I was walking along the main street of a small seaside town in the north of England looking for somewhere to make a phone call. My car had broken down outside the town and I wanted to contact the AA Company. Low grey clouds were gathering across the sky and there was a cold damp wind blowing off the sea which nearly threw me off my feet every time I crossed one of the side streets. It had rained in the night and water was dripping from the bare trees that lined the street. I was glad that I was wearing a thick coat.
There was no sign of a call box, nor was there anyone at that early hour whom I could ask. I had thought I might find a shop open selling the Sunday papers or a milkman doing his rounds, but the town was completely dead. The only living thing I saw was a thin frightened cat outside a small restaurant.
Then suddenly I found what I was looking for. There was a small post office, and almost hidden from sight in a dark narrow street. Next to it was the town’ s only public call box, which badly needed a coat of paint. I hurried forward, but stopped in astonishment when I saw through the dirty glass that there was a man inside. He was fat, and was wearing a cheap blue plastic raincoat. I could not see his face and he did not even raise his head at the sound of my footsteps.
Carefully, I remained standing a few feet away and lit a cigarette to wait for my turn. It was when I threw the dead match on the ground that I noticed something bright red trickling from under the call box door.
At what time was the story set?
| A．An early winter morning. | B．A cold winter afternoon. |
| C．An early summer morning. | D．A windy summer afternoon. |
Which of the following words best describe the writer’s impression of the town?
| A．Cold and frightening. | B．Dirty and crowded. |
| C．Empty and dead. | D．Unusual and unpleasant. |
The underlined word “trickling” in the last paragraph probably means ______.
| A．rushing out suddenly | B．shining brightly |
| C．flowing slowly in drops | D．appearing slowly |
Why didn’t the man raise his head when the writer came near?
| A．He was annoyed at being seen by the writer. |
| B．He was angry at being disturbed by the writer. |
| C．He was probably fast asleep. |
| D．He was probably murdered. |
Picture a typical MBA lecture theatre twenty years ago. In it the majority of students will have conformed to the standard model of the time: male, middle class and Western. Walk into a class today, however, and you’ll get a completely different impression. For a start, you will now see plenty more women—the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, for example, boasts that 40% of its new enrolment is female. You will also see a wide range of ethnic groups and nationals of practically every country.
It might be tempting, therefore, to think that the old barriers have been broken down and equal opportunity achieved. But, increasingly, this apparent diversity is becoming a mask for a new type of conformity. Behind the differences in sex, skin tones and mother tongues, there are common attitudes, expectations and ambitions which risk creating a set of clones among the business leaders of the future.
Diversity, it seems, has not helped to address fundamental weaknesses in business leadership. So what can be done to create more effective managers of the commercial world? According to Valerie Gauthier, associate dean at HEC Paris, the key lies in the process by which MBA programmes recruit their students. At the moment candidates are selected on a fairly narrow set of criteria such as prior academic and career performance, and analytical and problem solving abilities. This is then coupled to a school’s picture of what a diverse class should look like, with the result that passport, ethnic origin and sex can all become influencing factors. But schools rarely dig down to find out what really makes an applicant succeed, to create a class which also contains diversity of attitude and approach—arguably the only diversity that, in a business context, really matters.
Professor Gauthier believes schools should not just be selecting candidates from traditional sectors such as banking, consultancy and industry. They should also be seeking individuals who have backgrounds in areas such as political science, the creative arts, history or philosophy, which will allow them to put business decisions into a wider context.
Indeed, there does seem to be a demand for the more rounded leaders such diversity might create. A study by Mannaz, a leadership development company, suggests that, while the bully-boy chief executive of old may not have been eradicated completely, there is a definite shift in emphasis towards less tough styles of management—at least in America and Europe. Perhaps most significant, according to Mannaz, is the increasing interest large companies have in more collaborative management models, such as those prevalent in Scandinavia, which seek to integrate the hard and soft aspects of leadership and encourage delegated responsibility and accountability.What characterizes the business school student population of today?
| A．Greater diversity. |
| B．Intellectual maturity. |
| C．Exceptional diligence. |
| D．Higher ambition. |
What is the author’s concern about current business school education?
| A．It will arouse students’ unrealistic expectations. |
| B．It will produce business leaders of a uniform style. |
| C．It focuses on theory rather than on practical skills. |
| D．It stresses competition rather than cooperation. |
What aspect of diversity does Valerie Gauthier think is most important?
| A．Age and educational background. |
| B．Attitude and approach to business. |
| C．Social and professional experience. |
| D．Ethnic origin and gender. |
What does Mannaz say about the current management style?
| A．It is eradicating the tough aspects of management. |
| B．It encourages male and female executives to work side by side. |
| C．It adopts the bully-boy chief executive model. |
| D．It is shifting towards more collaborative models. |
The main aim of Environment Awareness Week is to _____.
| A．educate the public on protecting the environment |
| B．discuss global warming and other environmental problems |
| C．explain ways for producing freshwater to save the environment |
| D．learn about renewable energy sources that protect the environment |
The organizer of the event is _____.
| A．Global Gaia Network |
| B．Clean Energy Agency |
| C．Green Earth Foundation |
| D．International Environment Fund |
Which of the following statements is NOT true of the event? ________
| A．It will last a week and the halls will be open 11 hours a day. |
| B．You can send an email to Mrs. Daisy Soh for more information. |
| C．Each hall charges the same amount of money as the other. |
| D．Lectures in Hall 1 will be given by university students. |
Are we getting more stupid? According to Gerald Crabtree, a scientist at Stanford University in the US, we are.
