正在载入试卷 ...
录入者 :梦想(职业培训中心)
All the walls in the building had the same (layout).[1分]
The storm caused (severe) damage.[1分]
The walls are made of (hollow) concret blocks.[1分]
Our aim was to (update) the health service and we succeeded.[1分]
Do we have to wear these name (tags)?[1分]
Joe came to the window as the crowd (chanted) ”Joe,Joe,Joe”[1分]
He (inspired) many young people to take up sports.[1分]
The city center was (wiped out) by the bomb.[1分]
Most baby can (take in) a wide range of food easily.[1分]
A larg crowd (assembled) outside the American embassy.[1分]
The weather was (crisp) and clear and you could see the mountains fifty miles away.[1分]
What (puzzles) me is why his books are so popular.[1分]
I think $7 a drink is a bit (steep), don’t you?[1分]
The (contempt) he felt for his fellow students was obvious.[1分]
Her comments about men are (utterly) ridiculous.[1分]
Brotherly Love
 Adidas and Puma have been two of the biggest names in sports shoe manufacturing for over half a century.  
  Since 1928 they have supplied shoes for Olympic athletes, World Cup-winning football heroes, Muhammad Ali, hip hop stars and rock musicians famous all over the world. But the story of these two companies begins in one house in the town of Herzogenaurach, Germany.
  Adolph and Rudolph Dassler were the sons of a shoemaker. They loved sport but complained that they could never find comfortable shoes to play in. Rudolph always said, 'You cannot play sports wearing shoes that you'd walk around town with.' So they started making their own. In 1920 Adolph made the first pair of athletics shoes with spikes(钉),produced on the Dasslers' kitchen table.
  On lst July 1924 they formed a shoe company, Dassler Brothers Ltd and they worked together for many years. The company became successful and it provided the shoes for Germany's athletes at the 1928 and 1932 Olympic Games.
  But in 1948 the brothers argued. No one knows exactly what happened, but family members have suggested that the argument was about money or women. The result was that Adolph left the company. His nickname was Adi, and using this and the first three letters of the family name, Dassler, he founded Adidas.
  Rudolph relocated across the River Aurach and founded his own company too. At first he wanted to call it Ruda, but eventually he called it Puma, after the wild cat. The famous Puma logo of the jumping cat has hardly changed since.
  After the big split of 1948 Adolph and Rudolph never spoke to each other again and their companies have now been in competition for over sixty years. Both companies were for many years the market leaders, though Adidas has always been more successful than Puma. A hip hop group, Run DMC, has even written a song called "My Adidas" and in 2005 Adidas bought Reebok, another big sports shoe company.
  The terrible family argument should really be forgotten, but ever since it happened, over sixty years ago, the town has been split into two. Even now, some Adidas employees and Puma employees don't talk to each other.
Adidas and puma began to make shoes at the end of 19th century.[1分]
The brothers’ father was a ball maker.[1分]
The brothers make shoes at home.[1分]
The brothers argued about the shoes.[1分]
The brothers decided to start their separate companies after argument.[1分]
Nike makes more shoes than Adidas.[1分]
People in town have forgotten their argument.[1分]
How technology pushes down price(原文有删减)
    The Treaty of Breda, signed in 1667 after a war between the English and Dutch in which the English were worsted, gave the Dutch the big prize: Run, a small island in the Indonesian archipelago which was the world's principal source of nutmeg. The margin on nutmeg at the time was around 3,200%. The English, as a consolation prize, got Manhattan. As an illustration of the long-term fall in food prices compared with other goods, that is a sharp one. But deflation has characterized the food business for centuries, because of continual advances in food production and distribution technology.
     Consumers have benefited greatly from those advances. Malthusians, whose descendants until quite recently predicted that the world would run out of food, have thereby been confounded. More and more food is being produced by fewer and fewer people with less and less capital; it is therefore ever more plentiful and cheaper. Since demand is to some extent limited by the size of people's stomachs, spending on food compared with other goods has been falling for many years, and continues to drop (see chart 4).
