试题库在线考试题库-历年真题模拟试题及答案-旅游管理硕士（MTA）在线试题测试中心-希赛网

题库

首页 > 题库 > 考研英语（二）

查找

With so much focus on children’s use of screens, it's easy for parents to forget about their own screen use. “Tech is designed to really suck on you in,” says Jenny Radesky in her study of digital play, "and digital products are there to promote maximal engagement. It makes it hard to disengage, and leads to a lot of bleed-over into the family routine.”Radesky has studied the use of mobile phones and tablets at mealtimes by giving mother-child pairs a food-testing exercise. She found that mothers who used devices during the exercise started 20 percent fewer verbal and 39 percent fewer nonverbal interactions with their children. During a separate observation, she saw that phones became a source of tension in the family. Parents would be looking at their emails while the children would be making excited bids for their attention.Infants are wired to look at parents’ faces to try to understand their world, and if those faces are blank and unresponsive—as they often are when absorbed in a device－it can be extremely disconcerting for the children. Radesky cites the “still face experiment” devised by developmental psychologist Ed Tronick in the 1970s. In it, a mother is asked to interact with her child in a normal way before putting on a blank expression and not giving them any visual social feedback; The child becomes increasingly distressed as she tries to capture her mother’s attention. "Parents don't have to be exquisitely parents at all times, but there needs to be a balance and parents need to be responsive and sensitive to a child’s verbal or nonverbal expressions of an emotional need," says Radesky.On the other hand, Tronick himself is concerned that the worries about kids' use of screens are born out of an “oppressive ideology that demands that parents should always be interacting” with their children: “It’s based on a somewhat fantasized, very white, very upper-middle-class ideology that says if you’re failing to expose your child to 30,000 words you are neglecting them.” Tronick believes that just because a child isn’t learning from the screen doesn’t mean there’s no value to it－particularly if it gives parents time to have a shower, do housework or simply have a break from their child. Parents, he says, can get a lot out of using their devices to speak to a friend or get some work out of the way. This can make them feel happier, which lets then be more available to their child the rest of the time.1.According to Jenny Radesky, digital products are designed to（）.2.Radesky’s food-testing exercise shows that mothers’ use of devices （）. 3.Radesky’s cites the “still face experiment” to show that （）. 4.The oppressive ideology mentioned by Tronick requires parents to （）. 5.According to Tronick, kid’s use of screens may（）.

查看试题

The need for financial provision（）not only to producers but also to consumers.

查看试题

All her hard work（）in the end，and she finally passed the exam.

查看试题

Thinner isn’t always better. A number of studies have 1 that normal-weight people are in fact at higher risk of some diseases compared to those who are overweight. And there are health conditions for which being over-weight is actually 2 . For example, heavier women are less likely to develop calcium deficiency than thin women. 3 , among the elderly, being somewhat overweight is often an 4 of good health.Of even greater 5 is the fact that obesity turns out to be very difficult to define. It is often defined 6 body mass index, or BMI. BMI 7 body mass divided by the square of height. An adult with a BMI of 18 to 25 is often considered to be normal weight. Between 25 and 30 is overweight. And over 30 is considered obese. Obesity, 8 , can be divided into moderately obese, severely obese, and very severely obese.While such numerical standards seem 9 , they are not. Obesity is probably less a matter of weight than body fat. Some people with a high BMI are in fact extremely fit, 10 others with a low BMI may be in poor 11 For example, many collegiate and professional football players 12 as obese, though their percentage body fat is low. Conversely, someone with a small frame may have high body fat but a 13 BMI.Today we have a (an) 14 to label obesity as a disgrace. The overweight are sometimes 15 in the media with their faces covered. Stereotypes 16 with obesity include laziness, lack of will power, and lower prospects for success. Teachers, employers, and health professionals have been shown to harbor biases against the obese. 17 very young children tend to look down on the overweight, and teasing about body build has long been a problem in schools.Negative attitudes toward obesity, 18 in health concerns, have stimulated a number of anti-obesity 19 . My own hospital system has banned sugary drinks from its facilities. Many employers have instituted weight loss and fitness initiatives. Michelle Obama has launched a high-visibility campaign 20 childhood obesity, even claiming that it represents our greatest national security threat.

