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 > 中国传媒大学

It took Mike courage and （） to learn to live with a handicap after he was injured in a car accident.

A censor’s duty is to ensure that no content is （） in publication or films.

The problem that urban sprawl is （） upon the un-spoilt countryside deserves more attention from the government and the public.

Most people believe that the study of another nation, its society and culture, can be not only fascinating but also （）.

Mary and John are busy looking for a hotel for their wedding （）.

The person he interviewed was （） his former schoolmate.

Background information: Gross domestic product (GDP) is usually considered shorthand for material well-being as a measurement of the value-added in an economy. Even, some other people use GDP as a benchmark of welfare and happiness. Here conies a question: How to measure prosperity and quality of life in the 21st-century society.Direction: Write a 300-word composition about your view on the background information. You should write down a title by yourself.Your composition is to include 3 paragraphs:1. In the first paragraph, state your main idea;2. In the second paragraph, support your main idea with specific examples and necessary reasoning;3. In the last paragraph, bring your composition to a natural conclusion.Attention: Write your composition on the Answer Sheet B.

The Real Reason Matt Damon Was Brought in to Save Ancient China"Now, what about that movie about the Great Wall of China starring everyone’s favorite Chinese actor Matt Damon?"1. It was just one of a slew of comments on social media in the past few weeks lampooning a huge action movie that is scheduled to hit theaters early in 2017. “The Great Wall”, a co-production between China and Hollywood, is the most expensive film ever shot entirely in China, costing more than $150 million. The movie features Matt Damon, Willem Dafoe and a slate of popular Chinese actors using the Great Wall to defend humanity from a monster attack.But since the film’s trailer was released, journalists and commentators on social media have criticized it for "whitewashing"—replacing roles that could or should be cast with actors of color with white actors. What is Matt Damon doing saving ancient China, anyway? Couldn’t the Chinese handle that on themselves?2. The critics definitely have a point—the film industry has a long arid troubling history of minimizing actors of colors. Some in the industry boycotted the 2016 Oscars, after only white actors and actresses were chosen for the top four categories for the second year in a row. And movies including. “Dr. Strange”, “Ghost in the Shell" and “Aloha” have all recently been criticized for casting white actresses in originally Asian roles, just the latest episode in a long history of whitewashing in Hollywood.Yet, there’s also an irony that many have missed. Despite Damon’s prominent appearance, the nuts and bolts of "The Great Wall” are more Chinese than perhaps any major co-production between the United States and China has been before. Within China, the movie is being hailed as the first of its kind to be made by a major Chinese director, backed by Chinese-owned Hollywood studio and featuring Chinese historical themes. And if successful, it could mark a step forward for the influence of the Chinese film industry around the world."The Great Wall is definitely among the biggest budget co-productions, and it’s the first very large budget one in which there is a major Chinese creative force behind it,” says Anne Kokas, as assistant professor of media studies at the University of Virginia and the author of the forthcoming book, “Hollywood made in China.” “That’s part of the story that's getting left out.”3. In recent years, Hollywood has begun avidly courting movie-goers in China, the world’s seconds-largest market that could surpass the United States to become the largest next year. The Chinese film industry is also eager to develop films that appeal to its own audiences that can also succeed outside its borders. Creating a film that captures audiences in both China and the United States has been a Holly Grail for the global film this year, the first time a major American production company has come under Chinese Control.The film was written by Hollywood screenwriters, and it features Western stars Damon, Dafoe and Pedro Pascal, apparently in a bid to attract audiences outside China's borders. There is another less recognized way in which the heroism of Damon's character, a European mercenary, who ultimately helps to save China, could be seen as problematic.4. Director Zhang Yimou spoke out to defend "The Great Wall” against charges of whitewashing late last week. “In many ways 'The Great Wall’ is the opposite of what is being suggested. For the first time, a film deeply rooted in Chinese culture, with one of the largest Chinese casts ever assembled, is being made at tent pole scale for a world audience.” He added, "Matt Damon is not playing a role that was originally conceived for a Chinese actor."Others have pointed to an obvious profit motive in the choice, saying that Damon's presence in the film is likely to bring in viewers around the world who wouldn’t ordinarily watch a film set in ancient China. In addition, the strategy of putting a white Hollywood actor at the helm of a movie to broaden its reach can fail too, as Constance Wu pointed out. That's true for Chinese films as well: Chinese studios have paid millions of dollars to stars including Christian Bale, Adrien Brody and John Cusack to appear in mostly Chinese films that ultimately had little success in Western markets.5. Inside China, the conversation surrounding the film has been very different. Most Chinese have cheered it, seeing Zhang Yimou’s in a big-budget Hollywood film and the prominence of the Great Wall as forces that could advance China’s cultural influence abroad. And now what Legendary Entertainment is owned by Chinese company Dalian Wanda, those in the industry are watching eagerly to see whether China’s influence in Hollywood and the global film market will grow.If “The Great Wall” is a box office fit, it could serve as a model for future China-U.S. co-production. If it flops, it will likely leave the industry further confused about how to create film that appeals to both Chinese and international audiences- and whether such a task can reliably be done.

