试题库在线考试题库-历年真题模拟试题及答案-考博英语在线试题测试中心-希赛网

题库

首页 > 题库 > 东北大学

The coast（）slowly as our ship sailed out to sea.

One’s attitude towards job hunting would be（）to his prospects.

His newly published book advanced the（）that whales are as intelligent as humans.

He is one of the most active（）in the extracurricular activities of the students’ union.

The children’s hysterical crying（）the woman doctor from completing the examination.

Many newspapers commented on the government’s（）measures to bring down the price of wheat, rice, sugar, and other essential commodities.

In the morning the children were delighted to find that everything was under a（）of snow outside.

Although most birds have only a negligible sense of smell, they have （） vision.

She thought it could do no harm to（）her escort a bit, at least on his taste in wines.

The jungle frightened the travelers because it seemed（）.

The schoolmaster（）the girl’s bravery in his opening speech.

Directions: Write on the Answer Sheet a composition of at least 200 words based on the following statements. You should supply an appropriate title for your composition. Some people think that only those who earn a lot of money are successful. Do you agree or disagree with this view? Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

Passage OneA beached whale is a whale which has become stranded on land, usually on a beach. Beaching is often fatal for whales, as they become dehydrated and die. Whales have been found beached throughout human history and so many standings can be attributed to natural and environmental factors. There could be many natural reasons like rough weather, weakness due to old age or infection, difficulty giving birth, hunting too close to shore and navigational mistakes. A single stranded animal can prompt the entire pod to respond to its distress signals and become stranded. In 2004, scientists at the University of Tasmania found a link between whale standings and the weather. It is hypothesized that when cool Antarctic waters rich in squid and fish flow north, whales follow their prey closer towards land making them more prone to stranding. In some cases predators (such as killer whales) have been known to panic whales, herding them towards the shoreline. Strandings can be grouped into several different types. The most obvious distinctions are between single and multiple standings. Single live strandings are often the result of an illness or injury, which would almost inevitably end in death unless a passer-by knows how to react. Multiple strandings of dead animals in one locality are rare and often cause a great deal of media coverage as well as rescue efforts by sympathetic humans. Even multiple offshore deaths are unlikely to lead to multiple strandings due to the variable winds and currents scattering the animals across the sea. A key factor in many of these cases appears to be the strong social cohesion amongst toothed whales. If one whale gets into trouble, its distress calls may prompt the rest of the group to follow and become beached themselves. There is no definitive specific cause for mass strandings. Instead they may happen due to numerous factors that can act in combination. Many have been proposed, with some seeking to explain only a subset of cases; however, they are difficult to prove conclusively and are sometimes controversial.Passage TwoIt is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a Jaguar XK 4.2-S. So might “Pride and Prejudice” have started had Jane Austen, who was paid £110 (£3, 200, or $5,700, in today’s money) for one of the bestselling novels ever, been lucky enough to live in an era which offered the mutually beneficial partnership between creative talent and commercial sponsorship known as product placement. See how swiftly the hero runs in his flash new trainers? Notice how luxuriantly the shower gel foams on the heroine’s back? That’s probably because the companies that make those products have paid the producers of those programs fat fees to portray their wares nicely. Product placement, which gave birth to the original soap operas created to sell washing powders, is back.Digital technology is the reason. Viewers can now effortlessly skip the ads, so broadcasters and the companies that used to buy airtime for commercials are trying to find better ways to catch people’s attention. Product placement is one promising option, but it is controversial. It is allowed in America but mostly banned in the European Union. Consumer organizations across Europe oppose the introduction of product placement, saving it would undermine trust in broadcasters. European producers and broadcasters complain that this is unfair because their American rivals benefit from a source of income denied to them, and senseless because American programs anyway appear on European screens. The EU is therefore planning to legalize product placement, but the proposal faces some opposition, viewers watching ads, say the critics, are fair game because they know they’re being sold stuff. When they’re watching programs, by contrast, they don’t realize that products are being promoted. But if advertising that slips imperceptibly into people’s brains were to be banned, a great deal of what goes on now would be outlawed. After all, drivers spinning past billboards don’t necessarily consciously clock the message they’ve seen; often they file it unconsciously — as you browsing through these pages, may well absorb the notion that an expensive watch or a new phone will change your life in some vague but enticing way. As for people who believe the literal truth of what they see in soap operas — well, no amount of regulation can protect them from themselves.Anyhow, governments don’t need to police entertainment content-producers will do it themselves. When Fay Weldon, a novelist, wrote a book for Bulgari, a jewelry manufacturer, a few years ago, it was not widely viewed as a literary gem. Neither she, nor anybody else with a reputation worth keeping, has tried that again. Which is just as well: the world would have been a poorer place had Mr. Bing ley been more interested in his ride than in the Bennet girls.

