Write an essay of 160─200 words based on the picture below. In your essay, you should1) describe the picture briefly,2) interpret the meaning, and3) give your comments.Write your answer neatly on the ANSWER SHEET.
Shakespeare's lifetime was coincident with a period of extraordinary activity and achievement in the drama. （1）By the date of his birth Europe was witnessing the passing of the religious drama, and the creation of new forms under the incentive of classical tragedy and comedy. These new forms were at first mainly written by scholars and performed by amateurs, but in England, as everywhere else in western Europe, the growth of a class of professional actors was threatening to make the drama popular, whether it should be new or old, classical or medieval, literary or farcical. Court, school, organizations of amateurs, and the traveling actors were all rivals in supplying a widespread desire for dramatic entertainment; and （2）no boy who went to a grammar school could be ignorant that the drama was a form of literature which gave glory to Greece and Rome and might yet bring honor to England.When Shakespeare was twelve years old the first public playhouse was built in London. For a time literature showed no interest in this public stage. Plays aiming at literary distinction were written for schools or court, or for the choir boys of St. Paul's and the royal chapel, who, however, gave plays in public as well as at court. （3）But the professional companies prospered in their permanent theaters, and university men with literary ambitions were quick to turn to these theaters as offering a means of livelihood. By the time that Shakespeare was twenty-five, Lyly, Peele, and Greene had made comedies that were at once popular and literary; Kyd had written a tragedy that crowded the pit; and Marlowe had brought poetry and genius to triumph on the common stage — where they had played no part since the death of Euripides.（4）A native literary drama had been created, its alliance with the public playhouses established, and at least some of its great traditions had been begun.The development of the Elizabethan drama for the next twenty-five years is of exceptional interest to students of literary history, for in this brief period we may trace the beginning, growth, blossoming，and decay of many kinds of plays, and of many great careers. We are amazed today at the mere number of plays produced, as well as by the number of dramatists writing at the same time for this London of two hundred thousand inhabitants. （5）To realize how great was the dramatic activity, we must remember further that hosts of plays have been lost, and that probably there is no author of note whose entire work has survived.
[A] In December of 1869, Congress appointed a commission to select a site and prepare plans and cost estimates for a new State Department Building. The commission was also to consider possible arrangements for the War and Navy Departments. To the horror of some who expected a Greek Revival twin of the Treasury Building to be erected on the other side of the White House, the elaborate French Second Empire style design by Alfred Mullett was selected, and construction of a building to house all three departments began in June of 1871.[B] Completed in 1875, the State Department's south wing was the first to be occupied, with its elegant four-story library ( completed in 1876 ), Diplomatic Reception Room, and Secretary's office decorated with carved wood, Oriental rugs, and stenciled wall patterns. The Navy Department moved into the east wing in 1879, where elaborate wall and ceiling stenciling and marquetry floors decorated the office of the Secretary.[C] The State, War, and Navy Building, as it was originally known, housed the three Executive Branch Departments most intimately associated with formulating and conducting the nation's foreign policy in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century — the period when the United States emerged as an international power. The building has housed some of the nation's most significant diplomats and politicians and has been the scene of many historic events.[D] Many of the most celebrated national figures have participated in historical events that have taken place within the EEOB's granite walls. Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson, Gerald Ford, and George H. W. Bush all had offices in this building before becoming President. It has housed 16 Secretaries of the Navy, 21 Secretaries of War, and 24 Secretaries of State. Winston Churchill once walked its corridors and Japanese emissaries met here with Secretary of State Cordell Hull after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.[E] The Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) commands a unique position in both the national history and the architectural heritage of the United States. Designed by Supervising Architect of the Treasury, Alfred B. Mullett, it was built from 1871 to 1888 to house the growing staffs of the State, War, and Navy Departments, and is considered one of the best examples of French Second Empire architecture in the country.[F] Construction took 17 years as the building slowly rose wing by wing. When the EEOB was finished, it was the largest office building in Washington, with nearly 2 miles of black and white tiled corridors. Almost all of the interior detail is of cast iron or plaster; the use of wood was minimized to insure fire safety. Eight monumental curving staircases of granite with over 4,000 individually cast bronze balusters are capped by four skylight domes and two stained glass rotundas.[G] The history of the EEOB began long before its foundations were laid. The first executive offices were constructed between 1799 and 1820. A series of fires (including those set by the British in 1814) and overcrowded conditions led to the construction of the existing Treasury Building. In 1866, the construction of the North Wing of the Treasury Building necessitated the demolition of the State Department building.1.（）→C→ 2.（） → 3.（） →F→ 4.（） →5.（）
