketing concept, it is only necessary to understand the difference between marketing and selling. Not too many years ago, most industries concentrated primarily on the efficient production of goods, and then relied on "persuasive salesmanship" to move as much of these goods as possible. Such production and selling focuses on the needs of the seller to produce goods and then convert them into money. Marketing, on the other hand, focuses on the wants of consumers. It begins with first analyzing the preferences and demands of consumers and then producing goods that will satisfy them. This eye- on-the-consumer approach is known as the marketing concept, which simply means that instead of trying to sell whatever is easiest to produce or buy for resale, the makers and dealers first endeavor to find out what the consumer wants to buy and then go about making it available for purchase. This concept does not imply that business is benevolent or that consumer satisfaction is given priority over profit in a company. There are always two sides to every business transaction--the firm and the customer—and each must be satisfied before trade occurs. Successful merchants and producers, however, recognize that the surest route to profit is through understanding and catering to customers. A striking example of the importance of catering to the consumer presented itself in mid-1985, when Coca Cola changed the flavor of its drink. The non-acceptance of the new flavor by a significant portion of the public brought about a prompt restoration of the Classic Coke, which was then marketed alongside the new. King Customer ruled!

单选题 We might marvel at the progress made in every field of study, but the methods of testing a person's knowledge and ability remain as primitive as ever they were. It really is extraordinary that after all these years, educationists have still failed to devise anything more efficient and reliable than examinations. For all the pious claim that examinations test what you know, it is common knowledge that they more often do the exact opposite. They may be a good means of testing memory, or the knack of working rapidly under extreme pressure, but they can tell you nothing about a person's true ability and aptitude. As anxiety-makers, examinations are second to none. That is because so much depends on them. They are the mark of success or failure in our society. Your whole future may be decided in one fateful day. It doesn't matter that you weren't feeling very well, or that your mother died. Little things like that don't count: the exam goes on. No one can give of his best when he is in mortal terror, or after a sleepless night, yet this is precisely what the examination system expects him to do. The moment a child begins school, he enters a world of vicious competition where success and failure are clearly defined and measured. Can we wonder at the increasing number of "drop-outs": young people who are written off as utter failures before they have even embarked on a career? Can we be surprised at the suicide rate among students? A good education should, among other things, train you to think for yourself. The examination system does anything but that. What has to be learnt is rigidly laid down by a syllabus, so the student is encouraged to memorize. Examinations do not motivate a student to read widely, but to restrict his reading; they do not enable him to seek more and more knowledge, but induce cramming. They lower the standards of teaching, for they deprive the teacher of all freedoms. Teachers themselves are often judged by examination results and instead of teaching their subjects, they are reduced to training their students in exam techniques which they despise. The most successful candidates are not always the best educated; they are the best trained in the technique of working under duress. The results on which so much depends are often nothing more than a subjective assessment by some anonymous examiner. Examiners are only human. They get tired and hungry; they make mistakes. Yet they have to mark stacks of hastily scrawled scripts in a limited amount of time. They work under the same sort of pressure as the candidates. And their word carries weight. After a judge's decision you have the right of appeal, but not after an examiner's. There must surely be many simpler and more effective ways of assessing a person's true abilities. Is it cynical to suggest that examinations are merely a profitable business for the institutions that mn them? This is what it boils down to in the last analysis. The best comment on the system is this illiterate message recently scrawled on a wall: "I were a teenage drop-out and now I are a teenage millionaire."

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题

单选题 {{B}}Questions 27-30{{/B}}

单选题 Directions: 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. Questions 1-5 Feminist sociolinguists, over the course of the last few decades, have conducted studies that they believe support the conclusion that women are routinely discriminated against in English- speaking society. They point to the words used to describe women, as well as the words used to describe society as a whole, as indications that the English language and therefore the English- speaking culture, is slanted towards the advantage of males. The words used to describe women are used as an instrument by feminist sociolinguists to denote an inherent sexism in the English language. Word pairs such as master and mistress and sir and madam, they claim, epitomize such sexism. All of the words in question once held positive connotations but, while the masculine forms have retained their respectable associations, the feminine forms have undergone pejoration and now imply sexual promiscuity and other negative characteristics. Feminist researchers assume that such pejoration indicate that the status of women in English-speaking society is relatively low. These researchers also find fault with the use of masculine words to describe unisex entities. For example, they feel that there is nothing inherently manly about mankind, the best man for the job, or the common man. Similarly, the use of such constructions as the "the average student is worried about his grades" indicate to these researchers an inherent sexism in English that is reflective of the cultures in which they are produced. Carolyn Jacobson, author of Non-sexist Language has proposed a solution to this conundrum. She advocates the elimination of all sexed words in favor of gender-neutral terms. No longer should we refer to actors and actresses or waiters and waitresses, as such dichotomies allow for the possibility of negative connotations being associated with the feminine designation. Likewise, she believes that phrases such as mankind should give way to human kind and that the use of the masculine pronoun as the default should be abandoned in favor of neutral constructions. Thus, when sexism is eliminated from the English language, the culture will be more amenable to the deliverance of women as well.