The nub of the restorationist critique of preservationism is the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism that conceives nature and humankind as radically distinct and opposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism has for some time figured prominently in the unhappiness of environmentalists with mainstream industrial society, as in the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Theodore Roszak.However, the writings of the restorationists themselves — particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner — offer little evidence to support this indictment. In their view, preservationists are imbued with the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream, the only difference being that the latter exalts humans over nature while the former elevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzling that Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logic that requires dualism as a philosophical underpinning for preservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and relentlessness of their attack on preservationists, accentuated by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticism of those who have plundered the natural world.The crucial question, however, about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restoration program is itself faithful to the first principle of restoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory champions a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give of what restorationists are actually up to ― for example, Turner’s description of humans as “the lords of creation,” or Jordan’s statement that “the fate and well-being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with it” — do not cohere well with the community participation model.Another holistic model — namely, that of nature as an organism — might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the “organic” model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference, however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly subservient to the life of the organism. If we could think of the biosphere as a single living organism and could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), or control center, we would have a model that more closely fits the restorationists’ view.However, to consider humans as the control center of the living earth is to ascribe to them a dominating role in nature. Is this significantly different from the old-fashioned domination model? In both systems humans hold the place of highest authority and power in the world.Also, neither view recognizes any limits to the scope and range of legitimate human manipulation in the world. This does not mean that there are no constraints; only beneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it does not mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel is that, because the fate of the world rests on humans, they must have a clear idea of what needs to be done.1.The author primary purpose in the passage is to （）.2.The author of the passage would probably agree that preservationists （）.3.Which of the following best expresses the function of the first paragraph in relation to the passage as a whole?4.In asserting that the organic model might be “more serviceable to the restorationists” (line1-2, para. 4), the author implies that （）.5.Which of the following best expresses the author’s primary criticism of the restorationists?

Since the dawn of human ingenuity, people have devised ever more cunning tools to cope with work that is dangerous, boring, burdensome, or just plain nasty. That compulsion has resulted in robotics — the science of conferring various human capabilities on machines. And if scientists have yet to create the mechanical version of science fiction, they have begun to come close.As a result, the modern world is increasingly populated by intelligent gizmos whose presence we barely notice but whose universal existence has removed much human labor. Our factories hum to the rhythm of robot assembly arms. Our banking is done at automated teller terminals that thank us with mechanical politeness for the transaction. Our subway trains are controlled by tireless robot-drivers. And thanks to the continual miniaturization of electronics and micro-mechanics, there are already robot systems that can perform some kinds of brain and bone surgery with sub-millimeter accuracy — far greater precision than highly skilled physicians can achieve with their hands alone.But if robots are to reach the next stage of laborsaving utility, they will have to operate with less human supervision and be able to make at least a few decisions for themselves — goals that pose a real challenge. “While we know how to tell a robot to handle a specific error,” says Dave Lavery, manager of a robotics program at NASA, “we cannot give a robot enough common sense to reliably interact with a dynamic world.”Indeed the quest for true artificial intelligence has produced very mixed results. Despite a spell of optimism in the 1960s and 1970s when it appeared that transistor circuits and microprocessors might be able to copy the action of the human brain by the year 2010, researchers lately have begun to extend that forecast by decades if not centuries.What they found, in attempting to model thought, is that the human brain’s roughly one hundred billion nerve cells are much more talented — and human perception far more complicated — than previously imagined. They have built robot that can recognize the error of a machine panel by a fraction of a millimeter in a controlled factory environment. But the human mind can glimpse a rapidly changing scene and immediately disregard the 98 percent that is irrelevant, instantaneously focusing on the monkey at the side of a winding forest road or the single suspicious face in a big crowd. The most advanced computer system on earth cannot approach that kind of ability, and neuroscientists still do not know quite how we do it.1.Human ingenuity was initially demonstrated in （）.2.The word “gizmos” (Line 1, Para. 2) most probably means （）.3.According to Para.3, what is beyond man’s ability now is to design a robot that （）.4.According to the passage, which of the following can robots do now?5.The author uses the example of a monkey to argue that robots are （）.