    Genetically modified (GM) seeds are the latest manifestation of a production revolution that started with Charles “Turnip” Townsend, who in the 18th century laid the basis for crop rotation. Organic fertilisers were replaced by chemical ones in the 19th century. The railway opened up the American mid-west. The horse replaced the cow, the combine harvester the horse. After the second world war, dwarf varieties of wheat and rice (which overcame the problem that heavily fertilised crops in hot countries grew too tall and fell over) boosted developing-country output. The “green revolution” helped trigger a more recent “livestock revolution”, documented by Chris Delgado, who works jointly for the International Food Policy Research Institute and the International Livestock Research Institute. Higher incomes and urbanisation, combined with falling food prices, have boosted meat and milk consumption in developing countries. By 1997, real beef prices were a third their level in 1971. Over that period, meat consumption in developing countries rose five-fold, three times as fast as in developed countries. Milk consumption rose three-fold.By the 1980s, advances in conventional plant breeding had tailed off, but GM made it possible to do things with DNA that conventional breeding could not do. Despite scaremongering in Europe, GM technology is spreading elsewhere: most of the world's soya is now GM.Producing lots of food is not much good unless you can distribute it, so advances in distribution technology have been as important as those in production technology. Salt, used to preserve food, which meant that it could be stored and traded, was an early aid to distribution. Canning arrived in the early 19th century, when a Frenchman discovered that food could be stored longer if it was heated before it was bottled, and a Briton worked out that tin cans were easier to transport than bottles; and both the British and the French armies used the technology to feed their troops in the Napoleonic wars.Francis Bacon, a British scientist and essayist, was an early victim of the struggle to develop refrigeration technology: he died in 1626 after eating some chicken that he had stuffed with snow as part of an experiment. In 1877 the first shipload of frozen beef was carried from Argentina to France. The impact on the food industry of the spread of the domestic refrigerator in the 20th century was rivalled only by that of the car, which changed the face of retailing by allowing supermarkets to develop. Supermarkets have helped push down prices principally because of their scale. Big businesses can invest in IT systems that make them efficient. And their size allows them to buy in bulk. The more concentrated the retail business becomes, the bigger supermarkets get, the further prices get pushed down until, of course, there is so much concentration that there is not enough competition. Britain's Competition Commission indicated earlier this year that the supermarket industry was moving towards that point: it refused to let any of the top three supermarket chains buy one of the smaller players. In America, however, where the size of the country means a more fragmented retail business, there is still scope for further concentration: the “black death”, as Wal-Mart is known in the trade, is expected to claim more victims. Wal-Mart's scale, the efficiency of its IT systems and the cheapness of its non-unionised labour force ($8-10 an hour compared with $17-18 for mid-sized players such as Albertsons, A hold, Safeway and Kroger), give it a massive advantage. It sells Colgate toothpaste for an average of 63% of its competitors' price, Tropicana orange juice for 58% and Kellogg's Corn Flakes for 56%. Analysts expect at least one of the mid-sized firms to disappear.The concentration of power among retailers has led to another stage in the shift in power down the food chain. Once upon a time, power lay with landlords. In the 20th century, as processing and distribution became more important, so did the food producers. Lord Haskins, Tony Blair's adviser on farming, recalls going to food industry conferences in the 1970s, when there would be a line of Rolls-Royces outside, all belonging to producers.
     Retailer concentration has shifted power (and profits) further down the food chainNo longer. Retailer concentration has shifted power (and profits) further down the food chain. But the retailers are not the type to swank around in flash cars. They are ostentatiously parsimonious, advertising their determination to keep prices down. Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, is in a converted warehouse. Tesco, Britain's biggest private-sector employer, has its headquarters in a Stalinist bunker in a nasty bit of north-east London. Beside the main reception its share price is proudly displayed on one of those blackboards with white plastic letters stuck on to it that you see in the cheapest sandwich bars. One of the manifestations of retailers' power (which also reinforces it) is the growth of private-label (ie, supermarket- not producer-branded) goods. In 2002, according to the Boston Consulting Group, own-label made up 39% of grocery sales in Britain, 21% in France and only 16% in the United States, but everybody thinks that, as retailing becomes more concentrated, America is going the way of Britain. Retailers can sell private-label only if the price cuts they offer mean more to consumers than a producer's brand. As own-label has expanded, so supermarkets have been taking all but the most successful brands off their shelves. “If you are a must-have brand it's fine,” says Dido Harding, Tesco's commercial director. “If you're a sub-global brand, life's much harder.”The shift in power to retailers has put pressure on producers' margins, hence huge programmes of cuts. Since 2000, Uni-lever has cut its workforce by 33,000 to 245,000 and dropped lots of minor brands as part of its “path to growth” strategy. Cadbury is the latest to announce big cuts: in October it said that it will be shutting 20% of its 133 factories and cutting 10% of its 55,000 global workforce. These cuts should help keep costs, and thus the price of food, low.Does cheap food make people unhealthy? In some ways. Hydrogenated vegetable oil, for instance—vegetable fat made solid by adding hydrogen atoms—is the nutritionists' current bête noire. Widely used as a cheap substitute for butter and cream, it is the main dietary source of trans fats. Trans fats are heavily implicated in heart disease; companies are taking them out of products for fear of lawsuits.Cheap food may also make people eat more. In a paper entitled “Why have Americans become more obese?” David Cutler, Jesse Shapiro and Edward Glaeser, a group of Harvard economists, note that, among OECD countries, obesity is correlated to the level of regulation: the more food laws, the more protected local producers are, the harder it is to import technology, the slimmer people tend to be. They reckon that is because of price: the less regulated a country, the cheaper a Big Mac tends to be. But it could be another factor: heavily regulated countries might, for instance, be places with stronger family ties where real meals have survived and people eat fewer snacks and less fast food.
