问答题Americans are much more likely than citizens of other nations to believe that they live in a meritocracy, i.e. Government by people selected according to merit. But this self-image is a fantasy: America actually stands out as a the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society’s lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle. 　　And if you ask why America is more class-bound in practice than the rest of the Western world, a large part of the reason is that our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity. 　　The failure starts early: in America, the holes in the social safety net mean that both low-income mothers and their children are all too likely to suffer from poor nutrition and receive inadequate health care. It continues once children reach school age, where they encounter a system in which the affluent send their kids to good, well-financed public schools or, if they choose, to private schools, while less-advantaged children get a far worse education.

问答题第三题是例子功能题。定位在最后一段的结尾。考生基本上总结出最后一段的内容即可。

问答题Directions: Read the following passages and then answer IN COMPLETE SENTENCES the questions which follow each passage. There's a time bomb ticking in America's private pension system. Although the airline industry's hefty $32 billion in unfunded pensions has captured headlines in recent months, the problem extends much further. Automotive companies, for instance, have about $60 billion in pension shortfalls. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. says U.S. pension underfunding at large companies grew 27% last year, to $354 billion. The deficit for all companies was a staggering $450 billion. Compare that with a total shortfall of less than $50 billion in 2000, and it's clear that this fast-growing crisis must be addressed while the PBGC—already facing a $23 billion deficit after taking over terminated plans from the likes of Bethlehem Steel and United Airlines—can still shoulder the burden. If this all sounds a bit familiar, it should. In the 1980s, the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp., the government-sponsored insurance fund for the thrift industry, watched as the nation's S&Ls fell victim to a toxic brew of skyrocketing interest rates, lax oversight, imprudent lending, and outright fraud. The feds stepped in and the government eventually led a $223 billion (in today's dollars) bailout of the industry. One reason the taxpayer tab was so high was that the government was slow to react. That's why Washington should get serious about a pension fix now. First, Congress must bring some sanity to the bedlam of pension contribution rules. Now, companies can be technically current in funding while owing billions in shortfalls, and they can increase benefits even when they haven't funded existing promises. For example, Bethlehem Steel's pension plan was 84% funded on a current-liability basis, but only 45% funded when all termination costs were tallied—with a shortfall of $4.3 billion when the company finally handed its plan over to the PBGC in 2002. Yet because of various loopholes, Bethlehem wasn't required to make any catch-up contributions for years prior to its plan termination and even avoided making any cash contributions in the three years before it ditched the plan. United Airlines' record was even worse. It wasn't required to make cash contributions to its pilot pension plan from 2000 to 2004, even though that plan was $3 billion in arrears. United's employee plans were technically fully funded on a current account basis, but only 41% funded at termination." United dumped all its plans on the PBGC earlier this spring for a total shortfall of $9.8 billion—of which the PBGC is on the hook to pay $6.6 billion. To prevent similar abuse of the system, rules are needed that extend tax incentives to companies that prefund pensions when they are financially flush but set tougher timetables for making up shortfalls later. Second, Congress needs to sharply increase the premiums the PBGC can charge underfunded plans. Today there is little difference between what is paid by companies that have adequately funded their plans and those that haven't. Instead, the PBGC should be allowed to charge higher premiums to companies with shaky finances or large unfunded liabilities. Risk-adjusted pricing is already commonplace in financial products such as mortgages, where buyers who put up higher downpayments on their homes get cheaper rates, and car insurance, where bad drivers pay more. It's also used by federal bank insurers for setting deposit insurance rates. So applying risk-based pricing to pension insurance premiums isn't exactly revolutionary. But it's unpopular with many weak companies and with labor groups that fear employers will simply stop offering defined-benefit pensions if premiums get higher. Yet that argument may already be academic. The number of workers covered by such pensions has been dropping for at least 20 years as employers have shifted toward often cheaper 401 (k)-type plans. Thus, Congress' first priority should be to force companies to fully fund their pensions over the next few years—lessening the hit taxpayers could shoulder if the PBGC becomes overwhelmed with underfunded plans later. Finally, Congress must act to ensure that all workers receive timely, understandable information detailing whether their pension plans are adequately funded. Under current laws, the PBGC receives financial information on the most risky underfunded plans fairly early, but cannot disclose it. Instead, companies can take up to 30 months to report plan finances publicly—often too late for workers to press for more responsible pension management. Greater transparency will also give employees a reality check when companies offer meaningless benefits that they can't realistically afford. Indeed, the sooner more light is cast on the festering pension mess, the better for workers—and taxpayers.