As the dog days of summer wane, most people are preparing to send their kids back to school. In years past, this has meant buying notebooks and pencils, perhaps even a new backpack. But over the past decade or so, the back-to-school checklist has for many also included an array of screen devices that many parents dutifully stuff into their children’s bag.The screen revolution has seen pedagogy undergo a seismic shift as technology now dominates the educational landscape. In almost every classroom in America today, you will find some type of screen—smartboards, Chromebooks, tablets, smartphones. From inner-city schools to those in rural and remote towns, we have accepted tech in the classroom as a necessary and beneficial evolution in education.This is a lie.Tech in the classroom not only leads to worse educational outcome, for kids, which I will explain shortly, it can also clinically hurt them. I've worked with over a thousand teens in the past 15 years, and have observed that students who have been raised on a high-tech diet not only appear to struggle more with attention and focus, but also seem to suffer from an adolescent malaise that appears to be a direct byproduct of their digital immersion. Indeed, over two hundred peer-reviewed studies point to screen time correlating to increased ADHD （多动症发病率）, screen addition, increased aggression, depression, anxiety and even psychosis.But if that is true, why would we have allowed these "educational" Trojan horses to slip into our schools? Follow the money.Education technology is estimated to become a $60 billion industry by 2018. With the advent of the "Common Core" in 2010, which nationalized curriculumar and textbooks standards, the multibillion-dollar textbook industry became very attractive for educational gunslingers looking to capitalize on the new Wild West of education technology. A tablet with educational software no longer needed state-by-state curricular customization. It could now be sold to the entire country.This new Gold Rush attracted people like Rupert Murdoch, not otherwise known for his concern for American pedagogy, who would go on to invest over $1 billion into ed-tech company called Amplify, with the stated mission of selling every student in America their proprietary tablet-for only $199-along with the software and annual licensing fees.Amplify hired hundreds of videogame designers to build educational videogames-while they and other tech entrepreneurs attempted to sell the notion that American students no longer had the attention span for traditional education. Their solution: Educate them in a more stimulating and "engaging” manner.But let's look more closely at that claim. ADHD rates have indeed exploded by 50 percent over the past 10 years with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicating that rates continue to rise by five percent per year. Yet many researchers and neuroscientists believe that this ADHD epidemic is a direct result of children being hyper-stimulated. Using hyper-stimulating digital content to "engage” those distracted students exacerbates (使……恶化)the problem that it endeavors to solve. It creates a vicious and addictive ADHD cycle: The more a child is stimulated, the more that child needs to keep getting stimulated in order to hold their attention.Murdoch's Amplify wasn't the only dubious ed-tech cash-grab. The city of Los Angeles had entered into a $1.3billion contract in 2014 to buy iPads loaded with Pearson educational software for all of its 650,000 K through 12th students - until the FBI investigated its contract and found that now-former Superintendent John Deasy had a close relationship with Apple and Pearson executives. (Before the deal was killed in December 2014, the Pearson platform had imcompleted and essentially worthless curriculum and such feeble security restrictions students that bypass them in weeks.)Despite the Amplify and LA debacles, others still seek to convince naive schools administrators that screens are the educational panacea. Yet as more American schools lay off teachers while setting aside scarce budget dollars for tech, many educators and parents alike have begun to ask: Do any of these hypnotic marvels of the digital age actually produce better educational outcomes for the kids who use them?Dr. Kentaro Toyama, an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information, once believed that technology in the classroom could solve the problems of modern urban education. No Luddite, he had received his Ph.D. in computer science from Yale and had moved to India in 2004 to help found a new research lab for mobile phones and other technologies that could help educate India’s billion-plus population.Rather than finding a digital educational cure, he came to understand what her calls technology's “Law of Amplification": technology could help education where it’s already doing well, but it does little for mediocre educational systems. Worse, in dysfunctional schools, it "can cause outright harm." He added, "Unfortunately, there is no technological fix...more technology only magnifies socioeconomic disparities, and the only way to avoid that is non-technological.”We are projecting our own infatuation with shiny technology, assuming our little digital natives would rather learn using gadgets—while what they crave and need is human contact with flesh-and-blood educators.Schools need to heed this research in order to truly understand how to best nurture real intrinsic learning and not fall for the Siren song of the tech companies-and all of their hypnotic screens.1. The author implies that the screen revolution （）.2. What does “lie” in para.3 mean?3. Why do the classroom high-techs attract people like Murdoch?4. “Luddite” in paragraph 12 means a person who is opposed to （）.5. It seems that the author approves highly of （） in the classroom and school education.