     Giving people bigger portions is an easy way of making them feel they have got a better dealFood companies certainly think giving people more food for their money makes them buy more. That is why portions have been getting larger and larger. In America, soft drinks, which used to come in 8oz and then 12oz containers now come in 20oz ones. As Dennis Lombardi of Technomic, a food-industry consultancy in Chicago, points out, giving people bigger portions is an easy way of making them feel they have got a better deal. “If I can give you an 8oz portion for $7, I can give you a 12oz portion for $8. The only incremental cost to me is the food, which probably cost 25 cents.” Everybody, therefore, has done it.Scientists have shown that portion size partly determines how much people eat. Barbara Rolls, a nutrition professor at Pennsylvania State University, fed subjects macaroni cheese, some in 2.5-cup portions, some in 5-cup portions. The ones with the big portions ate 27% more, on average, than those with small portions but did not report feeling any fuller. Brian Wansink at the University of Illinois found that if you give movie-goers an extra-large bucket of popcorn, they eat nearly half as much again as if you give them the next size down, even if the popcorn is stale.Now companies are under pressure to stop selling people more for less. But it is a hard trend to reverse, as Mr Lombardi points out. “How about I give you a third less food for $1 less? I don't think so.”

A.Huge retailers force producers to cunt costs
B.Consumers like supermarkets
C.Technology helps reduce food prices
D.Food comes cheaper in larger portions
E.Chain stores provide better service
F.Bigger supermarkets offer lower prices
Paragraph 1[1分]
Paragraph 2[1分]
Paragraph 3[1分]
Paragraph 4[1分]
A.their workforce
B.huge portions
C.large quantities
D.their money
E.a good barging
F.minor brands
Big supermarkets can offer food at lower prices because they can buy in___[1分]
Some food  producers have reduced___[1分]
Besides cutting its workforce, Unilever also abandoned its___[1分]
Buyers like bigger portion because they think they have got___[1分]


Oseola McCarty  
    LATE ONE SUNDAY AFTERNOON in September 1999, Oseola McCarty, an elderly cleaning lady passed away in the little wooden flame house where she had lived and worked most of her life. It may seem like an ordinary end to a humble life, but there was something quite exceptional about this woman.  
    In the summer of 1995, McCarty gave $150,000, most of the money she had saved throughout her life, to the University of Southern Mississippi in her hometown. The money was to help other African Americans through university. She had started her savings habit as a young child when she would return from school to clean and iron for money which she would then save.  She led a simple, frugal existence, never spending on anything but her most basic needs. Her bank also advised her on investing her hard-earned savings.  
    When she retired, she decided that she wanted to use the money to give children of limited means the opportunity to go to university. She had wanted to become a nurse, but had to leave school to look after ill relatives and work. When asked why she had given her life savings away, she replied, "I'm giving it away so that children won't have to work so hard, like I did." After news of her donation hit the media, over 600 donations were made to the scholarship fund. One was given by media executive, Ted Turner, who reputedly gave a billion dollars.  
    She didn't want any fuss made over her gift, but the news got out and she was invited all over the United States to talk to people. Wherever she went, people would come up to her to say a few words or to just touch her. She met the ordinary and the famous, President Clinton included. In the last few years of her life, before she died of cancer, McCarty was given over 300 awards:she was honoured by the United Nations and received the Presidential Citizen's Medal. Despite having no real education, she found herself with two honorary doctorates:one from the University of Southern Mississippi and the other from Harvard University. Her generosity was clearly an inspiration to many and proof that true selflessness does exist.