You may not want to hear this, but Crabtree believes that human intelligence reached its peak more than 2,000 years ago and ever since then has been going downhill. “If an average Greek from 1,000 BC were transported to modern times, he or she would be one of the brightest among us,” Crabtree told The Guardian.
At the heart of Crabtree’s thinking is a simple idea. In the past, intelligence was critical for survival when our ancestors had to avoid dangerous animals and hunt for food. The difference of being smart or stupid is often life or death. However, after the spread of agriculture, when our ancestors began to live in dense farming communities, the need to keep their intelligence in peak condition gradually reduced.
This is not hard to understand. Most of the time, pressure is what keeps us going – you need the pressure from your teachers to finish your homework; the pressure of looking pretty prompts you to lose weight when summer comes. And the same is also true of our intelligence – if we think less, we become less smart.
These mutations(变异) are harmful to our intelligence and they were all developed in the past 3,000 years. The other evidence that Crabtree holds is in our genes. He found that among the 2,000 to 5,000 genes that we have that determine human intelligence, there are two or more mutations in each of us.
However, Crabtree’s theory has been criticized by some who say that early humans may have better hunting and surviving abilities, but people today have developed a more diverse intelligence. For example, spearing a tiger doesn’t necessarily require more brainpower than playing chess or writing a poem. Moreover, the power of modern education means a lot more people have the opportunity to learn nowadays.
“You wouldn’t get Stephen Hawking 2,000 years ago. He just wouldn’t exist,” Thomas Hills of the University of Warwick, UK, told Live Science. “But now we have people of his intellectual capacity doing things and making insights that we would never have achieved in our environment of evolutionary adaptation.”What is Crabtree’s recent finding according to the article?
| A．The Greeks from 1,000 BC could have been the smartest in human history. |
| B．Our ancient ancestors had no better surviving abilities than we do nowadays. |
| C．Humans have been getting steadily more intelligent since the invention of farming. |
| D．Mutations in genes that decide human intelligence have affected the development of intelligence. |
According to Crabtree, ancient humans _______.
| A．had much more genes that determine human intelligence |
| B．were forced to be smart due to natural selection pressures |
| C．relied more on group intelligence than individual intelligence |
| D．developed a diverse intelligence to adapt to the harsh realities |
Some argue that Crabtree’s theory is false because they think _______.
| A．people today are under much more pressure than early humans |
| B．it’s ridiculous to compare a hunter’s and a poet’s intelligence |
| C．modern education is far more advanced than ancient education |
| D．human intelligence nowadays is different from that of the distant past |
What is Thomas Hills’ attitude toward Crabtree’s theory?
| A．Supportive | B．Unfavorable |
| C．Worried | D．Confused. |
Hi, everybody. Over the past couple months, most of the political headlines you’ve read have probably been about the government shutdown and the launch of the Affordable Care Act. And I know that many of you have rightly never been more frustrated with Washington.
But if you look beyond those headlines, there are some good things happening in our economy. And that’s been my top priority since the day I walked into the Oval Office.
After decades in which the middle class was working harder and harder just to keep up, and a punishing recession that made it worse, we made the tough choices required not just to recover from crisis, but to rebuild on a new foundation for stronger, more durable economic growth.
Five years later, we have fought our way back. Our businesses have created 7.8 million new jobs in the past 44 months. Another 200,000 Americans went back to work last month.
The American auto industry has come roaring back with more than 350,000 new jobs – jobs churning out and selling the high-tech, fuel-efficient cars the world wants to buy. And they’re leading the charge in a manufacturing sector that has added jobs for the first time since the 1990s – a big reason why our businesses sell more goods and services “Made in America” than ever before.
We decided to reverse our addiction to foreign oil. And today, we generate more renewable energy than ever, more natural gas than anybody, and for the first time in nearly 20 years, America now produces more oil than we buy from other countries.
We decided to fix a broken health care system. And even though the rollout of the marketplace where you can buy affordable plans has been rough, so far, about 500,000 Americans are poised to gain health coverage starting January 1st. And by the way, health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years.
And one more thing: since I took office, we’ve cut our deficits by more than half. And that makes it easier to invest in the things that create jobs – education, research, and infrastructure.