查看试题

In our contemporary culture, the prospect of communicating with—or even looking at—a stranger is virtually unbearable. Everyone around us seems to agree by the way they cling to their phones, even without a 1 on a subway.It’s a sad reality—our desire to avoid interacting with other human beings—because there’s 2 to be gained from talking to the stranger standing by you. But you wouldn’t know it, 3 into your phone. This universal protection sends the 4: “Please don’t approach me.”What is it that makes us feel we need to hide 5 our screens?One answer is fear, according to Jon Wortmann, executive mental coach. We fear rejection, or that our innocent social advances will be 6 as “weird”. We fear we’ll be7. We fear we’ll be disruptive. Strangers are inherently 8 to us, so we are more likely to feel 9 when communicating with them compared with our friends and acquaintances. To avoid this anxiety, we 10 to our phones. “Phones become our security blanket,” Wortmann says. “They are our happy glasses that protect us from what we perceive is going to be more 11”.But once we rip off the bandaid, tuck our smartphones in our pockets and look up, it doesn’t 12 so bad. In one 2011 experiment, behavioral scientists Nicholas Epley and Juliana Schroeder asked commuters to do the unthinkable: Start a 13. They had Chicago train commuters talk to their fellow 14. “When Dr. Epley and Ms. Schroeder asked other people in the same train station to 15 how they would feel after talking to a stranger, the commuters thought their 16 would be more pleasant if they sat on their own,” the New York Times summarizes. Though the participants didn’t expect a positive experience, after they 17 with the experiment, “not a single person reported having been embarrassed.”18, these commutes were reportedly more enjoyable compared with those without communication, which makes absolute sense, 19 human beings thrive off of social connections. It’s that 20: Talking to strangers can make you feel connected.

查看试题

What would you do with $590m? This is now a question for Gloria Mackenzie, an 84-year-old widow who recently emerged from her small, tin-roofed house in Florida to collect the biggest undivided lottery jackpot in history. If she hopes her new-found fortune will yield lasting feelings of fulfillment, she could do worse than read Happy Money by Elizabeth Dumn and Michael Norton.These two academics use an array of behavioral research to show that the most rewarding ways to spend money can be counterintuitive. Fantasies of great wealth often involve visions of fancy cars and extravagant homes. Yet satisfaction with these material purchases wears off fairly quickly. What was once exciting and new becomes old-hat; regret creeps in. It is far better to spend money on experiences, say Ms. Dunn and Mr. Norton, like interesting trips, unique meals or even going to the cinema. These purchases often become more valuable with time—as stories or memories—particularly if they involve feeling more connected to others.This slim volume is packed with tips to help wage slaves as well as lottery winners get the most “happiness bang for your buck. ” It seems most people would be better off if they could shorten their commutes to work, spend more time with friends and family and less of it watching television ( something the average American spends a whopping two months a year doing, and is hardly jollier for it). Buying gifts or giving to charity is often more pleasurable than purchasing things for oneself, and luxuries are most enjoyable when they are consumed sparingly. This is apparently the reason McDonald’s restricts the availability of its popular McRib---a marketing trick that has turned the pork sandwich into an object of obsession.Readers of Happy Money are clearly a privileged lot，anxious about fulfillment, not hunger. Money may not quite buy happiness, but people in wealthier countries are generally happier than those in poor ones. Yet the link between feeling good and spending money on others can be seen among rich and poor people around the world, and scarcity enhances the pleasure of most things for most people. Not everyone will agree with the authors’ policy ideas, which range from mandating more holiday time to reducing tax incentives for American homebuyers. But most people will come away from this book believing it was money well spent.1.According to Dumn and Norton, which of the following is the most rewarding purchase?2.The author’s attitude toward Americans’ watching TV is （）.3.McRib is mentioned in paragraph 3 to show that （）. 4.According to the last paragraph, Happy Money （）. 5.This text mainly discusses how to（）.