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) continues to bleed red ink. It reported a net loss of $5.6 billion for fiscal 2016, the 10th straight year its expenses have exceeded revenue. Meanwhile, it has more than $120 billion in unfunded liabilities, mostly for employee health and retirement costs. There are many reasons this formerly stable federal institution finds itself on the verge of bankruptcy. Fundamentally, the USPS is in a historic squeeze between technological change that has permanently decreased demand for its bread-and-butter product, first-class mail, and a regulatory structure that denies management the flexibility to adjust its operations to the new reality.And interest groups ranging from postal unions to greeting-card makers exert self-interested pressure on the USPS's ultimate overseer — Congress — insisting that whatever else happens to the Postal Service, aspects of the status quo they depend on get protected. This is why repeated attempts at reform legislation have failed in recent years, leaving the Postal Service unable to pay its bills except by deferring vital modernization.Now comes word that everyone involved — Democrats, Republicans, the Postal Service, the unions and the system's heaviest users — has finally agreed on a plan to fix the system. Legislation is moving through the House that would save USPS an estimated $28.6 billion over five years, which could help pay for new vehicles, among other survival measures. Most of the money would come from a penny-per- letter permanent rate increase and from shifting postal retirees into Medicare. The latter step would largely offset the financial burden of annually pre-funding retiree health care, thus addressing a long-standing complaint by the USPS and its unions.If it clears the House, this measure would still have to get through the Senate 一 where someone is bound to point out that it amounts to the bare, bare minimum necessary to keep the Postal Service afloat, not comprehensive reform. There's no change to collective bargaining at the USPS, a major omission considering that personnel accounts for 80 percent of the agency's costs. Also missing is any discussion of eliminating Saturday letter delivery. That common-sense change enjoys wide public support and would save the USPS $2 billion per year. But postal special-interest groups seem to have killed it, at least in the House. The emerging consensus around the bill is a sign that legislators are getting frightened about a politically embarrassing short-term collapse at the USPS. It is not, however, a sign that they're getting serious about transforming the postal system for the 21st century. 1.The financial problem with the USPS is caused partly by（ ）.2.According to Paragraph 2, the USPS fails to modernize itself due to （ ）. 3.The long-standing complaint by the USPS and its unions can be addressed by （ ）. 4.In the last paragraph, the author seems to view legislators with （ ）. 5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain's National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world. The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech giants. It is against that background that the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients in 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients' rights and their expectations of privacy.DeepMind has almost apologised. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further arrangements — and there may be many — between the NHS and DeepMind will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about informed patient consent to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it “controlled” the data and DeepMind merely “processed” it. But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value.The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them. That misses the way the surveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is compared with the data of countless millions more.The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources. If software promises to save lives on the scale that drugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as big pharma has done. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham's report is a welcome start.1.What is true of the agreement between the NHS and DeepMind?2.The NHS trust responded to Denham's verdict with（ ）.3.The author argues in Paragraph 2 that （ ）. 4.According to the last paragraph, the real worry arising from this deal is（ ）. 5.The author's attitude toward the application of AI to healthcare is（ ）.