If you wanted to question whether global warming is indeed upon us, last week was not the time to do it. Two weeks before the official beginning of summer, a heat wave baked the eastern third of the U.S. and Canada, driving temperatures high into the 90s and even 100s. At the same time, a flurry of scientific papers was released that seemed to explain all the late-spring suffering. In one study, French researchers reported that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in 420,000 years. In another, U.S. scientists found that 57 species of butterfly may be altering their migratory patterns in response to changing heat patterns.In light of all this, a sweltering public must have been convinced at last that it’s time to do something to cool off the overheated planet, right? Wrong. Even as the temperature was climbing, a new survey by the American Geophysical Union found that Americans are less concerned than ever about combating global warming. "The more we talk about warming," says the study's director, John Immerwahr, "the (more the) public's concern goes down."Such an environmental disconnect may not be much of a mystery. Environmentalists complain that over the past two years industry groups have launched a coordinated advertising campaign to torpedo the 1997 Kyoto treaty, which requires industrial nations to reduce greenhouse emissions. More than $13 million has been spent on ads to block ratification of the treaty by the U.S. Senate. "The purpose of the ads was to convince most Americans that there isn’t a problem or that it’s too expensive to fix," says National Environmental Trust spokesman Peter Kelly.Environmentalists also criticize the U.S. Presidents for what they believe is their failure to press the issue. For example, in the year of 1997, President Clinton moved for Kyoto treaty changes that environmental groups see as industry-pleasing loopholes. Says Daniel Weiss, the Sierra Club's political director: "Timid leaders communicate hopelessness." And hopelessness breeds indifference. If such popular so-whating persists, Immerwahr warns, the public may begin grasping at phony solutions to global warming. At the end of last week, some people took comfort from the report of a vast haze of pollutants that collects over the Indian Ocean in the winter, but that researchers only recently studied. Filthy as the cloud is, it does deflect solar radiation, and that could lead to cooling. But scientists warn that we cannot simply pollute our way out of global warming. The soot drops from the hazy atmosphere in weeks, whereas greenhouse gases remain for centuries.The way out of this gridlock, environmentalists say, is to show it’s possible to reduce greenhouse gases without sinking the economy. Solutions include cleaner cars and better wind- and solar-power technologies. Says Greg Wetstone, program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council: "When these kinds of options become available, people will feel less hopeless." Of course, it’s also possible that only when people feel less hopeless will they press their leaders to make the solutions available.1. According to the author, global warming is （）.2. Speaking of global warming, American public is （）.3. The public’s reaction to global warming is mainly a result of （）.4. Which of the following is NOT mentioned in the passage? 5. It can be inferred from the passage that （）.