单选题

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题Questions 11～15 This month Singapore passed a bill that would give legal teeth to the moral obligation to support one"s parents. Called the Maintenance of Parents Bill, it received the backing of the Singapore Government. That does not mean it hasn"t generated discussion. Several members of the Parliament opposed the measure as un-Asian. Others who acknowledged the problem of the elderly poor believed it a disproportionate response. Still others believe it will subvert relations within the family: cynics dubbed it the "Sue Your Son" law. Those who say that the bill does not promote filial responsibility, of course, are right. It has nothing to do with filial responsibility. It kicks in where filial responsibility fails. The law cannot legislate filial responsibility any more than it can legislate love. All that the law can do is to provide a safety net where this morality proves insufficient. Singapore needs this bill not to replace morality, but to provide incentives to shore it up. Like many other developed nations, Singapore faces the problems of an increasing proportion of people over 60 years of age. Demography is inexorable. In 1980, 7.2% of the population was in this bracket. By the end of the century that figure will grow to 11%. By 2030, the proportion is projected to be 26%. The problem is not old age per se. It is that the ratio of economically active people to economically inactive people will decline. But no amount of government exhortation or paternalism will completely eliminate the problem of old people who have insufficient means to make ends meet. Some people will fall through the holes in any safety net. Traditionally, a person"s insurance against poverty in his old age was his family. This is not a revolutionary concept. Nor is it uniquely Asian. Care and support for one"s parents is a universal value shared by all civilized societies. The problem in Singapore is that the moral obligation to look after one"s parents is unenforceable. A father can be compelled by law to maintain his children. A husband can be forced to support his wife. But, until now, a son or daughter had no legal obligation to support his or her parents. In 1989, an Advisory Council was set up to look into the problems of the aged. Its report stated with a tinge of complacency that 950% of those who did not have their own income were receiving cash contributions from relations. But what about the 5% who aren"t getting relatives" support? They have several options:a. get a job and work until they die;b. apply for public assistance (you have to be destitute to apply);c. starve quietly. None of these options is socially acceptable. And what if this 5% figure grows, as it is likely to do, as society ages? The Maintenance of Parents Bill was put forth to encourage the traditional virtues that have so far kept Asian nations from some of the breakdowns encountered in other affluent societies. This legislation will allow a person to apply to the court for maintenance from any or all of his children. The court would have the discretion to refuse to make an order if it is unjust. Those who deride the proposal for opening up the courts to family lawsuits miss the point. Only in extreme cases would any parent take his child to court. If it does indeed become law, the bill"s effect would be far more subtle. First, it will reaffirm the notion that it is each individual"s—not society"s—responsibility to look after his parents. Singapore is still conservative enough that most people will not object to this idea. It reinforces the traditional values and it doesn"t hurt a society now and then to remind itself of its core values. Second, and more important, it will make those who are inclined to shirk their responsibilities think twice. Until now, if a person asked family elders, clergymen or the Ministry of Community Development to help get financial support from his children, the most they could do was to mediate. But mediators have no teeth, and a child could simply ignore their pleas. But to be sued by one"s parents would be a massive loss of face. It would be a public disgrace. Few people would be so thick-skinned as to say, "Sue and be damned". The hand of the conciliator would be immeasurably strengthened. It is far more likely that some sort of amicable settlement would be reached if the recalcitrant son or daughter knows that the alternative is a public trial. It would be nice to think Singapore doesn"t need this kind of law. But that belief ignores the clear demographic trends and the effect of affluence itself on traditional bends. Those of us who pushed for the bill will consider ourselves most successful if it acts as an incentive not to have it invoked in the first place.