A new survey by Harvard University finds more than two-thirds of young Americans disapprove of President Trump's use of Twitter. The implication is that Millennials prefer news from the White House to be filtered through other sources, not a president's social media platform.Most Americans rely on social media to check daily headlines. Yet as distrust has risen toward all media, people may be starting to beef up their media literacy skills. Such a trend is badly needed. During the 2016 presidential campaign, nearly a quarter of web content shared by Twitter users in the politically critical state of Michigan was fake news, according to the University of Oxford. And a survey conducted for BuzzFeed News found 44 percent of Facebook users rarely or never trust news from the media giant.Young people who are digital natives are indeed becoming more skillful at separating fact from fiction in cyberspace. A Knight Foundation focus-group survey of young people between ages 14 and 24 found they use “distributed trust” to verify stories. They cross-check sources and prefer news from different perspectives — especially those that are open about any bias. Many young people assume a great deal of personal responsibility for educating themselves and actively seeking out opposing viewpoints, ’’ the survey concluded.Such active research can have another effect. A 2014 survey conducted in Australia, Britain, and the United States by the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that young people's reliance on social media led to greater political engagement.Social media allows users to experience news events more intimately and immediately while also permitting them to re-share news as a projection of their values and interests. This forces users to be more conscious of their role in passing along information. A survey by Bama research group found the top reason given by Americans for the fake news phenomenon is “reader error,” more so than made-up stories or factual mistakes in reporting. About a third say the problem of fake news lies in "misinterpretation or exaggeration of actual news” via social media. In other words, the choice to share news on social media may be the heart of the issue. “This indicates there is a real personal responsibility in counteracting this problem, ” says Roxanne Stone, editor in chief at Bama Group.So when young people are critical of an over-tweeting president, they reveal a mental discipline in thinking skills — and in their choices on when to share on social media. 1.According to Paragraphs 1 and 2, many young Americans cast doubt on（ ）.2.The phrase “beef up” (Paragraph 2) is closest in meaning to （ ）. 3.According to the Knight Foundation survey, young people （ ）. 4.The Bama survey found that a main cause for the fake news problem is（ ）. 5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
Among the annoying challenges facing the middle class is one that will probably go unmentioned in the next presidential campaign: What happens when the robots come for their jobs?Don't dismiss that possibility entirely. About half of U.S. jobs are at high risk of being automated, according to a University of Oxford study, with the middle class disproportionately squeezed. Lower-income jobs like gardening or day care don't appeal to robots. But many middle-class occupations — trucking, financial advice, software engineering — have aroused their interest, or soon will. The rich own the robots, so they will be fine.This isn't to be alarmist. Optimists point out that technological upheaval has benefited workers in the past. The Industrial Revolution didn't go so well for Luddites whose jobs were displaced by mechanized looms, but it eventually raised living standards and created more jobs than it destroyed. Likewise, automation should eventually boost productivity, stimulate demand by driving down prices, and free workers from hard, boring work. But in the medium term, middle-class workers may need a lot of help adjusting.The first step, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue in The Second Machine Age, should be rethinking education and job training. Curriculums — from grammar school to college — should evolve to focus less on memorizing facts and more on creativity and complex communication. Vocational schools should do a better job of fostering problem-solving skills and helping students work alongside robots. Online education can supplement the traditional kind. It could make extra training and instruction affordable. Professionals trying to acquire new skills will be able to do so without going into debt.The challenge of coping with automation underlines the need for the U. S. to revive its fading business dynamism: Starting new companies must be made easier. In previous eras of drastic technological change, entrepreneurs smoothed the transition by dreaming up ways to combine labor and machines. The best uses of 3D printers and virtual reality haven't been invented yet. The U.S. needs the new companies that will invent them.Finally, because automation threatens to widen the gap between capital income and labor income, taxes and the safety net will have to be rethought. Taxes on low-wage labor need to be cut, and wage subsidies such as the earned income tax credit should be expanded: This would boost incomes, encourage work, reward companies for job creation, and reduce inequality.Technology will improve society in ways big and small over the next few years, yet this will be little comfort to those who find their lives and careers upended by automation. Destroying the machines that are coming for our jobs would be nuts. But policies to help workers adapt will be indispensable. 1.Who will be most threatened by automation?2.Which of the following best represents the author's view?3.Education in the age of automation should put more emphasis on（ ）.4.The author suggests that tax policies be aimed at （ ）. 5.In this text, the author presents a problem with（ ）.
Trust is a tricky business. On the one hand, it's a necessary condition（1）many worthwhile things: child care, friendships, etc. On the other hand, putting your（2）in the wrong place often carries a high（3 ）.（4）, why do we trust at all? Well, because it feels good.（5）people place their trust in an individual or an institution, their brains release oxytocin, a hormone that（6）pleasurable feelings and triggers the herding instinct that prompts humans to（7）with one another. Scientists have found that exposure（8）this hormone puts us in a trusting（9） : In a Swiss study, researchers sprayed oxytocin into the noses of half the subjects; those subjects were ready to lend significantly higher amounts of money to strangers than were their（10） who inhaled something else.（11）for us, we also have a sixth sense for dishonesty that may （12）us. A Canadian study found that children as young as 14 months can differentiate（13） a credible person and a dishonest one. Sixty toddlers were each（14） to an adult tester holding a plastic container. The tester would ask, “What's in here?” before looking into the container, smiling, and exclaiming, “Wow!” Each subject was then invited to look （15）. Half of them found a toy; the other half （16）the container was empty—and realized the tester had（17）them.Among the children who had not been tricked, the majority were（18）to cooperate with the tester in learning a new skill, demonstrating that they trusted his leadership. （19）, only five of the 30 children paired with the “（20） ” tester participated in a follow-up activity.