问答题In the coming decades, Europe"s influence on affairs beyond its borders will be sharply limited, and it is in other regions, not Europe, that the 21st century will be most clearly forged and defined. Certainly, one reason for NATO"s increasing marginalization stems from the behavior of its European members. With NATO, critical decisions are still made nationally; much of the talk about a common defense policy remains just that—talk. There is little specialization or coordination. Missing as well are many of the logistical and intelligence assets needed to project military force on distant battlefields. With the Cold War and the Soviet threat a distant memory, there is little political willingness, on a country-by-country basis, to provide adequate public funds to the military. Political and demographic changes within Europe, as well as the United States, also ensure that the transatlantic alliance will lose prominence. In Europe, the E.U. project still consumes the attention of many, but for others, especially those in-southern Europe facing unsustainable fiscal shortfalls, domestic economic turmoil takes precedence. No doubt, Europe"s security challenges are geographically, politically and psychologically less immediate to the population than its economic ones. Mounting financial problems and the imperative to cut deficits are sure to limit what Europeans can do militarily beyond their continent. It is true that the era in which Europe and transatlantic relations dominated U.S. foreign policy is over.

问答题How does a daughter begin to thank her mother for life itself? For the love, patience and just plain hard work that go into raising a child? For running after a toddler, for understanding a moody teenager, for tolerating a college student who thinks she knows everything? For waiting for the day when a daughter realizes bow wise her mother really is? How does a grown woman thank a mother for continuing to be a mother? For being ready with advice(when asked)or remaining silent when it is most appreciated? For not saying, "I told you so" when she could have uttered these words dozens of times? For being essentially herself—loving, thoughtful, patient, and forgiving? I don"t know how, dear God, except to ask you to bless her as richly as she deserves and to help me live up to the example she has set. I pray that I will look as good in the eyes of my children as my mother looks in mine.

问答题人生能有几回搏!生命有限，竞技生命更是短暂的。运动员比任何人更深刻地认识到时光易逝机会难得。他会珍惜并利用每一分钟，抓住任何一个机会。他付出许多，也得到许多，不仅为自己，也为祖国赢得荣誉。 参与并取胜，这就是奥林匹克精神。它表现在弱者敢于向强者挑战，也表现在强者力争取得更好的成绩。胜而又胜，优而更优，这种理想一直鼓舞着运动员奋力前进。他会尽其所能，永不松懈，永不罢休。有人说竞技者终究会是失败者，即使是最佳运动员也终将被更强者淘汰。成千上万个强者才涌现一个胜利者，这个胜利者最终仍将被取代，挤出光荣榜——这就是竞技运动的规律。

问答题The economic system of the United States is principally one of private ownership. In this system, consumers, producers and government make economic decisions on a daily basis, mainly through the price system. The dynamic interaction of these three groups makes the economic function. The market’s primary force, however, is the interaction of producers and consumers; hence the “market economy” designation. 　　As a rule, consumers look for the best values for what they spend while producers seek the best price and profit for what they have to sell. Government, at the federal, state, and local level, seeks to promote public security, assure reasonable competition, and provide a range of services believed to be better performed by public rather than private enterprises. 　　Generally, there are three kinds of enterprises: single-owner operated businesses, partnerships and corporations. The first two are important, but it is the latter structure that best permits the amassing of large sums of money by combining the investments of many people who, as stockholders, can buy and sell their shares of the business at any time on the open market. Corporations make large-scale enterprises possible. The economic system of the United States is principally one of private ownership. In this system, consumers, producers and government make economic decisions on a daily basis, mainly through the price system. The dynamic interaction of these three groups makes the economic function. The market’s primary force, however, is the interaction of producers and consumers; hence the “market economy” designation.