This woman shocked and inspired the world because ______.[3分]
she had managed to save so much money
she gave her money to African Americans
she gave her life savings to help others through university
she only spent money on cheap things
She managed to save so much money because ______.[3分]
she had ironed and washed clothes all her life
she had worked hard, saved hard and invested carefully
she had opened a good bank account
she knew how to make money
She gave her money away because ______.[3分]
she wanted to help the university
she wanted others to have the chance to become nurses
she wanted others to have the opportunity to escape a hard life
she want to be remembered after her death
When her generosity was made ______.[3分]
people donated billions
hundreds of students got scholarships
hundreds of people put money into the fund
she was sent to university
Marcarty’s generosity indicates clearly that[3分]
scholarship funds are popular in US
Kind-hearted people deserves doctorates
Selflessness exists in human society
Poor people can donate as much as rich people

From Ponzi to Madoff

The year was 1920. The country was the United States of America. The man's name was Charles Ponzi. Ponzi told people to stop depositing money in a savings account. Instead, they should give it to him to save for them. Ponzi promised to pay them more than the bank. For example, a savings account might pay you $5 a year for every $100 you deposit. Ponzi, however, would pay you $40 a year for every $100 you gave him to hold. Many people thought this was a good plan. They began to give their money to Ponzi.  
    How could Ponzi make so much money for people? This is what he did with the money people gave him: He used some of that money to pay other people who gave him money. However, he also kept a lot of the money for himself. Soon he had $250 million. This was a kind of theft, and it was against the law. The people who gave him their money didn't think anything was wrong. Ponzi paid them every month, just like a bank. Ponzi continued this way of working for two years. Then one day, he didn't have enough money to pay all the people. They discovered his crime, and he went to prison for fraud.  
    Ninety years later, people began to hear about a businessman in New York named Bernard Madoff. People said he gave good advice about money. They said when they gave him their money, he paid them a lot more than the bank. Madoff helped hospitals, schools, and individuals earn money. Over a period of 40 years, people gave him $170 billion. However, no one investigated what he did with the money. The people who gave Madoff their money also didn't think anything was wrong because he paid them every month.  
    One day, Madoff didn't have enough money to pay all the people he needed to pay. That's when people discovered how Madoff worked: He was taking money from some people to pay other people, just the way Charles Ponzi did. However, this time, instead of losing millions of dollars, people lost billions.  
    Madoff was accused of fraud, and United States government officials arrested him. He didn't have to go on trial because he said he was guilty. In 2009, a judge sentenced him t0 150 years in prison. Bernard Madoff's crime was even bigger than Ponzi's. It was the biggest fraud in history. The lesson of this story is clear: When something seems too good to be true, it probably is!
For every $100 Ponzi promises to pay people[3分]
$5 a year
$40 a year
$20 a year
$100 a year
What did Ponzi do with the money people gave him?[3分]
He spent it all on things for himself.
He used some of it to pay other people.
He deposited it all in a bank.
He kept it all to save for a good plan.
What was Ponzi’s crime?[3分]
He kept a lot of other peoples’ money for himself.
He robbed the banks of millions of dollars.
He gave people more than bank allowed.
He couldn’t pay people the interests.
How long did Madoff’s trick lasts[3分]
Four years.
Forty years.
Nine years.
Ninety years.
Why didn’t Madoff have to go on trail?[3分]
He admitted he was guilty.
The officials couldn’t find any evidence against him.
He had friends in government who helped him.
He returned all illegal money.
Gross National Happiness
    In the last century, new technology improved the lives of many people in many countries. However, one country resisted these changes. High in the Himalayan mountains of Asia, the kingdom of Bhutan remained separate. Its people and Buddhist(佛教)culture had not been affected for almost a thousand years. Bhutan, however, was a poor country. People died at a young age. Most of its people could not read, and they did not know much about the outside world. Then, in 1972, a new ruler named King Jigme Singye Wangchuck decided to help Bhutan to become modern, but without losing its traditions.
    King Wangchuck looked at other countries for ideas. He saw that most countries measured their progress by their Gross Natonal Product(GNP)。 The GNP measures products and money. When the number of products sold increases, people say the country is making progress. King Wangchuck had a different idea for Bhutan. He wanted to measure his country’s progress by people’s happiness. If the people’s happiness increased, the king could say that Bhutan was making progress. To decide if people were happier, he created a measure called Gross National Happiness(GNH)。
    GNH is based on certain principles that create happiness. People are happier if they have health care, education, and jobs. They are happier when they live in a healthy, protected environment. They are happier when they can keep their traditional culture and customs. Finally, people are happier when they have a good, stable government.