查看试题

People have speculated for centuries about a future without work. Today is no different, with academics, writers, and activists once again（1）that technology is replacing human workers. Some imagine that the coming work-free world will be defined by （2） . A few wealthy people will own all the capital, and the masses will struggle in an impoverished wasteland.A different and not mutually exclusive （3） holds that the future will be a wasteland of a different sort, one （4） by purposelessness: Without jobs to give their lives （5） , people will simply become lazy and depressed. （6） today’s unemployed don’t seem to be having a great time. One Gallup poll found that 20 percent of Americans who have been unemployed for at least a year report having depression, double the rate for （7） Americans. Also, some research suggests that the （8） for rising rates of mortality, mental-health problems, and addicting （9）poorly-educated middle-aged people is shortage of well-paid jobs. Perhaps this is why many （10） the agonizing dullness of a jobless future.But it doesn’t （11） follow from findings like these that a world without work would be filled with unease. Such visions are based on the （12） of being unemployed in a society built on the concept of employment. In the （13） of work, a society designed with other ends in mind could （14） strikingly different circumstances for the future of labor and leisure. Today, the （15） of work may be a bit overblown. “Many jobs are boring, degrading, unhealthy, and a waste of human potential,” says John Danaher, a lecturer at the National University of Ireland in Galway.These days, because leisure time is relatively （16） for most workers, people use their free time to counterbalance the intellectual and emotional （17） of their jobs. “When I come home from a hard day’s work, I often feel （18） ,” Danaher says, adding, “In a world in which I don’t have to work, I might feel rather different”—perhaps different enough to throw himself （19） a hobby or a passion project with the intensity usually reserved for （20） matters.

查看试题

A national debate is now（） about whether we should replace golden weeks with paid Vacations.　　

查看试题

Many people talked of the 288,000 new jobs the Labor Department reported for June, along with the drop in the unemployment rate to 6.1 percent, as good news. And they were right. For now it appears the economy is creating jobs at a decent pace. We still have a long way to go to get back to full employment, but at least we are now finally moving forward at a faster pace.However, there is another important part of the jobs picture that was largely overlooked. There was a big jump in the number of people who repot voluntarily working part-time. This figure is now 830,000 (4.4 percent) above its year ago level.Before explaining the connection to the Obamacare, it is worth making an important distinction. Many people who work part-time jobs actually want full-time jobs. They take part-time work because this is all they can get. An increase in involuntary part-time work is evidence of weakness in the labor market and it means that many people will be having a very hard time making ends meet.There was an increase in involuntary part-time in June, but the general direction has been down. Involuntary part-time employment is still far higher than before the recession, but it is down by 640,000 (7.9 percent) from is year ago level.We know the difference between voluntary and involuntary part-time employment because people tell us. The survey used by the Labor Department asks people if they worked less than 35 hours in the reference week. If the answer is “yes”, they are classified as worked less than 35 hours in that week because they wanted to work less than full time or because they had no choice. They are only classified as voluntary part-time workers if they tell the survey taker they chose to work less than 35 hours a week.The issue of voluntary part-time relates to Obamacare because one of the main purposes was to allow people to get insurance outside of employment. For many people, especially those with serious health conditions or family members with serious health conditions, before Obamacare the only way to get insurance was through a job that provided health insurance.However, Obamacare has allowed more than 12 million people to either get insurance through Medicaid or the exchanges. These are people who may previously have felt the need to get a full-time job that provided insurance in order to cover themselves and their families. With Obamacare there is no longer a link between employment and insurance.1.Which part of the jobs picture are neglected?2.Many people work part-time because they （）.3.Involuntary part-time employment in the US （）. 4.It can be learned that with Obamacare, （）. 5.The text mainly discusses（）.