问答题The most important fact in Washington's failure on Thursday to be re-elected for the first time since 1947 to the U.N. Human Rights Commission is that it was America's friends, not its enemies, that engineered the defeat. After all, China and Cuba and other targets of U.S.-led criticism in the committee were always going to vote and lobby against Washington; the shock came in the fact that the European and other Western nations that traditionally ensured U.S. reelection turned their backs on Washington. Many traditional U.S. supporters clearly withdrew their votes to signal displeasure over U.S. unilateralism. They have been increasingly chagrined by Washington's tendency to ignore the international consensus on issues ranging from the use of land mines to the Kyoto climate change treaty. They are also critical of what they see as Washington's tendency to publicise the issue of human rights, using annual resolutions at the committee to denounce China or Cuba when that conforms to U.S. foreign policy objectives but for the same reason voting alone in defence of Israel when that country is in the dock over its conduct.

问答题

问答题我国政府强化了对外贸的控管，强化了商会这类中介机构的服务与协调功能。我们希望继续加强外贸体制的改革，使之逐渐走向竞争，并受到诸如关税、汇率和利率等法律和经济手段的制约。所有这些都应有助于加速中国外贸的国际化进程，为宏观经贸局面的形成创造一个较好的环境，通过促进商贸业、制造业、农业、技术产业和银行之间更为密切的合作，我们能够为国际市场提供更多、更好的出口产品。在这种情况下，中国自然会成为一个大市场。

问答题Concerns about the effects of television on children are a recurrent theme of public debate. Yet it is an area in which children"s voices are rarely heard. Too often parental and governmental anxiety has focused on the impact screen violence may have on young viewer"s behavior with little attention paid to children"s own emotional responses to the moving image. David Buckingham, a lecturer in media studies at the University of London"s Institute of Education, believes a more useful approach to understanding the role of television in children"s lives is to ask children about their own responses to horror films, "weepies", soap operas and news bulletins and to discuss with them how they make sense of what they see. Mr. Buckingham, a father of two boys aged five and nine, also believes it is important to understand how parents help or hinder their children"s understanding of television. In an attempt to throw new light on the issue, Mr. Buckingham interviewed 72 children aged six to 15 about their television viewing. The result is a refreshing book, Moving Images: Understanding Children"s Emotional Responses to Television, which is recommended reading for all media policymakers. The children displayed a sophisticated understanding of many of the conventions of television. Even the very youngest subjects knew that families in The Cosby Show or Roseanne are not "real" and were bale to recognize that programs obeyed certain rules whereby things are played for laughs or conflicts are easily resolved. Yet their interpretation of how realistic such programs are also depended on how they compared with their own family lives. "A key factor to emerge was the way they reacted differently to fact and fiction," Mr. Buckingham says. So much of the debate about television, particularly about the possible imitative effects of screen violence, focuses on fiction, such as horror films and thrillers. Mr. Buckingham discovered, however, that news and documentaries often produced more profound reactions. As part of the study he interviewed children who had seen Child"s Play 3, the "video nasty" which some newspapers speculated may have influenced the child killers of James Bugler in 1993. Many of the children who had watched the 18-rated film appeared to be seasoned horror film viewers who found it "scary" in parts but also enjoyable. Much of their pleasure appeared to come from its joking attitude to death. The children"s reaction to the media coverage of the Bugler case was quite different. Many said the press and television reports of the case had upset them a great deal; a number said they had cried or had been unable to sleep. In contrast to their view of Child"s Play, the children repeatedly related the events to their own experience. Many argued, nevertheless, that it was important for the Bugler coverage to be shown, not least as a warning. Mr. Buckingham believes these responses raise important issues that media commentators have virtually ignored. If there are questions to be asked about screen violence, perhaps the starting point should be to what extent does news coverage enable children to understand what they are seeing. "Often we see decontextualised images of suffering in the news and it is questionable how far children can understand what they are seeing," he says. One way of helping children to interpret what they see on television would be to integrate it into their education. "Media studies could be part of English lessons. English is the subject in schools that is most concerned with culture, but to narrow culture down to books is unrealistic. To pretend that television is not part of our culture is not to equip kids to deal with the modem world," he says. Parents also need education, he adds. Schools encourage parents to help their children to read at home, Mr. Buckingham says, and they should take similar steps to get parents to take part in their children"s television viewing. "It is accepted that parents will sit down and read books with their children, not just to help them to read, but to talk to them about the stories and about life in general. Similar things could be achieved with television, if only it was given the same status. " "There is a lot of cultural snobbery about television. Too often it is treated as a reward, a way of keeping kids quiet or as a focus of family battles over what programs children should be allowed to watch," Mr. Buckingham says. A more positive approach to television, might pay off. "The therapeutic and cathartic experiences of television gained through the vicarious experiences of watching somebody else"s life, for example, might be more effective if children didn"t just watch it but also talk about it with their parents," he says. Regulatory or censorship bodies, such as the Broadcasting Standards Council and the British Board of Film Classification, could take a lead by producing source material. The explosion of multi-channel television of new information technology such as video-on-demand and the Internet, will render the current system of censorship through broadcasting regulation and film and video classification totally unworkable. Eventually there will simply be too much material hitting our screens for the regulators to monitor effectively. Improving parents" and children"s ability to interpret what they see and to cope with their own emotions about it, will help to empower them to make informed decisions about television on their own behalf. Ultimately, it could be our best hope of enjoying, and retaining some control over, the multi-channel future.