The majority of successful senior managers do not closely follow the classical rational model of first clarifying goals, assessing the problem, formulating options, estimating likelihoods of success, making a decision, and only then taking action to implement the decision. Rather, in their day-by-day tactical maneuvers, these senior executives rely on what is vaguely termed “Intuition” to manage a network of interrelated problems that require them to deal with ambiguity, inconsistency, novelty, and surprise; and to integrate action into the process of thinking.Generations of writers on management have recognized that some practicing managers rely heavily on intuition. In general, however, such writers display a poor grasp of what intuition is. Some see it as the opposite of rationality; others view it as an excuse for capriciousness.Isenberg’s recent research on the cognitive processes of senior managers reveals that managers’ intuition is neither of these. Rather, senior managers use intuition in at least five distinct ways. First, they intuitively sense when a problem exists. Second, managers rely on intuition to perform well-learned behavior patterns rapidly. This intuition is not arbitrary or irrational, but is based on years of painstaking practice and hands-on experience that build skills. A third function of intuition is to synthesize isolated bits of data and practice into an integrated picture, often in an “Aha” experience. Fourth, some managers use intuition as a check on the results of more rational analysis. Most senior executives are familiar with the formal decision analysis models and tools, and those who use such systematic methods for reaching decisions are occasionally leery of solutions suggested by these methods which run counter to their sense of the correct course of action. Finally, managers can use intuition to bypass in-depth analysis and move rapidly to engender a plausible solution. Used in this way, intuition is an almost instantaneous cognitive process in which a manager recognizes familiar patterns.One of the implications of the intuitive style of executive management is that “thinking” is inseparable from acting. Since managers often “know” what is right before they can analyze and explain it, they frequently act first and explain later. Analysis is inextricably tied to action in thinking/acting cycles, in which managers develop thoughts about their companies and organizations not by analyzing a problematic situation and then acting, but by acting and analyzing in close concert.Given the great uncertainty of many of the management issues that they face, senior managers often instigate a course of action simply to learn more about an issue. They then use the results of the action to develop a more complete understanding of the issue. One implication of thinking/acting cycles is that action is often part of defining the problem, not just of implementing the solution.1.According to the text, senior managers use intuition in all of the following ways EXCEPT to （）.2.The text suggests which of the following about the “writers on management” mentioned in line 1, paragraph 2?3.It can be inferred from the text that which of the following would most probably be one major difference in behavior between Manager X, who uses intuition to reach decisions and Manager Y, who uses only formal decision analysis?4.The text provides support for which of the following statements?5.Which of the following best describes the organization of the first paragraph of the text?