查看试题

Against a backdrop of drastic changes in economy and population structure, younger Americans are drawing a new 21st-century road map to success, a latest poll has found.Across generational lines, Americans continue to prize many of the same traditional milestones of a successful life, including getting married, having children, owning a home, and retiring in their sixties. But while young and old mostly agree on what constitutes the finish line of a fulfilling life, they offer strikingly different paths for reaching it.Young people who are still getting started in life were more likely than older adults to prioritize personal fulfillment in their work, to believe they will advance their careers most by regularly changing jobs, to favor communities with more public services and a faster pace of life, to agree that couples should be financially secure before getting married or having children, and to maintain that children are best served by two parents working outside the home, the survey found.From career to community and family, these contrasts suggest that in the aftermath of the searing Great Recession, those just starting out in life are defining priorities and expectations that will increasingly spread through virtually all aspects of American life, from consumer preferences to housing patterns to politics.Young and old converge on one key point: Overwhelming majorities of both groups said they believe it is harder for young people today to get started in life than it was for earlier generations. While younger people are somewhat more optimistic than their elders about the prospects for those starting out today, big majorities in both groups believe those “just getting started in life” face a tougher climb than earlier generations in reaching such signpost achievements as securing a good-paying job, managing debt, and finding affordable housing.Pete Schneider considers the climb tougher today. Schneider, a 27-year-old auto technician from the Chicago suburbs says he struggled to find a job after graduating from college. Even now that he is working steadily, he said. "I can’t afford to pay my monthly mortgage payments on my own, so I have to rent rooms out to people to mark that happen.” Looking back, he is struck that his parents could provide a comfortable life for their children even though neither had completed college when he was young. “I still grew up in an upper middle-class home with parents who didn’t have college degrees,” Schneider said. “I don’t think people are capable of that anymore.”1.One cross-generation mark of a successful life is（）.2.It can be learned from Paragraph 3 that young people tend to （）. 3.The priorities and expectations defined by the young will （）. 4.Both young and old agree that （）. 5.Which of the following is true about Schneider?

查看试题

Brierley’s book has the（）of being both informative and readable。

查看试题

These two chemicals（）with each other at a certain temperature to produce a substance which could cause an explosion.

查看试题

When Microsoft bought task management app Wunderlist and mobile calendar Sunrise in 2015, it picked up two newcomers that were attracting considerable buzz in Silicon Valley. Microsoft’s own Office dominates the market for “productivity” software, but the start-ups represented a new wave of technology designed from the ground up for the smart phone world.Both apps, however, were later scrapped, after Microsoft said it had used their best features in its own products. Their teams of engineers stayed on, making them two of the many “acquit-hires”that the biggest companies have used to feed their insatiable hunger for tech talent.To Microsoft’s critics, the fates of Wunderlist and Sunrise are examples of a remorseless drive by Big Tech to chew up any innovative companies that lie in their.path. “They bought the seedlings and closed them down,” complained Paul Arnold, a partner at San Francisco-based Switch Ventures, putting paid to businesses that might one day turn into competitors. Microsoft declined to comment.Like other start-up investors, Mr Arnold’ s own business often depends on selling start-ups to larger tech companies, though he admits to mixed feelings about the result:“I think these things are good for me, if I put my selfish hat on. But are they good for the American economy? I don’t know.”The US Federal Trade Commission says it wants to find the answer to that question. This week, it asked the five most valuable US tech companies for information about their many small acquisitions over the past decade. Although only a research project at this stage, the request has raised the prospect of regulators wading into early-stage tech markets that until now have been beyond their reach.Given their combined market value of more than $5.5tn, rifling through such small deals—many of them much less prominent than Wunderlist and Sunrise—might seem beside the point. Between them, the five companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google,Amazon and Facebook) have spent an average of only $3.4bn a year on sub-$1bn acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves, and the more than $130bn of venture capital that was invested in the US last year.However, critics say that the big companies use such deals to buy their most threatening potential competitors before their businesses have a chance to gain momentum, in some cases as part of a “buy and kill”. tactic to simply close them down.1.What is true about Wunderlist and sunrise after their acquisitions（）.2. Microsoft’s critics believe that the big tech companies tend to （） . 3.PaulArnold is concerned that small acquisitions might（）.4.The US Federal Trade Commission intend to（）.5.For the five biggest tech companies, their small acquisition have（）.