    Now these is some evidence of increased GNH in Bhutan. People are healthier and are living longer. More people are educated and employed. Teenty-five percent of the land has become national parks, and the country has almost no pollution. The Bhutanese continue to wear their traditional clothing and follow their ancient Buddhist customs. Bhutan has also become a democracy. In 2008, King Wangchuck gave his power to his son. Although the country still had a king, it held its first democratic elections that year. Bhutan had political parties and political candidates for the first time. Finally, Bhutan has connected to the rest of the world through television and internet.
    Bhutan is a symbol for social progress. Many countries are now interested in Bhutan’s GNH. These countries are investigating their own ways to measure happiness. They want to create new policies that take care of their people, cultures, and land.
    Brazil may be the nest country to use the principles of GNH. Brazilian leaders see the principles of GNH as a source of inspiration. Brazil is a large country with a diverse population. If happiness works as a measure of progress in Brazil, perhaps the rest of the world will follow.
Who was Jigme Singye Wangchuck?[3分]
A president.
A Buddhist priest.
A general.
A king.
Apart from modernizing Bhutan, what else did Wangchuck want to do for Bhutan?[3分]
To make its population grow.
To keep it separate from the world.
To encourage its people to get rich.
To keep its tradition and customs.
A country shows its progress with GNP by[3分]
selling more products.
spending more money.
spending less money.
providing more jobs.
According to GNH, people are happier if they[3分]
have new technology.
can change their religion.
have a good, stable government.
have more money.
Today, many countries are[3分]
using the principles of GNH to measure their progress.
working together to develop a common scale to measure GNH.
taking both Bhutan and Brazil as symbols for social progress.
trying to find their own ways to measure happiness.

Voice Your Opinion——Change is Needed in Youth Sports
      Everywhere you look, you see kids bouncing a basketball or waving a tennis racquet (网球拍)。 And these kids are getting younger and younger. In some countries, children can compete on basketball, baseball, and volleyball teams starting at age nine. (46)And swimming and gymnastics classes begin at age four, to prepare children for competition.   
     It’s true that a few of these kids will develop into highly skilled athletes and may even become members of the national Olympic teams. (47) This emphasis on competition in sports is having serious negative effects.   
     Children who get involved in competitive sports at a young age often grow tired of their sport. Many parents pressure their kids to choose one sport and devote all their time to it. (48) But 66 percent of the young athletes wanted to play more than one sport-for fun.   
Another problem is the pressure imposed by over-competitive parents and coaches. Children are not naturally competitive. In fact, a recent study by Paulo David found that most children don’t even understand the idea of competition until they are seven years old. (49)       
      The third, and biggest, problem for young athletes is the lack of time to do their homework, have fun, be with friends—in short, time to be kids. When they are forced to spend every afternoon at sports practice, they often start to hate their chosen sport. A searchers found that 70 percent of kids who take part in competitive sports before the of twelve quit before they turn eighteen. (50) Excessive competitive away all the enjoyment.   
      Need to remember the purpose of youth sports – to give kids a chance to have developing strong, healthy bodies.

A.Survey found that 79 percent of parents of young athletes wanted their children to concentrate on one sports.
B.The young soccer organization has teams for children as young as five.
C.Many of them completely lose interest in sports.
D.Sports for children have two important purposes.
E.But what about the others, the average kids?
F.Very young kids don't know why their parents are pushing them so hard?

Do you  ever  wish  you  were  more  optimistic, someone  who  always  (51) _______ to  be successful?  Having someone around who always (52) _______ the worst isn’t really a lot of (53) _______. We all know someone who sees a single cloud on a sunny day and says ,"It looks ( 54 ) _______ rain. " But if you catch yourself thinking such things,it's important to do something  (55) _______ it.
You can change your view of life ,(56) _______to psychologists.  It only takes a little effort ,and you'll  find life more rewarding as a  (57) _______. Optimism,they say,is partly about self-respect and confidence  but it's  also a more positive  way of looking  at life and all it has to (58) _______. Optimists are more (59) _______ to start new projects and are generally more prepared
to take risks.
Upbringing is obviously very important in forming your (60) _______to the world.  Some people are brought up to (61) _______too much on others and grow up forever blaming other people when anything (62) _______wrong.  Most optimists,on the (63 ) _______            hand, have been brought up  not  to  (64) _______failure as the end of the world—they just (65) _______ with their lives.
get up       
get on       
get out         
  get over

≡ 本试卷共计65题,此处为结束标志。