The growth of the use of English as the world's primary language for international communication has obviously been continuing for several decades. （1）But even as the number of English speakers expands further there are signs that the global predominance of the language may fade within the foreseeable future.Complex international, economic, technological and cultural changes could start to diminish the leading position of English as the language of the world market, and UK interests which enjoy advantage from the breadth of English usage would consequently face new pressures. Those realistic possibilities are highlighted in the study presented by David Graddol.（2）His analysis should therefore end any self-contentedness among those who may believe that the global position of English is so stable that the young generations of the United Kingdom do not need additional language capabilities.David Graddol concludes that monoglot English graduates face a bleak economic future as qualified multilingual youngsters from other countries are proving to have a competitive advantage over their British counterparts in global companies and organisations. Alongside that, （3）many countries are introducing English into the primary-school curriculum but British schoolchildren and students do not appear to be gaining greater encouragement to achieve fluency in other languages.If left to themselves, such trends will diminish the relative strength of the English language in international education markets as the demand for educational resources in languages, such as Spanish, Arabic or Mandarin grows and international business process outsourcing in other languages such as Japanese, French and German, spreads.（4）The changes identified by David Graddol all present clear and major challenges to the UK's providers of English language teaching to people of other countries and to broader education business sectors. The English language teaching sector directly earns nearly ￡1.3 billion for the UK in invisible exports and our other education related exports earn up to ￡ 10 billion a year more. As the international education market expands, the recent slowdown in the numbers of international students studying in the main English-speaking countries is likely to continue, especially if there are no effective strategic policies to prevent such slippage.The anticipation of possible shifts in demand provided by this study's significant:（5）It gives a basis to all organisations which seek to promote the learning and use of English, a basis for planning to meet the possibilities of what could be a very different operating environment. That is a necessary and practical approach. In this as in much else, those who wish to influence the future must prepare for it.
[A]The first published sketch, “A Dinner at Poplar Walk” brought tears to Dickens's eyes when he discovered it in the pages of The Monthly Magazine. From then on his sketches, which appeared under the pen name “Boz” in The Evening Chronicle, earned him a modest reputation.[B]The runaway success of The Pickwick Papers, as it is generally known today, secured Dickens's fame. There were Pickwick coats and Pickwick cigars, and the plump, spectacled hero, Samuel Pickwick, became a national figure.[C]Soon after Sketches by Boz appeared, a publishing firm approached Dickens to write a story in monthly installments, as a backdrop for a series of woodcuts by the then-famous artist Robert Seymour, who had originated the idea for the story. With characteristic confidence, Dickens successfully insisted that Seymour's pictures illustrate his own story instead. After the first installment, Dickens wrote to the artist and asked him to correct a drawing Dickens felt was not faithful enough to his prose. Seymour made the change, went into his backyard, and expressed his displeasure by committing suicide. Dickens and his publishers simply pressed on with a new artist. The comic novel, The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club, appeared serially in 1836 and 1837 and was first published in book form in 1837.[D]Charles Dickens is probably the best-known and, to many people, the greatest English novelist of the 19th century. A moralist, satirist, and social reformer, Dickens crafted complex plots and striking characters that capture the panorama of English society.[E]Soon after his father's release from prison, Dickens got a better job as errand boy in law offices. He taught himself shorthand to get an even better job later as a court stenographer and as a reporter in Parliament. At the same time, Dickens, who had a reporter's eye for transcribing the life around him, especially anything comic or odd, submitted short sketches to obscure magazines.[F]Dickens was born in Portsmouth, on England's southern coast. His father was a clerk in the British Navy pay office — a respectable position, but with little social status. His paternal grandparents, a steward and a housekeeper, possessed even less status, having been servants, and Dickens later concealed their background. Dickens's mother supposedly came from a more respectable family. Yet two years before Dickens's birth, his mother's father was caught stealing and fled to Europe, never to return. The family's increasing poverty forced Dickens out of school at age 12 to work in Warren’s Blacking Warehouse, a shoe-polish factory, where the other working boys mocked him as “the young gentleman.” His father was then imprisoned for debt. The humiliations of his father's imprisonment and his labor in the blacking factory formed Dicken's greatest wound and became his deepest secret. He could not confide them even to his wife, although they provide the unacknowledged foundation of his fiction.[G]After Pickwick, Dickens plunged into a bleaker world. In Oliver Twist, he traces an orphan's progress from the workhouse to the criminal slums of London. Nicholas Nickleby, his next novel, combines the darkness of Oliver Twist with the sunlight of Pickwick. The popularity of these novels consolidated Dickens' as a nationally and internationally celebrated man of letters.D→1.（）→ 2.（） → 3.（） → 4.（） →B→ 5.（）