查看试题

Millions of Americans and foreigners see G. I. Joe as a mindless war toy, the symbol of American military adventurism, but that’s not how it used to be. To the men and women who（1）in World War II and the people they liberated, the G. I. was the （2） man grown into hero, the poor farm kid tom away from his home, the guy who （3） all the burdens of battle, who slept in cold foxholes, who went without the （4） of food and shelter, who stuck it out and drove back the Nazi reign of murder. This was not a volunteer soldier, not someone well paid, （5） an average guy, up （6） the best trained, best equipped, fiercest, most brutal enemies seen in centuries.His name isn’t much. G. I. is just a military abbreviation （7）Government Issue, and it was on all of the articles （8） to soldiers. And Joe? A common name for a guy who never （9） it to the top. Joe Blow, Joe Palooka, Joe Magrac... a working class name. The United States has （10） had a president or vice-president or secretary of state Joe.G. I. Joe had a （11） career fighting German, Japanese, and Korean troops. He appears as a character, or a （12） of American personalities, in the 1945 movie The Story of G. I. Joe，based on the last days of war correspondent Ernie Pyle. Some of the soldiers Pyle （13） portrayed themselves in the film. Pyle was famous for covering the （14） side of the war, writing about the dirt-snow-and-mud soldiers, not how many miles were （15） or what towns were captured or liberated. His reports （16） the “Willie” cartoons of famed Stars and Stripes artist Bill Maulden. Both men （17） the dirt and exhaustion of war, the （18） of civilization that the soldiers shared with each other and the civilians: coffee, tobacco, whiskey, shelter, sleep. （19） Egypt, France, and a dozen more countries, G. I. Joe was any American soldier, （20） the most important person in their lives. (341 words)

查看试题

Given the advantages of electronic money, you might think that we would move quickly to the cashless society in which all payments are made electronically.（1）, a true cashless society is probably not around the corner. Indeed, predictions have been （2） for two decades but have not yet come to fruition. For example, Business Week predicted in 1975 that electronic means of payment would soon “revolutionize the very （3） of money itself, ’’ only to （4） itself several years later. Why has the movement to a cashless society been so （5） in coming?Although electronic means of payment may be more efficient than a payments system based on paper, several factors work （6） the disappearance of the paper system. First, it is very （7） to set up the computer, card reader, and telecommunications networks necessary to make electronic money the （8） form of payment. Second, paper checks have the advantage that they （9） receipts, something that many consumers are unwilling to（10 ). Third, the use of paper checks gives consumers several days of “float” ——it takes several days（11） a check is cashed and funds are （12） from the issuer’s account, which means that the writer of the check can earn interest on the funds in the meantime. （13） electronic payments are immediate, they eliminate the float for the consumer.Fourth, electronic means of payment may （14） security and privacy concerns. We often hear media reports that an unauthorized hacker has been able to access a computer database and to alter information（15） there. The fact that this is not an （16） occurrence means that dishonest persons might be able to access bank accounts in electronic payments systems and （17） from someone else’s accounts. The （18） of this type of fraud is no easy task, and a new field of computer science is developing to （19） security issues. A further concern is that the use of electronic means of payment leaves an electronic （20） that contains a large amount of personal data. There are concerns that government, employers, and marketers might be able to access these data, thereby violating our privacy.

查看试题

When the post fell（）, Dennis Bass was appointed to fill it.

查看试题

The two countries achieved some progress in the sphere of trade relations, traditionally a source of （）irritation.

