—Do you mind if I open the window?
----_____I feel a bit cold.
A. Of course not B.I’d rather you didn’t C.Go ahead D.Why not?
假如你是启明中学（Ming Qi Middle School）的李明，想申请一个扶贫项目，帮助贫困地区的儿童。根据以下启事，写一封申请信（信中不能提到真实姓名和学校）。
|
启事 国际儿童基金会将资助中学生开展扶贫项目，以帮助贫困地区的儿童。申请成功者将获得项目经费2000元。 有意者请来信告知： 1） 你个人的基本情况； 2） 你对申请项目的基本设想； 3） 项目经费的使用计划。 联系方式: 2011hope@icf.org 2011年6月7日 |
1.你为什么不在网上订票? (Why)
2.我常把王海误认为他的双胞胎弟弟，因为他们长得太像了。(mistake)
3.对父母而言，没有什么能与孩子的身心健康相比。 (compare)
4.自从出国留学后，她就不再和我们保持联系了。 (No longer)
5.如果能找到任何适合你的学习方法，你的学习效率就可能明显提高。(whatever)
Directions: Read the passage carefully. Then answer the questions or complete the statements in the fewest possible words.
Sociologists have long recognised that organisations of less than 200 individuals can operate through the free flow of information among the members. Once their size goes beyond this figure, the organizations are getting less flexible. So it seems necessary to prevent total disorder resulting from failures of communication.
One solution to this problem would, of course, be to structure large organisations into smaller units of a size that can act as a group. By allowing these groups to build reliance on each other, larger organizations can be built up. However, merely having groups of, say, 150 will never of itself be a complete solution to the problems of the organization. Something else is needed: the people involved must be able to build direct personal relationships. To allow free flow of information, they have to be able to communicate with each other in a casual way. Maintaining too formal a structure of relationships inevitably prevents the way a system works.
The importance of this was drawn to my attention two years ago by the case of a TV station. Whether by chance or by design, it so happened that there were almost exactly 150 people in the station. The whole process worked very smoothly as an organization for many years until they were moved into purpose-built accommodation. Then, for no apparent reason, the work seemed to be more difficult to do, not to say less satisfying.
It was some time before they work out what the problem was. It turn out that, when the architects were designing the new building, they decided that the coffee room where everyone ate their sandwiches at lunch times was an unnecessary luxury and so did away with it. And with that, they accidentally destroyed the close social networks that strengthened the whole organization. What had apparently been happening was that, as people gathered informally over their sandwiches in the coffee room, useful information was casually being exchanged.
(Note: Answer the questions or complete the statements in NO MORE THAN EIGHT WORDS.)
1.What size of an organization may lead to communication failures?
2.What are the two solutions to the communication problem within a large organization?
3.After the TV station moved into new accommodation, its operation ___________________________.
4.From the case of the TV station, we can conclude it is ____________________________________ that make(s) an organization more successful.
Directions: Read the following text and choose the most suitable heading from A-F for each paragraph. There is one extra heading which you do not need.
|
A. Manufacturing industry in information economy B. News in the age of information C. Argument about individual accounts and their reliability D. Be your own investigative journalist E. Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers. F. Information is presented in an entertaining way. |
1.______
With the arrival of the age of “information economy”, intellectual work is becoming a more important source of wealth than manufacturing. Organizations in all walks of life are doing more to spread their information. So people of the Public Relations are hired to speak for them. A lot of our news is actually collected from press releases and reports of events intentionally staged for journalists. In the information age, journalists spend their time, not investigating, but passing on the words of a spokesperson.
2.______
There is a joke in the novel Scoop about the newspaper’s owner, Lord Copper. The editors can never disagree with him. When he’s right about something they answer “definitely”, and when he’s wrong they say “to some extent, Lord Copper.” It seems reasonable to suppose that, in the real world, the opinions of such powerful people still influence the journalists and editors who work for them.