In a rare unanimous ruling, the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell. But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct, which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari automobile from a company seeking access to government.The high court's decision said the judge in Mr. McDonnell's trial failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his “official acts,” or the former governor's decisions on “specific” and “unsettled” issues related to his duties.Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials, unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials, is not corruption, the justices found.The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is “distasteful” and “nasty”. But under anti-bribery laws, proof must be made of concrete benefits, such as approval of a contract or regulation. Simply arranging a meeting, making a phone call, or hosting an event is not an “official act.’’The court's ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal. Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution for bribery. “The basic compact underlying representative government, ” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court, “assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns.”But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives, not the courts, to ensure equality of access to government. Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift. This type of integrity requires well-enforced laws in government transparency, such as records of official meetings, rules on lobbying, and information about each elected leader's source of wealth.Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption. But it is not always corruption. Rather officials must avoid double standards, or different types of access for average people and the wealthy. If connections can be bought, a basic premise of democratic society— that all are equal in treatment by government — is undermined. Good governance rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual.The court's ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism. 1.The underlined sentence (Paragraph 1) most probably shows that the court（ ）.2.According to Paragraph 4, an official act is deemed corruptive only if it involves （ ）. 3.The court's ruling is based on the assumption that public officials are （ ）. 4.Well-enforced laws in government transparency are needed to （ ）. 5.The author's attitude toward the court's ruling is（ ）.
Robert F. Kennedy once said that a country's GDP measures “everything except that which makes life worthwhile.” With Britain voting to leave the European Union, and GDP already predicted to slow as a result, it is now a timely moment to assess what he was referring to.The question of GDP and its usefulness has annoyed policymakers for over half a century. Many argue that it is a flawed concept. It measures things that do not matter and misses things that do. By most recent measures, the UK's GDP has been the envy of the Western world, with record low unemployment and high growth figures. If everything was going so well, then why did over 17 million people vote for Brexit, despite the warnings about what it could do to their country's economic prospects?A recent annual study of countries and their ability to convert growth into well-being sheds some light on that question. Across the 163 countries measured, the UK is one of the poorest performers in ensuring that economic growth is translated into meaningful improvements for its citizens. Rather than just focusing on GDP, over 40 different sets of criteria from health, education and civil society engagement have been measured to get a more rounded assessment of how countries are performing.While all of these countries face their own challenges, there are a number of consistent themes. Yes, there has been a budding economic recovery since the 2008 global crash, but in key indicators in areas such as health and education, major economies have continued to decline. Yet this isn't the case with all countries. Some relatively poor European countries have seen huge improvements across measures including civil society, income equality and the environment.This is a lesson that rich countries can learn: When GDP is no longer regarded as the sole measure of a country's success, the world looks very different.So, what Kennedy was referring to was that while GDP has been the most common method for measuring the economic activity of nations, as a measure, it is no longer enough. It does not include important factors such as environmental quality or education outcomes — all things that contribute to a person's sense of well-being.The sharp hit to growth predicted around the world and in the UK could lead to a decline in the everyday services we depend on for our well-being and for growth. But policymakers who refocus efforts on improving well-being rather than simply worrying about GDP figures could avoid the forecasted doom and may even see progress.1.Robert F. Kennedy is cited because he（ ）.2.It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that （ ）. 3.Which of the following is true about the recent annual study?4.In the last two paragraphs, the author suggests that （ ）. 5.Which of the following is the best title for the text?