When I applied under Early Decision to the University of Pennsylvania four years ago, I was motivated by two powerful emotions: ambition and fear. The ambition was to fulfill my lifelong expectation of attending an Ivy League school; the fear was that without the advantage offered by Early Decision, I wouldn’t make the cut. A Penn admissions officer told me that the previous year they had accepted 45 percent of Early Decision applicants and just 29 percent of total applicants. The implication was clear: applying under Early Decision dramatically improves your chances of acceptance. At Brown University, my other favorite, applying early did not confer any advantage. While Brown was my No. 1 choice, Penn was a close second, and I desperately wanted to make sure I got into one of the two.I applied just before the Nov. 1 deadline, and six weeks later I got my acceptance package. I was thrilled and relieved. While my friends spent winter vacation finishing as many as 18 applications each, I relaxed. On a school trip to France over spring break, I drank wine while everyone else struggled with international calling cards to phone home and find out where they’d been accepted. People cried about getting rejected, or began the difficult and agonizing process of choosing between two or more schools. Strangely, none of this made me feel better about having applied early. It made me feel worse. When a lot of people from my class got into Brown, I wondered if I, too, could have.Penn sent a discombobulating array of material to incoming freshmen over the summer. As the pile of mail mounted, so did my concerns that I had made the wrong choice. I had been to Penn only one day, in October of my senior year. I realize now I did not know nearly enough about myself or the school. Picking classes was far more arcane（错综复杂的）than I had expected （or than it would have been at a smaller school）. And when I got to the campus, I found that fraternities（男生联谊会）and sororities（女生联谊会）were a more noticeable and obnoxious presence than the 30 percent student membership had suggested to me.It wasn't long before I knew Penn was not right for me and I looked into transferring. For me, it was about more than just changing schools. I wanted to have the traditional application experience I'd missed out on during my first go-round. The only school on my list that allowed transfers during the second semester of freshman year was Wesleyan, so I waited out the whole year, and then applied to Yale, Brown and Wesleyan. I got into Wesleyan. The irony that I could have gotten in sooner, without getting rejected by the other schools, was not lost on me. But I know I made the right decision. I realized early decision is not for everyone. Better think before you apply.To high-school seniors who want to avoid making the same mistake I did, my advice is simple: don't apply under Early Decision unless you are absolutely sure that the school is your first choice. And, just as important, don’t let your parents or college-guidance counselors persuade you to apply under Early Decision. They may have their own agenda, or at least their own perception of who you are and what you want. As I discovered, no one can really know what you want better than yourself, and even you may need time to figure out what that is.1. The main reasons for the author to apply under Early Decision are （）.2. It can be inferred from the text that the main advantage of Early Decision is that （）3. The description of the author’s feelings in Paragraph 2 shows that （）.4. We can draw a conclusion from the text that （）. 5. From the text we can see that the writer seems （）.

BACK in 1922, Thomas Edison predicted that “the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and...in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks.” Well, we all make mistakes. But at least Edison did not squander vast quantities of public money on installing cinema screens in schools around the country.With computers, the story has been different. Many governments have packed them into schools, convinced that their presence would improve the pace and efficiency of learning. Large numbers of studies, some more academically respectable than others, have purported to show that computers help children to learn. Now, however, a study that compares classes with computers against similar classes without them casts doubt on that view.In the current Economic Journal, Joshua Angrist of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Victor Lavy of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem look at a scheme which put computers into many of Israel's primary and middle schools in the mid-1990s. Dr. Angrist and Dr. Lavy compare the test scores for maths and Hebrew achieved by children in the fourth and eighth grades (i.e., aged about nine and 13) in schools with and without computers. They also asked the classes' teachers how they used various teaching materials, such as Xeroxed worksheets and, of course, computer programs. The researchers found that the Israeli scheme had much less effect on teaching methods in middle schools than in elementary schools. It also found no evidence that the use of computers improved children’s test scores. In fact, it found the reverse. In the case of the math scores of fourth-graders, there was a consistently negative relationship between computer use and test scores. The authors offer three possible explanations of why this might be. First, the introduction of computers into classrooms might have gobbled up cash that would otherwise have paid for other aspects of education. But that is unlikely in this case since the money for the programmer came from the national lottery, and the study found no significant change in teaching resources, methods or training in schools that acquired computers through the scheme.A second possibility is that the transition to using computers in instruction takes time to have an effect. Maybe, say the authors, but the schools surveyed had been using the scheme’s computers for a full school year. That was enough for the new computers to have had a large (and apparently malign) influence on fourth-grade maths scores. The third explanation is the simplest: that the use of computers in teaching is no better (and perhaps worse) than other teaching methods.The bottom line says Dr Angrist, is that "the costs are clear-cut and the benefits are murky.” The burden of proof now lies with the promoters of classroom computers. And the only reliable way to make their case is, surely, to conduct a proper study, with children randomly allocated to teachers who use computers and teachers who use other methods, including the cheapest of all: chalk and talk.1. We can learn from the first paragraph that （）.2. Dr. Angrist and Dr. Lavy have done the following except （）.3. According to Dr. Angrist and Dr. Lavy, in the Israeli scheme, students didn’t make improvement in their test scores because （）.4. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that （）.5. The author's attitude towards governments' packing computers in schools seems to be （）

I asked the counselor to give me a （） estimate of the fee of defending my case in court.

Our neighbors hang their children's framed diplomas in （）places on the wall of the setting room.

Scientific research results can now be quickly （） to factory production.

In the reading lesson, the teacher asked the students to read a few （）from Hemingway’s novel A Farewell to Arms.

The new colleague（） to have worked in several big corporation’s before he joined our company.

I just learnt from ’'Intercultural Education" course that an Englishman seldom （） a conversation among strangers.

Though it is in mid-May, （）to some parts of Appalachian Trail is still very difficult as they are covered by thick snow.

The car was in good working （）when I bought it a few months ago.

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