问答题

问答题According to a report, the birth sex ratio in China is still out of proportion and could cause serious imbalance among the people in the decades ahead, with millions of men in China unable to find wives. Topic: Imbalanced birth sex ratio Questions for Reference: 1. What might the serious imbalance suggest? 2. What can the government do to remedy the situation? 3. Do you think the situation will improve in the near future?

问答题自古以来，我国各民族人民劳动、生息、繁衍在祖国的土地上，各民族组之间建立了紧密的政治经济文化联系，早在两千多年前就形成了幅员辽阔的统一国家。悠久的中华文化，成为维系民族团结和国家统一的牢固纽带。 　　我们的先人历来把独立自主作为立国之本。中国作为人类文明发祥地之一，在几千年的历史进程中，文化传统始终没有中断。近代中国虽屡遭列强欺凌，国势衰败，但经过全民族的百年抗争，又以巨人的姿态重新站立起来。

问答题中国已经明确了本世纪头20年的奋斗目标，这就是紧紧抓住重要战略机遇期，全面建设惠及十几亿人口的更高水平的小康社会，到2020年实现国内生产总值比2000年翻两番，达到4万亿美元左右，人均国内生产总值达到3000美元左右，使经济更加发展、民主更加健全、科教更加进步、文化更加繁荣、社会更加和谐、人民生活更加殷实。我们深知，中国在相当长时期内仍然是发展中国家，从中国有13亿人口的国情出发，实现这个奋斗目标是很不容易的，需要我们继续进行长期的艰苦奋斗。

问答题

问答题中华文明历来注重以民为本，尊重人的尊严和价值。早在千百年前，中国人就提出“民惟邦本，本固邦宁”、“天地之间，莫贵于人”，强调要利民、裕民、养民、惠民。今天，我们坚持以人为本，就是要坚持发展为了人民，发展依靠人民，发展成果由人民共享，关注人的价值、权益和自由，关注人的生活质量、发展潜能和幸福指数，最终是为了实现人的全面发展。保障人民的生存权和发展权仍是中国的首要任务。我们将大力推动经济社会发展，依法保障人民享有自由、民主和人权，实现社会公平和正义，使13亿中国人民过上幸福生活。

问答题 Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in English. You will hear the passages ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each passage, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. You may take notes while you are listening.

问答题

问答题What is British government's "tradable certificate"? Introduce briefly the dilemma the certificate is now faced with.

问答题[此试题无题干]

问答题 Today in the United States and the developed world, women are better off than ever before. But the blunt truth is that men still run the world. While women continue to outpace men in educational achievement, we have ceased making real progress at the top of any industry. Women hold around 14% of Fortune 500 executive-officer positions and about 17% of board seats, numbers that have barely budged over the last decade. This means that when it comes to making the decisions that most affect our world, our voices are not heard equally. It is time for us to face the fact that our revolution has stalled. A truly equal world would be one where women ran half of our countries and companies and men ran half of our homes. The laws of economics and many studies of diversity tell us that if we tapped the entire pool of human resources and talent, our performance would improve. Throughout my career, I was told over and over about inequalities in the workplace and how hard it would be to have a career and a family. I rarely, however, heard anything about the ways I was holding myself back. From the moment they are born, boys and girls are treated differently. Women internalize the negative messages we get throughout our lives—the messages that say it's wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men—and pull back when we should lean in. We must not ignore the real obstacles women face in the professional world, from sexism and discrimination to a lack of flexibility, access to child care and parental leave. But women can dismantle the internal barriers holding us back today. Here is one example of how women can lean in. In 2003, Columbia Business School professor Frank Flynn and New York University professor Cameron Anderson ran an experiment. They started with a Harvard Business School case study about a real-life entrepreneur named Heidi Roizen. It described how Roizen became a successful venture capitalist by using her "outgoing personality ... and vast personal and professional network ... [which] included many of the most powerful business leaders in the technology sector". Half the students in the experiment were assigned to read Heidi's story. The other half got the same story with just one difference—the name was changed from Heidi to Howard. When students were polled, they rated Heidi and Howard as equally competent. But Howard came across as a more appealing colleague. Heidi was seen as selfish and not "the type of person you would want to hire or work for". This experiment supports what research has already clearly shown, success and likeability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women. When a man is successful, he is liked by both men and women. When a woman is successful, people of both genders like her less. I believe this bias is at the very core of why women are held back. It is also at the very core of why women hold themselves back. When a woman excels at her job, both men and women will comment that she is accomplishing a lot but is "not as well liked by her peers". She is probably also "too aggressive", "not a team player", "a bit political"; she "can't be trusted" or is "difficult". Those are all things that have been said about me and almost every senior woman I know. The solution is making sure everyone is aware of the penalty women pay for success. Recently at Facebook, a manager received feedback that a woman who reported to him was "too aggressive". Before including this in her review, he decided to dig deeper. He went back to the people who gave the feedback and asked what aggressive actions she had taken. After they answered, he asked point-blank, "If a man had done those same things, would you have considered him too aggressive?" They each said no. By showing both men and women how female colleagues are held to different standards, we can start changing attitudes today.