“The ancient Hawaiians were astronomers,” wrote Queen Liliuokalani, Hawaii's last reigning monarch, in 1897. Star watchers were among the most esteemed members of Hawaiian society. Sadly, all is not well with astronomy in Hawaii today. Protests have erupted over construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), a giant observatory that promises to revolutionize humanity's view of the cosmos.At issue is the TMT's planned location on Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano worshiped by some Hawaiians as the piko, that connects the Hawaiian Islands to the heavens. But Mauna Kea is also home to some of the world's most powerful telescopes. Rested in the Pacific Ocean, Mauna Kea's peak rises above the bulk of our planet's dense atmosphere, where conditions allow telescopes to obtain images of unsurpassed clarity.Opposition to telescopes on Mauna Kea is nothing new. A small but vocal group of Hawaiians and environmentalists have long viewed their presence as disrespect for sacred land and a painful reminder of the occupation of what was once a sovereign nation.Some blame for the current controversy belongs to astronomers. In their eagerness to build bigger telescopes, they forgot that science is not the only way of understanding the world. They did not always prioritize the protection of Mauna Kea's fragile ecosystems or its holiness to the islands' inhabitants. Hawaiian culture is not a relic of the past; it is a living culture undergoing a renaissance today.Yet science has a cultural history, too, with roots going back to the dawn of civilization. The same curiosity to find what lies beyond the horizon that first brought early Polynesians to Hawaii' s shores inspires astronomers today to explore the heavens. Calls to disassemble all telescopes on Mauna Kea or to ban future development there ignore the reality that astronomy and Hawaiian culture both seek to answer big questions about who we are, where we come from and where we are going. Perhaps that is why we explore the starry skies, as if answering a primal calling to know ourselves and our true ancestral homes.The astronomy community is making compromises to change its use of Mauna Kea. The TMT site was chosen to minimize the telescope's visibility around the island and to avoid archaeological and environmental impact. To limit the number of telescopes on Mauna Kea, old ones will be removed at the end of their lifetimes and their sites returned to a natural state. There is no reason why everyone cannot be welcomed on Mauna Kea to embrace their cultural heritage and to study the stars. 1.Queen Liliuokalani's remark in Paragraph 1 indicates（ ）.2.Mauna Kea is deemed as an ideal astronomical site due to （ ）. 3.The construction of the TMT is opposed by some locals partly because（ ）. 4.It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that progress in today's astronomy（ ）. 5.The author's attitude toward choosing Mauna Kea as the TMT site is one of（ ）.
First two hours, now three hours — this is how far in advance authorities are recommending people show up to catch a domestic flight, at least at some major U.S. airports with increasingly massive security lines.Americans are willing to tolerate time-consuming security procedures in return for increased safety. The crash of EgyptAir Flight 804, which terrorists may have downed over the Mediterranean Sea, provides another tragic reminder of why. But demanding too much of air travelers or providing too little security in return undermines public support for the process. And it should: Wasted time is a drag on Americans' economic and private lives, not to mention infuriating.Last year, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) found in a secret check that undercover investigators were able to sneak weapons — both fake and real — past airport security nearly every time they tried. Enhanced security measures since then, combined with a rise in airline travel due to the improving economy and low oil prices, have resulted in long waits at major airports such as Chicago's O' Hare International. It is not yet clear how much more effective airline security has become — but the lines are obvious.Part of the issue is that the government did not anticipate the steep increase in airline travel, so the TSA is now rushing to get new screeners on the line. Part of the issue is that airports have only so much room for screening lanes. Another factor may be that more people are trying to overpack their carry-on bags to avoid checked-baggage fees, though the airlines strongly dispute this.There is one step the TSA could take that would not require remodeling airports or rushing to hire: Enroll more people in the PreCheck program. PreCheck is supposed to be a win-win for travelers and the TSA. Passengers who pass a background check are eligible to use expedited screening lanes. This allows the TSA to focus on travelers who are higher