At the close of the Kyoto Global-Warming Treaty discussions held in Bonn last week, exhausted negotiators from nearly every country on earth had reason to be proud. They had done what no one expected — they reached a breakthrough agreement to limit greenhouse gases. During the concluding remarks, as each speaker praised the next, only the chief US official on the scene drew an undiplomatic response. When Paula Dobriansky told the gathering that the Bush Administration “will not abdicate our responsibility” to address global warming, the hall filled with boos. That’s because the US, the world’s largest produce of greenhouse gases, sat on the sidelines in Bonn.George W. Bush has yet to decide what, if anything, he will do to combat global warming. But he believes the Kyoto treaty is fatally flawed because it doesn’t require developing countries to limit their fossil-fuel use immediately, as it does industrialized countries. So he kept the U.S. out of the discussions. In doing so, the Administration may have lost its last opportunity to help shape the international response to the problem. And Bush may be in danger of losing control over climate action domestically. After months of internal debate, the Administration is still “consulting” on the issue.That noise you hear is Congress rushing to fill the leadership vacuum. At least six climate plans have been proposed so far. The first is sponsored by former Republican, now Independent Stator Jim Jeffords, chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, who proposes to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. Congressional action this week will center on reducing emissions by raising vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, including those for SUVs. If SUVs had to meet the same standards as cars — something Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey will propose this week — they could save consumers an estimated $7 billion at the pump this year and cut gasoline demand by tens of billions of gallons over 10 years.The “drill Detroit, not the Arctic” campaign will find some support this week when the National Academy of Sciences releases a long-awaited study. The report, toned down after the auto industry protested that raising fuel-efficiency standards, by making cars lighter, makes vehicles less safe, is still likely to conclude that fuel efficiency can be increased at least 25 percent with existing technology.If a fuel-efficiency bill reaches his desk, Bush could be in a bind — caught between auto lobbyists (his chief of staff used to be one) and his concern for energy security. With new technology putting impressive fuel efficiency within reach, it will be hard for him to oppose measures that could reduce the national appetite for foreign oil by millions of barrels a year.1.In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by （）.2.The phrase “sat on the sidelines” in the last sentence of paragraph one probably means （）.3.The reason that Bush kept US out of the discussions is that he believes （）.4.The National Academy of Sciences found in the study that （）.5.We can learn from the last paragraph that （）.

The new convergence of biology and economy has been helped by a common methodology — game theory. John Maynard Smith, a professor of biology at the University of Sussex, in Britain, was the first to effectively apply the economist’s habit of playing a “game” with competing strategies to evolutionary mysteries. The only difference is that the economic games reward winners with money while evolutionary games reward winners with chance to survive and breed. One game in particular has proved especially informative in both disciplines: the prisoner’s dilemma.A dramatized version of the game runs as follows: two guilty accomplices are held in separate cells and interrogated by the police. Each is faced with a dilemma. If they both confess (or “defect”), they will both go to jail for three years. If they both stay silent (or “cooperate”), they will both go to jail for a year on a lesser charge that the police can prove. But if one confesses and the other does not, the former will walk free on an agreement, while the cooperator, who stayed silent, will get a five-year sentence.Assuming that they have not discussed the dilemma before they were arrested, can each trust his accomplice to stay silent? If not, he should defect and reduce his sentence from five to three years. But even if he can rely on his partner to cooperate, he is still better off if he defects, because that reduces his sentence from three years to none at all. So each will reason that the right thing to do is to defect, which results in three years for each of them. In the language of game theorists, individually rational strategies result in a collectively irrational outcome.Biologists were interested in the prisoner’s dilemma as a model for the evolution of cooperation. Under what conditions, they wanted to know, would it pay an animal to evolve a strategy based on cooperation rather than defection? They discovered that the bleak message of the prisoner’s dilemma need not obtain if the game is only one in a long series — played by students, researchers, or computers, for points rather than years in jail. Under these circumstances the best strategy is to cooperate on the first trial and then do whatever the other guy did last time. This strategy became known as tit-for-tat. The threat of retaliation makes defection much less likely to pay.Robert Alfred, a political scientist, and William Hamilton, a biologist, both at the University of Michigan, discovered by public tournament that there seems to be no strategy that beats tit-for-tat. Tit-for-two-tats — that is, cooperate even if the other defects once, but not if he defects twice — comes close to beating it, but of hundreds of strategies that have been tried, none works better.1.What is game theory?2.The two guilty accomplices mentioned in Para. 2 are （）.3.For the worst situation, what is the total year of the two accomplices’ sentence?4.What are the biologists’ findings for the cooperation strategy?5.What does tit-for-two-tats mean?