问答题People now sleep about 20% less than they did a century ago. One 2010 poll of 1000 Americans found 36% are drowsy or fall asleep when they are driving, and 29% become very sleepy at work.

问答题In 1965, America’s big companies had a hell of a year. The stock market was booming. Sales were rising briskly, profit margins were fat, and corporate profits as a percentage of G.D.P. were at an all-time high. Almost half a century later, some things look much the same: big American companies have had a hell of a year, with the stock market soaring, margins strong, and profits hitting a new all-time high. But there’s one very noticeable difference. In 1965, C.E.O.s at big companies earned, on average, about twenty times as much as their typical employee. These days, C.E.O.s earn about two hundred and seventy times as much. 从第二段开头的the huge gap可以看出第一段讲的是两种经济状况之间的差距。这里也正好是第一题的定位：The author makes a comparison between today’s America with that of 1965______.既然第二段追究的是这种gap的原因，那么答案就在第一段结尾处：今天的CEO-雇员的收入差距比大大增加了。 That huge gap between the top and the middle is the result of a boom in executive compensation, which rose eight hundred and seventy-six per cent between 1978 and 2011, according to a study by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. In response, we’ve had a host of regulatory reforms designed to curb executive pay. The latest of these is a rule, unveiled by the S.E.C. last month, requiring companies to disclose the ratio of the C.E.O.’s pay to that of the median worker. The idea is that, once the disparity is made public, companies will be less likely to award outsized pay packages. Faith in disclosure has been crucial to the regulation of executive pay since the nineteen-thirties, when companies were first required to reveal those figures. More recently, rules have made companies detail the size and the structure of compensation packages and have enforced transparency about the kinds of comparisons they rely on to determine salaries. The business press, meanwhile, now rigorously tracks executive pay. The result is that shareholders today know far more about C.E.O. compensation than ever before. There’s only one problem: even as companies are disclosing more and more, executive pay keeps going up and up. 这一段开头黑体部分为我们提示了一个关键字：disclosure. 由此可以看出本文的话题是从收入差距说开去，转向CEO的收入披露机制。 This isn’t a coincidence: the drive for transparency has actually helped fuel the spiralling salaries. For one thing, it gives executives a good idea of how much they can get away with asking for. A more crucial reason, though, has to do with the way boards of directors set salaries. As the corporate-governance experts Charles Elson and Craig Ferrere write in a recent paper, boards at most companies use what’s called “peer benchmarking.” They look at the C.E.O. salaries at peer-group firms, and then peg their C.E.O.’s pay to the fiftieth, seventy-fifth, or ninetieth percentile of the peer group—never lower. This leads to the so-called Lake Wobegon effect: every C.E.O. gets treated as above average. With all the other companies following the same process, salaries ratchet inexorably higher. “Relying on peer-group comparisons, the way boards do, mathematically guarantees that pay is going to go up,” Elson told me. 本段讲到越是披露高管们的收入，他们就越能要求更高的收入。 On top of this, peer-group comparisons aren’t always honest: boards can be too cozy with C.E.O.s and may tweak the comparisons to justify overpaying. A recent study by the labor economist Ron Laschever shows that boards tend to include as peers companies that are bigger than they are and that pay their C.E.O.s more. The system is also skewed by so-called “leapfroggers,” the few C.E.O.s in a given year who, whether by innate brilliance or by dumb luck, end up earning astronomical salaries. Those big paydays reset the baseline expectations for everyone else. 段首句是主题句：高管们可能还会想方设法隐瞒自己高增长的收入。 This isn’t just an American problem. Elson notes that, when Canada toughened its disclosure requirements, executive salaries there rose sharply, and German studies have found something similar. Nor is it primarily a case of boards being helplessly in thrall to a company’s executives. Boards are far more independent of management than they used to be, and it’s notable that a C.E.O. hired from outside a company—who therefore has no influence over the board—typically gets twenty to twenty-five per cent more than an inside candidate. The real issues are subtler, though no less insidious. Some boards, in the face of much evidence to the contrary, remain convinced of what Elson calls “superstar theory”: they think that C.E.O.s can work their magic anywhere, and must be overpaid to stay. In addition, Elson said, “if you pay below average, it makes it look as if you’d hired a below-average C.E.O., and what board wants that?” 这个问题并不局限于美国，而是国际化的。 Transparent pricing has perverse effects in other fields. In a host of recent cases, public disclosure of the prices that hospitals charge for various procedures has ended up driving prices up rather than down. And the psychological causes in both situations seem similar. We tend to be uneasy about bargaining in situations where the stakes are very high: do you want the guy doing your neurosurgery, or running your company, to be offering discounts? Better, in the event that something goes wrong, to be able to tell yourself that you spent all you could. And overspending is always easier when you’re spending someone else’s money. Corporate board members are disbursing shareholder funds; most patients have insurance to foot the bill. 收入披露在其他领域中也会引起一系列不良反应。 Sunlight is supposed to be the best disinfectant. But there’s something na?ve about the new S.E.C. rule, which presumes that full disclosure will embarrass companies enough to restrain executive pay. As Elson told me, “People who can ask to be paid a hundred million dollars are beyond embarrassment.” More important, as long as the system for setting pay is broken, more disclosure makes things worse instead of better. We don’t need more information. We need boards of directors to step up and set pay themselves, instead of outsourcing the job to their peers. The rest of us don’t get to live in Lake Wobegon. C.E.O.s shouldn’t, either. 本文得出的结论是，SEC的规则的潜台词是，完全披露收入将会是各大公司不愿提高高管的薪水。