risk, saving time for everyone involved. The TSA wants to enroll 25 million people in PreCheck.It has not gotten anywhere close to that, and one big reason is sticker shock: Passengers must pay $85 every five years to process their background checks. Since the beginning, this price tag has been PreCheck's fatal flaw. Upcoming reforms might bring the price to a more reasonable level. But Congress should look into doing so directly, by helping to finance PreCheck enrollment or to cut costs in other ways.The TSA cannot continue diverting resources into underused PreCheck lanes while most of the traveling public suffers in unnecessary lines. It is long past time to make the program work. 1.The crash of EgyptAir Flight 804 is mentioned to（ ）.2.Which of the following contributes to long waits at major airports?3.The word “expedited” (Paragraph 5) is closest in meaning to （ ）. 4.One problem with the PreCheck program is （ ）. 5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
Could a hug a day keep the doctor away? The answer may be a resounding “yes!”（1）helping you feel close and（2）to people you care about, it turns out that hugs can bring a （3）of health benefits to your body and mind. Believe it or not, a warm embrace might even help you （4）getting sick this winter.In a recent study （5 ）over 400 healthy adults, researchers from Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania examined the effects of perceived social support and the receipt of hugs（6）the participants' susceptibility to developing the common cold after being（7）to the virus. People who perceived greater social support were less likely to come（8）with a cold, and the researchers（9）that the stress-reducing effects of hugging （10）about 32 percent of that beneficial effect. （11）among those who got a cold, the ones who felt greater social support and received more frequent hugs had less severe（12）.“ Hugging protects people who are under stress from the（13）risk for colds that' s usually（14）with stress,” notes Sheldon Cohen, a professor of psychology at Carnegie. Hugging “is a marker of intimacy and helps（15）the feeling that others are there to help（16）difficulty. ”Some experts（17）the stress-reducing, health-related benefits of hugging to the release of oxytocin, often called “the bonding hormone” （18）it promotes attachment in relationships, including that between mothers and their newborn babies. Oxytocin is made primarily in the central lower part of the brain, and some of it is released into the bloodstream. But some of it （19）in the brain, where it （20）mood, behavior and physiology.
Mental health is our birthright. （1）We don't have to learn how to be mentally healthy; it is built into us in the same way that our bodies know how to heal a cut or mend a broken bone. Mental health can't be learned, only reawakened. It is like the immune system of the body, which under stress or through lack of nutrition or exercise can be weakened, but which never leaves us. When we don't understand the value of mental health and we don't know how to gain access to it, mental health will remain hidden from us. （2）Our mental health doesn't really go anywhere; like the sun behind a cloud, it can be temporarily hidden from view, but it is fully capable of being restored in an instant.Mental health is the seed that contains self-esteem—confidence in ourselves and an ability to trust in our common sense. It allows us to have perspective on our lives—the ability to not take ourselves too seriously, to laugh at ourselves, to see the bigger picture, and to see that things will work out. It's a form of innate or unlearned optimism. （3）Mental health allows us to view others with sympathy if they are having troubles, with kindness if they are in pain, and with unconditional love no matter who they are. Mental health is the source of creativity for solving problems, resolving conflict, making our surroundings more beautiful, managing our home life, or coming up with a creative business idea or invention to make our lives easier. It gives us patience for ourselves and toward others as well as patience while driving, catching a fish, working on our car, or raising a child. It allows us to see the beauty that surrounds us each moment in nature, in culture, in the flow of our daily lives.（4）Although mental health is the cure-all for living our lives, it is perfectly ordinary as you will see that it has been there to direct you through all your difficult decisions. It has been available even in the most mundane of life situations to show you right from wrong, good from bad, friend from foe. Mental health has commonly been called conscience, instinct, wisdom, common sense, or the inner voice. We think of it simply as a healthy and helpful flow of intelligent thought. （5）As you will come to see, knowing that mental health is always available and knowing to trust it allow us to slow down to the moment and live life happily.