On an average of six times a day, a doctor in Holland practices “active” euthanasia: intentionally administering a lethal drug to a terminally ill patient who has asked to be relieved of suffering. Twenty times a day, life-prolonging treatment is withheld or withdrawn when there is no hope that it can affect an ultimate cure. “Active” euthanasia remains a crime on the Dutch statute books punishable by 12 years in prison. But a series of court cases over the past 15 years has made it clear that a competent physician who carries it out will not be prosecuted. Euthanasia, often called “mercy killing”, is a crime everywhere in Western Europe. But more and more doctors and nurses in Britain, Germany, Holland and elsewhere readily admit to practicing it, most often in the “passive” form of withholding or withdrawing treatment. The long simmering euthanasia issue has lately boiled over into a sometimes fierce public debate, with both sides claiming the mantle of ultimate righteousness. Those opposed to the practice see themselves up-holding sacred principles of respect for life, while those in favor raise the banner of humane treatment. After years on the defensive, the advocates now seem to be gaining ground. Recent polls in Britain show that 72 percent of British subjects favor euthanasia in some circumstances. An astonishing 76 percent of respondents to a poll taken late last year in France said they would like the law changed to decriminalize mercy killings.Reasons for the latest surge of interest in euthanasia are not hard to find. Europeans, like Americans, are now living longer. The average European male now lives to the age of 72, woman to almost 8A.s Derek Humphrey, a leading British advocate of “rational euthanasia”, says, “lingering chronic diseases have replaced critical illness as the primary cause of death.”And so the euthanasists have begun to press their case with greater force. They argue that every human being should have the right to “die with dignity”, by which they usually mean the right to escape the horrors of a painful or degrading hospitalization. Most advocates of voluntary euthanasia have argued that the right to die should be accorded only to the terminally and incurably ill, but the movement also includes a small minority who believe in euthanasia for anyone who rationally decides to take his own life.That right is unlikely to get legal recognition any time in the near future. Even in the Netherlands, the proposals now before Parliament would restrict euthanasia to a small number of cases and would surround even those with elaborate safeguards.1.According to Paragraph 1, which of the following is NOT true?2.Euthanasia is, often called “mercy killing”, which implies that（）. 3. “Boiled over” (Line 4, Para. 2) means （）.4.Most advocates of voluntary euthanasia hold that （）.5.The author’s attitude towards euthanasia is （）.

In an unfinished but highly suggestive series of essays, the late Sarah Eisenstein has focused attention on the evolution of working women’s values from the turn of the century to the First World War. Eisenstein argues that turn-of-the-century women neither wholly accepted nor rejected what she calls the dominant “ideology of domesticity,” but rather took this and other available ideologies — feminism, socialism, trade unionism — and modified or adapted them in light of their own experiences and needs. In thus maintaining that wage-work helped to produce a new “consciousness” among women, Eisenstein to some extent challenges the recent, controversial proposal by Leslie Tender that for women the work experience only served to reinforce the attractiveness of the dominant ideology. According to Tender, the degrading conditions under which many female wage earners worked made them view the family as a source of power and esteem available nowhere else in their social world. In contrast, Eisenstein’s study insists that wage-work had other implications for women’s identities and consciousness. Most importantly, her work aims to demonstrate that wage-work enabled women to become aware of themselves as a distinct social group capable of defining their collective circumstance. Eisenstein insists that as a group working-class women were not able to come to collective consciousness of their situation until they began entering the labor force, because domestic work tended to isolate them from one another.Unfortunately, Eisenstein’s unfinished study does not develop these ideas in sufficient depth or detail, offering tantalizing hints rather than an exhaustive analysis. Whatever Eisenstein’s overall plan may have been, in its current form her study suffers from the limited nature of the sources she depended on. She uses the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers, who she acknowledges were far from representative, as the voice of the typical woman worker. And there is less than adequate attention given to the differing values of immigrant groups that made up a significant proportion of the population under investigation. While raising important questions, Eisenstein’s essays do not provide definitive answers, and it remains for others to take up the challenges they offer.1.The primary purpose of the passage is to （）.2.It can be inferred from the passage that, in Eisenstein’s view, working women at the turn of the century had 3.Which of the following best describes the organization of the first paragraph of the passage?4.What does the word “tantalizing” (Line 2, Para. 2) probably mean?5.Which of the following would the author of the passage be most likely to approve as a continuation of Eisenstein’s study?

暂未登录

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