Imagine how much farther along we could be if both parties were working together. Think about what we could do if a reckless few didn’t hold the economy hostage every few months, or waste time on dozens of votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act rather than try to help us fix it.
In the weeks ahead, I’ll keep talking about my plan to build a better bargain for the middle class. Good jobs. A good education. A chance to buy a home, save, and retire. And yes, the financial security of affordable health care. And I’ll look for any willing partners who want to help.
Because of your hard work and tough sacrifices over the past five years, we’re pointed in the right direction. But we’ve got more work to do to keep moving that way. And as long as I’m President, I’ll keep doing everything I can to create jobs, grow the economy, and make sure that everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead. Thanks, and have a great weekend.Which of the following is not the reason for people’s frustration with the government?
| A．The government shut down |
| B．Unemployment rate |
| C．The addiction to foreign oil |
| D．The launch of the Affordable Care Act |
Why does the president mention more goods and services “Made in America”?
| A．To show that American goods and services are very popular. |
| B．To indicate that American people should be dependent on themselves. |
| C．To show that the employment rate has been increased. |
| D．To show that American auto industry enjoys high technology. |
What’s the meaning of the underlined word “repeal”?
| A．To abolish | B．To protect |
| C．To strengthen | D．To weaken |
According to the speech, which of the following can be implied?
| A．American people have every reason to feel frustrated with the government. |
| B．Health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. |
| C．The president feels sorry that the economy is not moving in the right direction. |
| D．Some government officials don’t agree with the president on the medical care system. |
Everyone gathered around and Paddy read out loud, slowly, his tone growing sadder and sadder. The little headline said: BOXER RECEIVES LIFF SENTENCE.
Frank Cleary, aged 26, professional boxer, was today found guilty of the murder of Albert Gumming, aged 32, laborer, last July. The jury(陪审团) reached its decision after only ten minutes, recommending the most severe punishment to the court. It was, said the Judge, a simple case. Cumming and Cleary had quarreled violently at the Harbour Hotel on July 23rd and police saw Cleary kicking at the head of the unconscious Gumming. When arrested, Cleary was drunk but clear-thinking.
Cleary was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. Asked if he had anything to say, Cleary answered, “Just don’t tell my mother.”
“It happened over three years ago,” Paddy said helplessly. No one answered him or moved, for no one knew what to do. “Just don’t tell my mother,” said Fee numbly(麻木地). “And no one did! Oh, God! My poor, poor Frank!”
Paddy wiped the tears from his face and said. “Fee, pack your things. We’ll go to see him.”
She half-rose before sinking back, her eyes in her small white face stared as if dead. “I can't go,” she said without a hint of pain, yet making everyone feel that the pain was there. “It would kill him to see me. I know him so well—his pride, his ambition. Let him bear the shame alone, it’s what he wants. We’ve got to help him keep his secret. What good will it do him to see us?”
Paddy was still weeping, not for Frank, but for the life which had gone from Fee’s face, for the dying in her eyes. Frank had always brought bitterness and misfortune, always stood between Fee and himself. He was the cause of her withdrawal from his heart and the hearts of his children. Every time it looked as if there might be happiness for Fee, Frank took it away. But Paddy’s love for her was as deep and impossible to wipe out as hers was for Frank.
So he said, “Well, Fee, we won’t go. But we must make sure he is taken care of. How about if I write to Father Jones and ask him to look out for Frank?”
There was no excitement in the eyes, but a faint pink stole into her cheeks. “Yes, Paddy, do that. Only make sure he knows not to tell Frank we found out. Perhaps it would ease Frank to think for certain that we don’t know.”Paddy cried because he thought ___________.
| A．Frank did kill someone and deserved the punishment |
| B．Frank should have told Fee what had happened |
| C．what had happened to Frank was killing Fee |
| D．Frank had always been a man of bad moral character |
The underlined sentence “She half-rose before sinking back…” in Paragraph 6 shows that___________.
| A．Fee was so heart-broken that she could hardly stand up |
| B．Fee didn’t want to upset Paddy by visiting Frank |
| C．Fee couldn’t leave her family to go to see Frank |
| D．Fee struggled between wanting to see Frank and respecting his wish |
What can be inferred from the passage?
| A．The jury and the judge agreed on the Boxer’s Sentence of Life Imprisonment. |
| B．The police found Gumming unconscious, heavily struck by Frank. |
| C．The family didn’t find out what had happened to Frank until 3 years later. |
| D．Frank didn’t want his family to know the sentence to him, most probably out of his pride. |
What is Frank and Paddy’s probable relationship with Fee?
| A．Frank is Fee’s son and Paddy is Fee’s brother. |
| B．Frank is Fee’s son and Paddy is Fee’s husband. |
| C．Frank is Fee’s brother and Paddy is Fee’s lover. |
| D．Frank is Fee’s lover and Paddy is Fee’s husband. |