查看试题

Happy people work differently. They’re more productive, more creative, and willing to take greater risks. And new research suggests that happiness might influence（1）firms work, too.Companies located in places with happier people invest more, according to a recent research paper. （2） , firms in happy places spend more on R&D (research and development). That’s because happiness is linked to the kind of longer-term thinking （3） for making investments for the future.The researchers wanted to know if the （4） and inclination for risk-taking that come with happiness would （5） the way companies invested. So they compared U.S. cities’ average happiness （6） by Gallup polling with the investment activity of publicly traded firms in those areas.（7） enough, firms’ investment and R&D intensity were correlated with the happiness of the area in which they were （8） .But is it really happiness that’s linked to investment, or could something else about happier cities （9） why firms there spend more on R&D? To find out, the researchers controlled for various （10） that might make firms more likely to invest – like size, industry, and sales – and for indicators that a place was （11） to live in, like growth in wages or population. The link between happiness and investment generally （12） even after accounting for these things.The correlation between happiness and investment was particularly strong for younger firms, which the authors （13） to “less codified decision making process” and the possible presence of “younger and less （14） managers who are more likely to be influenced by sentiment.” The relationship was （15） stronger in places where happiness was spread more （16） .Firms seem to invest more in places where most people are relatively happy, rather than in places with happiness inequality.（17） this doesn’t prove that happiness causes firms to invest more or to take a longer-term view, the authors believe it at least （18）at that possibility. It’s not hard to imagine that local culture and sentiment would help （19） how executives think about the future. “It surely seems plausible that happy people would be more forward-thinking and creative and （20） R&D more than the average,” said one researcher.

查看试题

It is true that CEO pay has gone up — top ones may make 300 times the pay of typical workers on average, and since the mid-1970s CEO pay for large publicly traded American corporations has, by varying estimates, gone up by about 500%. The typical CEO of a top American corporation —from the 350 largest such companies — now makes about $18.9 million a year.The best model for understanding the growth of CEO pay is that of limited CEO talent in a world where business opportunities for the top firms are growing rapidly. The efforts of America’s highest-earning 1% have been one of the more dynamic elements of the global economy. It’s not popular to say, but one reason their pay has gone up so much is that CEOs really have upped their game relative to many other workers in the U.S. economy.Today’s CEO, at least for major American firms, must have many more skills than simply being able to “run the company”. CEOs must have a good sense of financial markets and maybe even how the company should trade in them. They also need better public relations skills than their predecessors, as the costs of even a minor slipup can be significant. Then there’s the fact that large American companies are much more globalized than ever before, with supply chains spread across a larger number of countries. To lead in that system requires knowledge that is fairly mind-boggling plus, virtually all major American companies are beyond this major CEOs still have to do all the day-to-day work they have always done. The common idea that high CEO pay is mainly about ripping people off doesn’t explain history very well. By most measures, corporate governance has become a lot tighter and more rigorous since the 1970s. Yet it is principally during this period of stronger governance that CEO pay has been high and rising. That suggests it is in the broader corporate interest to recruit top candidates for increasingly tough jobs.Furthermore, the highest CEO salaries are paid to outside candidates, not to the cozy insider picks, another sign that high CEO pay is not some kind of depredation at the expense of the rest of the company. And the stock market reacts positively when companies tie CEO pay to, say, stock prices, a sign that those practices build up corporate value not just for the CEO.（1）Which of the following has contributed to CEO pay rise?（2）Compared with their predecessors, today’s CEOs are required to（） .（3）CEO pay has been rising since the 1970s despite（）.（4）High CEO pay can be justified by the fact that it helps（）.（5）The most suitable title for this text would be（）.

查看试题

Since the（） of human history, human beings have been asking questions like "What is the essence of life."　　

查看试题

暂未登录

成为学员

学员用户尊享特权

老师批改作业做题助教答疑学员专用题库高频考点梳理

上一页 1 2 3 4 5 6 下一页

!

咨询在线老师!