A. Create a new image of yourselfB. Decide if the time is rightC. Have confidence in yourselfD. Understand the contextE. Work with professionalsF. Make it efficient G. Know your goalsNo matter how formal or informal the work environment, the way you present yourself has an impact. This is especially true in first impressions. According to research from Princeton University, people assess your competence, trustworthiness, and likeability in just a tenth of a second, solely based on the way you look.The difference between today's workplace and the “dress for success’’ era is that the range of options is so much broader. Norms have evolved and fragmented. In some settings, red sneakers or dress T-shirts can convey status: in others not so much. Plus, whatever image we present is magnified by social-media services like Linkedln. Chances are, your headshots are seen much more often now than a decade or two ago. Millennials, it seems, face the paradox of being the least formal generation yet the most conscious of style and personal branding. It can be confusing.So how do we navigate this? How do we know when to invest in an upgrade? And what's the best way to pull off one that enhances our goals? Here are some tips:1.（ ） As an executive coach, I've seen image upgrades be particularly helpful during transitions—when looking for a new job, stepping into a new or more public role, or changing work environments. If you're in a period of change or just feeling stuck and in a rut, now may be a good time. If you're not sure, ask for honest feedback from trusted friends, colleagues and professionals. Look for cues about how others perceive you. Maybe there's no need for an upgrade and that's OK.2.（ ） Get clear on what impact you're hoping to have. Are you looking to refresh your image or pivot it? For one person, the goal may be to be taken more seriously and enhance their professional image. For another, it may be to be perceived as more approachable, or more modern and stylish. For someone moving from finance to advertising, maybe they want to look more “SoHo.”(It's OK to use characterizations like that.)3.（ ） Look at your work environment like an anthropologist. What are the norms of your environment? What conveys status? Who are your most important audiences? How do the people you respect and look up to present themselves? The better you understand the cultural context, the more control you can have over your impact.4.（ ） Enlist the support of professionals and share with them your goals and context. Hire a personal stylist, or use the free styling service of a store like J. Crew. Try a hair stylist instead of a barber. Work with a professional photographer instead of your spouse or friend. It's not as expensive as you might think.5.（ ） The point of a style upgrade isn't to become more vain or to spend more time fussing over what to wear. Instead, use it as an opportunity to reduce decision fatigue. Pick a standard work uniform or a few go-to options. Buy all your clothes at once with a stylist instead of shopping alone, one article of clothing at a time.
There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. “Sometime in the future,” the paper's publisher said back in 2010.Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there's plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper—printing presses, delivery trucks—isn't just expensive; it's excessive at a time when online-only competitors don't have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print anyway. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining.Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way.“ Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them,” he said, “but if you discontinue it, you're going to have your most loyal customers really upset with you.”Sometimes that's worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. “It was seen as a blunder," he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the Times? “I wouldn't pick a year to end print,” he said. “I would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product.”The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they'd feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. “So if you're overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping,” Peretti said. “Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue.” In other words, if you're going to make a print product, make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year—more than twice as much as a digital-only subscription.“It's a really hard thing to do and it's a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn't have a legacy business,” Peretti remarked. “But we're going to have questions like that where we have things we're doing that don't make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it's better to be more aggressive than less aggressive.” 1.The New York Times is considering ending its print edition partly due to（ ）.2.Peretti suggests that, in face of the present situation, the Times should（ ）. 3.It can be inferred from Paragraphs 5 and 6 that a “legacy product” （ ）. 4.Peretti believes that, in a changing world （ ）. 5.Which of the following would be the best title of the text?
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business,” wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize-winning economist,“ That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.’’ But even if you accept Friedman's premise and regard corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders' money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies—at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company's products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company's products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse “halo effect,” whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect.The study found that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms' political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company's record in CSR. “We estimate that either eliminating a substantial lab our-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about 20% results in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,” says one researcher.Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they decide their do-gooding policies. But at least they have demonstrated that when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.1.The author views Milton Friedman's statement about CSR with（ ）.2.According to Paragraph 2, CSR helps a company by （ ）. 3.The expression “more lenient”(Paragraph 4) is closest in meaning to （ ）. 4.When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company's CSR record （ ）. 5.Which of the following is true of CSR, according to the last paragraph?
For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate “the countryside” alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Service (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support.A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save “the beauty of natural places for everyone forever.” It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience “a refreshing air.” Hill's pressure later led to the creation of national parks and green belts. They don't make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it. It needs constant guardianship.At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment. The Conservatives' planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorising “off-plan” building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable. Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Conservative parties.The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London area alone, with no intrusion on green belt. What is true of London is even truer of the provinces. The idea that “housing crisis” equals “concreted meadows” is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always, where to put them. Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets. This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin urban conservation areas. Why ruin rural ones?Development should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe's most crowded country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternative—the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum.1.Britain's public sentiment about the countryside（ ）.2.According to Paragraph 2, the achievements of the National Trust are now being （ ）. 3.Which of the following can be inferred from Paragraph 3?4.The author holds that George Osborne's preference （ ）. 5.In the last paragraph, the author shows his appreciation of（ ）.