问答题 The World Economic Forum in Davos "You're off to the World Economic Forum?" asked the Oxford economist, enviously. "How very impressive. They've never invited me." Three days later, I queued in the snow outside the conference center in Davos, standing behind mink coats and cashmere overcoats, watched over by Swiss policemen with machineguns. "Reporting press? You can't come in here. Side entrance, please." I stood in line again, this time behind Puffa jackets and Newsweek journalist, waiting to collect my orange badge. Once inside, I found that the seminar I wanted to go to was being held in a half-empty room. "You can't sit here. All seats are reserved for white badges. Coloured badges have to stand." An acquaintance invited me to a dinner he was hosting. "There are people I'd like you to meet." The green-badged Forum employee stopped me at the door. "This is a participants' dinner. Orange badges are not allowed." Then, later, reluctantly: "If you're coming in, please can you turn your badge around? Diners may be upset if they see you're a colour." "Why does anyone put up with being treated like this?" I asked a Financial Times correspondent. "Because we all live in hope of becoming white badges," he said, "Then we'll know what's really going on." A leading British businessman was wearing a white badge, but it bore a small logo on the top left. hand corner: GLT. "What is a GLT?" I asked. "Ah," he said, "well, it's a Davos club. I'm a Global Leader of Tomorrow." "That sounds very important," I said. "Yes," he said, "I thought so myself, until I bumped into the man who'd sponsored me, on the way to my first meeting. I asked him if he was coming, and he said, 'Oh no, dear boy, I don't bother with that any longer. I'm not a GLT any more; I'm an IGWEL.' 'What's an IGWEL?' I asked him. 'A member of the Informal Group of World Economic Leaders of Today,' he said." The World Economic Forum has employed a simple psychological truth—that nothing is more desirable than that which excludes us—to brilliant effect. Year after year, its participants apply to return, in the hope that this time they'll be a little closer to the real elite. Next year, they, too, might be invited to the private receptions for Bill Clinton, Kofi Anna or Bill Gates, instead of having to stand on the conference center's steps like teenage rock fans. It's the sheer concentration of individuals in possession of power, wealth or knowledge that makes the privately run Forum so desirable to its participants. The thousand chief executives who attend its annual meeting control, between them, more than 70 percent of international trade. Every year, they are joined by a couple of dozen presidents and prime ministers, by senior journalists, a changing selection of leading thinkers, academics and diplomats, and by rising stars of the business world. Access to the meeting is by invitation only, costs several thousand pounds a time for business participants, and is ruthlessly controlled.

问答题

问答题

问答题There is not much to choose between men. They are all a hotchpotch of greatness and littleness, of virtue and vice, of nobility and baseness. Some have more strength of character, or more opportunity, and so in one direction or another give their instincts freer play, but potentially they are the same. For my part, I do not think I am any better or any worse than most people, but I know that if I set down every action in my life and every thought that has crossed my mind, the world would consider me a monster of depravity. The knowledge that these reveries are common to all men should inspire one with tolerance to oneself as well as to others. It is well also if they enable us to look upon our fellows, even the most eminent and respectable, with humor, and if they lead us to take ourselves not too seriously.

问答题几十年来，中国绿色革命推广种植的几种高产作物，虽然解决了十多亿人口的吃饭问题，但却付出了极其高昂的代价：生态环境的恶化、生物多样性的丧失，这应引起我们的高度警觉和重视。因此，历史不应再继续重演，对于农业可持续发展战略的研究，只能是在对中国国情有一个明确认识和正确判断的基础之上，有选择地借鉴和运用来自外部世界的理论和方法，在理论构筑上有所创新、研究手段上有所突破，从而才有可能建立起具有中国特色的农业可持续发展战略理论。