3.______
In countries where the news is not officially controlled, it is likely to be provided by commercial organizations who depend on advertising. The news has to attract viewers and maintain its audience ratings. I suspect that some stories get air-time just because there happen to be exciting pictures to show. In Britain, we have the tabloid newspapers which millions of people read simply for entertainment. There is progressively less room for historical background, or statistics, which are harder to present as a sensational story.
4.______
There is an argument that with spreading access to the internet and cheap technology for recording sound and images we will all be able to find exactly the information we want. People around the world will be able to publish their own eye-witness accounts and compete with the widely-accepted news-gatherers on equal terms. But what it will mean also is that we’ll be subjected to a still greater amount of nonsense and lies. Any web log may contain the latest information of the year, or equally, a made-up story that you will never be able to check.
5.______
Maybe the time has come to do something about it, and I don’t just mean changing your choice of TV channel or newspaper. In a world where everyone wants you to listen to their version, you only have two choices: switch off altogether or start looking for sources you can trust. The investigative journalist of the future is everyone who wants to know the truth.
Human remains of ancient settlements will be reburied and lost to science under a law that threatens research into the history of humans in Britain, a group of leading archeologists (考古学家) says. In a letter addressed to the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, 40 archaeologists write of their “deep and widespread concern” about the issue. It centers on the law introduced by the Ministry of Justice in 2008 which requires all human remains unearthed in England and Wales to be reburied within two years, regardless of their age. The decision means scientists have too little time to study bones and other human remains of national and cultural significance.
“Your current requirement that all archaeologically unearthed human remains should be reburied, whether after a standard period of two years or a further special extension, is contrary to basic principles of archaeological and scientific research and of museum practice,” they write.
The law applies to any pieces of bone uncovered at around 400 dig sites, including the remains of 60 or so bodies found at Stonehenge in 2008 that date back to 3,000 BC. Archaeologists have been granted a temporary extension to give them more time, but eventuallly the bones will have to be returned to the ground.
The arrangements may result in the waste of future discoveries at sites such as Happisburgh in Norfolk, where digging is continuing after the discovery of stone tools made by early humans 950,000 years ago. If human remains were found at Happisburgh, they would be the oldest in northern Europe and the first indication of what this species was. Under the current practice of the law those remains would have to be reburied and effectively destroyed.
Before 2008, guidelines allowed for the proper preservation and study of bones of sufficient age and historical interest, while the Burial Act 1857 applied to more recent remains. The Ministry of Justice assured archaeologists two years ago that the law was temporary, but has so far failed to revise it.
Mike Parker Pearson, an archaeologist at Sheffield University, said: “Archaeologists have been extremely patient because we were led to believe the ministry was sorting out this problem, but we feel that we cannot wait any longer.”
The ministry has no guidelines on where or how remains should be reburied, or on what records should be kept.
1.According to the passage, scientists are unhappy with the law mainly because ______.
A. it is only a temporary measure on the human remains
B. it is unreasonable and thus destructive to scientific research
C. it was introduced by the government without their knowledge
D. it is vague about where and how to rebury human remains
2.Which of the following statements is true according to the passage?
A. Temporary extension of two years will guarantee scientists enough time.
B. Human remains of the oldest species were dug out at Happisburgh.
C. Human remains will have to be reburied despite the extension of time.
D. Scientists have been warned that the law can hardly be changed.
3.What can be inferred about the British law governing human remains?
A. The Ministry of Justice did not intend it to protect human remains.
B. The Burial Act 1857 only applied to remains uncovered before 1857.
C. The law on human remains hasn’t changed in recent decades.
D. The Ministry of Justice has not done enough about the law.
4.Which of the following might be the best title of the passage?
A. New discoveries should be reburied, the government demands.
B. Research time should be extended, scientists require.
C. Law on human remains needs thorough discussion, authorities say.
D. Law could bury ancient secrets for ever, archeologists warn.