问答题Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 5 sentences in English. You will hear the sentences ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each sentence, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.

问答题Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in Chinese. After you have heard each passage, interpret it into English. Start interpreting at the signal...and stop it at the signal... you may take notes while you"re listening. Remember you will hear the passages only once. Now, let"s begin Part B with the first passage.

问答题LONDON—Down in the mall, between the fast-food joint and the bagel shop, a group of young people huddles in a flurry of baggy combat pants, skateboards, and slang. They size up a woman teetering past wearing DKNY, carrying Time magazine in one hand and a latte in the other. She brushes past a guy in a Yankees" baseball cap who is talking on his Motorola cell phone about the Martin Scorsese film he saw last night. It"s a standard American scene—only this isn"t America, it"s Britain. US culture is so pervasive, the scene could be played out in any one of dozens of cities. Budapest or Berlin, if not Bogota or Bordeaux. Even Manila or Moscow. As the unrivaled global superpower, America exports its culture on an unprecedented scale. From music to media, film to fast food, language to literature and sport, the American idea is spreading inexorably, not unlike the influence of empires that preceded it.

问答题School bullying is quite common in most schools. According to the American Psychological Association, approximately 40% to 80% of school-age children experience bullying at some point during their school careers. Regardless of the grade level, socioeconomic environment, gender and religion, bullying can happen to anyone. Teachers need to have a certain level of awareness of this issue. This starts with understanding the three forms of bullying: physical, verbal and emotional. Physical bullying is any unwanted physical contact between the bully and the victim. It is the most identifiable form of all. Verbal bullying is any injurious language or statement that causes the victim"s emotional suffering. Emotional bullying is any form of bullying that causes damages to a victim"s emotional well-being. The consequence of school bullying might be horrible. It is a major cause of school shootings. School shooters that died or committed suicide left behind evidence that they had been bullied. Therefore, enough attention should be given and practical measures should be taken by the school administration to address this issue.

问答题

问答题{{B}} Directions:{{/B}}{{I}} In this part of the test, you will hear 5 English sentences. You will hear the sentences ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each sentence, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/I}}