问答题______

问答题历史雄辩地说明，中美之间建立在平等互利基础上的劳动分工是最为合理和实用的国际关系。中国物美价廉的制成品源源不断地走上美国超级市场的货架，而美国的农产品、高新技术产品，连同跨国公司的资本和技术，滚滚不息地涌进中国内地。中国人民以其勤劳的双手，增进了美国的福祉，促使其产业升级换代；而北美这块广袤而又富饶的土地，也以其精华滋润促进了中国的现代化进程。经贸合作是两国能够找到共同语言的最佳领域。以谋求共同利益来减少或淡化意识形态差异和利益冲突，过去是、今后更是双方寻求和平共处的必由之路。

问答题Robots have been the stuff of science fiction for so long that it is surprisingly hard to see them as the stuff of management fact. A Czech playwright, Karel Capek, gave them their name in 1920 (from the Slavonic word for "work"). An American writer, Isaac Asimov, confronted them with their most memorable dilemmas. Hollywood turned them into superheroes and supervillains. When some film critics drew up lists of Hollywood's 50 greatest good guys and 50 greatest haddies, the only character to appear on both lists was a robot, the Terminator. It is time for management thinkers to catch up with science-fiction writers. Robots have been doing menial jobs on production lines since the 1960s. The world already has more than 1m industrial robots. There is now an acceleration in the rates at which they are becoming both cleverer and cheaper: an explosive combination. Robots are learning to interact with the world around them. Their ability to see things is getting ever closer to that of humans, as is their capacity to ingest information and act on it. Tomorrow's robots will increasingly take on delicate, complex tasks. And instead of being imprisoned in cages to stop them colliding with people and machines, they will he free to wander. America's armed forces have blazed a trail here. They now have no fewer than 12,000 robots serving in their ranks. Peter Singer, of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, says mankind's 5,000-year monopoly on the fighting of war is breaking down. Recent additions to the battlefield include tiny "insects" that perform reconnaissance missions and giant "dogs" to terrify foes. But the civilian world cannot he far behind. Who better to unclog sewers or suck up nuclear waste than these remarkahle machines? The Japanese have made surprisingly little use of robots to clear up after the recent earthquake, given their world leadership in this area. They say that they had the wrong sort of robots in the wrong places. But they have issued a global call for robotic assistance and are likely to put more robots to work shortly. As robots advance into the service industries they are starting to look less like machines and more like living creatures. The Paro (made by AIST, a Japanese research agency) is shaped like a baby seal and responds to attention. Honda's robot, ASIMO, is humanoid and can walk, talk and respond to command. Until now executives have largely ignored robots, regarding them as an engineering rather than a management problem. This cannot go on: robots are becoming too powerful and ubiquitous. Companies may need to rethink their strategies as they gain access to these new sorts of workers. Chinese certainly need to rethink their human-resources policies--starting by questioning whether they should have departments devoted to purely human resources. The first issue is how to manage the robots themselves. Asimov laid down the basic rule in 1942: no robot should harm a human. This rule has been reinforced by recent technological improvements: robots are now much more sensitive to their surroundings and can be instructed to avoid hitting people. But the Pentagon's plans make all this a bit more complicated: many of its robots will be, in essence, killing machines. A second question is how to manage the homo side of homo-roho relations. Workers have always worried that new technologies will take away their livelihoods. That worry takes on a particularly intense form when the machines come with a human face: Capek' s play that gave robots their name depicted a world in which they initially brought lots of benefits hut eventually led to mass unemployment and discontent. Now, the arrival of increasingly humanoid automatons in workplaces, in an era of high unemployment, is bound to provoke a reaction. So, companies will need to work hard to persuade workers that robots are productivity- enhancers, not just job-eating aliens. They need to show employees that the robot sitting alongside them can be more of a helpmate than a threat. Audi has been particularly successful in introducing industrial robots because the carmaker asked workers to identify areas where robots could improve performance and then gave those workers jobs overseeing the robots. Employers also need to explain that robots can help preserve manufacturing jobs in the rich world. These two principles--don't let robots hurt or frighten people--are relatively simple. Robot scientists are tackling more complicated problems as robots become more sophisticated. They are keen to avoid hierarchies among rescue-robots (because the loss of the leader would render the rest redundant). So they are using game theory to make sure the robots can communicate with each other in egalitarian ways. They are keen to avoid duplication between robots and their human handlers. So they are producing more complicated mathematical formulae in order that robots can constantly adjust themselves to human intentions. This suggests that the world could be on the verge of a great management revolution: making robots behave like humans rather than the 20th century's preferred option, making humans behave like robots.1.Why does the author mention the Czech playwright Karel Capek and the American writer Isaac Asimovg, What is the relationship between science fiction and robot?