单选题

单选题

单选题One afternoon I was sitting at my favorite table in a restaurant，waiting for the food I had ordered．Suddenly I{{U}} (32) {{/U}}that a man sitting at a table near the window kept glancing in my direction，{{U}} (33) {{/U}}he knew me．The man had a newspaper{{U}} (34) {{/U}}in front of him，which he was{{U}} (35) {{/U}}to read，but I could{{U}} (36) {{/U}}that he was keeping an eye on me．When the waiter brought my{{U}} (37) {{/U}}，the man was clearly puzzled(困惑)by the{{U}} (38) {{/U}}way in which the waiter and I{{U}} (39) {{/U}}each other．He seemed even．more puzzled as{{U}} (40) {{/U}}went on and it became{{U}} (41) {{/U}}that all the waiters in the restaurant knew me．Finally he got up and went into the{{U}} (42) {{/U}}．When he came out，he paid his bill and{{U}} (43) {{/U}}without another glance in my direction． I called the owner of the restaurant and asked what the man had{{U}} (44) {{/U}}．"Well，"he said，“that man was a detective(侦探)．He{{U}} (45) {{/U}}you here because he thought you were the man he{{U}} (46) {{/U}}．""What?"I said．showing my{{U}} (47) {{/U}}．The owner continued．"He came into the kitchen and showed me a photo of the wanted man．I{{U}} (48) {{/U}}say he looked very much like you! Of course，since we know you，we told him that he had made a{{U}} (49) {{/U}}．”“Well，it's really{{U}} (50) {{/U}}I came to a restaurant where I'm known．"I said．"{{U}} (51) {{/U}}．I might have been in trouble．/

单选题The US debate on human cloning gathered steam recently, moving toward federal legislation that could affect both next fall"s Congressional elections and the pre-eminence of US scientists in the worldwide race to turn research on human embryonic stem cells into a therapeutic revolution. Testimony at a US Senate hearing on 5 March debated a bill proffered by Republican Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas) that would impose criminal penalties on all attempts at transferring a human somatic cell nucleus into a human egg, whether the purpose was to create an infant (usually called reproductive cloning) or to derive embryonic stem cells for disease research (usually called therapeutic cloning.) The US House of Representatives passed a similar total ban last year. Two other bills have also been introduced into the Senate; both would ban reproductive human cloning but permit therapeutic cloning. Meanwhile, President Bush is expected to fill the long-vacant top job at the National Institutes of Health this week with Elias Zerhouni, executive vice dean of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Balthnore. For several months the front-runner for NIH director had been AIDS expert Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Immunological Diseases and Stroke. The campaign against Fanci was led by Brownback, who regarded him as insufficiently pro-life. Zerhouni is said to have endorsed Brownbacks anti-cloning bill in writing. The Bush administration also proposed last week that the United Nations adopt a Brownback type worldwide ban on human cloning, including therapeutic cloning. The UN is considering prohibiting reproductive cloning, but delegates from Europe and Asia oppose interfering with cloning to produce embryonic stem cells for research. The US Senate hearing starred Christopher Reeve, Hollywood"s former Superman, a persuasive high-profile advocate for stem cell research who is handsome as ever, but paralyzed from the shoulders down and unable to breathe on his own because of a riding accident some years ago. Testifying against the Brownback bill, Reeve told the hearing that only human embryonic stem cells carrying his own DNA offered hope for remyelinating his devastated spinal nerves via an immunologically compatible cell transplant. Also testifying against the bill was the hearing"s scientific star, Nobel laureate Paul Berg of Stanford University. Berg argued that human stem cells not only could solve the problem of transplant rejections, they also could provide a unique source of information about common chronic late-onset diseases such as cancer. Studying cells from young people carrying mutations that predispose them to complex disorders could illuminate the disease process and generate clues to prevention or cure, he said. As both these applications are based on transfer of particular nuclei into human eggs, he pointed out, none of the existing 78 human embryonic stem cell lines President Bush approved for federally funded research last summer would be useful either for complex disease research or for compatible transplants. Berg also objected strongly to both the Brownback and the House bills" ban on importing therapies based on human embryonic stem cell research done elsewhere in the world. That would prevent 280 million Americans from taking advantage of treatments developed in nations such as the UK where some of this research is permitted, he pointed out. It might even mean that Americans who seek such treatments abroad could be arrested and fined when they return, he predicted. Both Reeve and Berg have suggested that a comprehensive ban on human cloning would put US scientists at a competitive disadvantage. The US would take a giant step backward in research leadership, Reeve noted, and anyway the work would be done abroad, for example in Europe. "Those are not rogue nations behaving irresponsibly," he told the Senate. Berg has said that he hopes China"s openness to therapeutic cloning will help the US set aside some of its misgivings, lest it fall behind in a biotech race with China. Carl B. Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the biggest trade group, has also weighed in. "Criminalizing therapeutic cloning and treatments based on the technology, as Senator Sam Brownback proposes, would move the research and its benefits overseas, and out of reach to Americans," he said on Tuesday.

单选题{{B}}Questions 1 to 5 are based on the following conversation.{{/B}}