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 > 中共中央党校

A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, won’t be able to throw away his life. He knows the “ （）’’for his existence, and will be able to bear any“（）”.

We are in the midst of a great investigation of those environmental questions. We do the Earth and ourselves the greatest （） in imagining that addressing them lies outside our lives and choices.

Ms. Turkle can sound primly （）, complaining that the sight at a local cafe of people focusing on their computers as they drink their coffee bothers her.

She is a living proof that a TV celebrity with the highest aspirations can survive in a medium that too often seems to be racing （）.

The nutrition of a common-wealth （） the plenty, and distribution of materials conducing to life.

A landscape architect must be familiar with mathematics, science, engineering, art, and technology. He must also be （） at dealing with politicians, public interest groups and government agencies.

Americans have a profound longing for heroes - now perhaps more than ever. On some level, we still （） the myth of the man in the white hat.

Ethnicity should not be the sole criteria in the restructuring process because it has the （） power to lull consciousness of the implementers and make them （） those who are from different groups.

Nye argues that the interests of the international community are not illusory, that they are（） of our national interests, which cannot be achieved without help from other nations.

Development programs initiated in the tribal-dominated areas often adversely affected the tribal way of life and economy, which was frequently followed by the （） on traditional tribal areas or land by non-tribals.

The Malaysian government announced in a written statement last week that the policy to restructure society （）in 1970 would come to an end by the end of the year.

David Cameron put Britain’s future（） , in an audacious gamble that united his Conservative Party but which could have profound implications for the party and the country.

Much as officials still say that China cannot carry the burden of international governance, they are （） the idea that it should sign up as a stakeholder in a set of rules made in Washington.

Reaching a deal on tax reform would be a huge undertaking, （） with potential political pitfalls that could doom it.

“People should never be satisfied with what they have. They should always want something new and something different.” Do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Use your own reasons and specific examples to support your argument.

It is almost a commonplace that successful foreign policy must grow out of domestic political consensus. Certainly this is true in the United States with respect to environmental issues, where virtually every successful international regime has had its roots in U.S. domestic law. The most spectacular success——the Montreal ozone agreement——grew out of the U. S. regulation of chlorofluorocarbons, the chief culprit in the destruction of the ozone layer, beginning with a ban on aerosol spray cans in the late 1970s. Other relatively successful international regimes——for example to limit oil pollution from tankers, to regulate trade in endangered species, and to control dangerous pesticides and chemicals——also built on U.S. efforts, rather than attempting to force the United States to change its ways through the pressure of an international regime. From the beginning, however, U.S. climate change policy followed a different path, focusing on international rather than domestic measures. To some degree, this reflected the understandable reluctance of many governments to take domestic action without an assurance that others would follow suit. Given the global causes of climate change, if a country acts alone, it simply drives up its own costs without making a meaningful dent in solving the problem. International action is necessary to make domestic climate policies effective.To a greater degree, however, the international focus of U.S. climate policy reflected a lack of domestic political will. Although polls consistently indicate that Americans are concerned about climate change, climate change has until now never emerged as a major political issue in the United States. Come election time, education, social security and taxes have take precedence in voters’ minds. Indeed, climate change usually does not even crack the top three environmental concerns——clean water, clean air and urban sprawl. As a result, climate activists have tended to view the international arena as a potentially more favorable forum.The only real attempt to enact binding domestic measures related to climate change occurred early in the Clinton Administration, when Clinton proposed a broad-based energy tax as part of his first economic plan. Although Clinton billed the tax primarily as a revenue rather than a climate change measure and made it applicable to all energy sources, not just those that produce greenhouse gases, the tax would have discouraged greenhouse emissions by raising energy prices——and some climate change activists saw it in that light. In part, the focus on the international negotiations was driven by the inexorable momentum of the international climate agenda itself, with major meetings practically every year, which kept climate change on the front burner. Ironically, these regular meetings——which are usually seen as a means of keeping pressure on states to act——helped give Clinton a comparatively easy way out politically. As the representative of the United States in international affairs, the administration could temporarily satisfy its environmental constituency by accepting strong national policies, without having to undertake the extremely difficult political work of convincing a conservative Congress to enact domestic legislation to reduce emissions. Of course, this approach could not work indefinitely, since international policies to combat global warming eventually require domestic implementation. But given the complexity and seemingly never-ending character of the negotiations, the international approach was able to buy considerable time for an administration reluctant to expend significant political capital at home to combat climate change. In doing so, administration officials could comfort themselves with the argument that they were making progress in the only way possible, by putting in place an international system that would be ready to use when America became serious about climate change.

However, political scientists most frequently have argued that they must set aside both fortune and virtue, and instead focus on impersonal forces as the causes of international events. Their reasons for doing so fall under three rubrics. First, many political scientists contend that individuals ultimately do not matter, or at least they count for little in the major events that shape international politics. Instead they argue that the roar of the anarchic system, domestic politics, and institutional dynamics drown out the small voices of individual leaders. Second, other political scientists posit that although individuals may matter from time to time, their influence does not lend itself to the generalizations that political scientists seek. Simply put, individuals are too individualistic. Third, several leading international relations theorists have raised a number of specific objections that they argue render the study of individuals theoretically hopeless.We believe that political scientists are simultaneously too modest and too arrogant in these claims. Too modest because political scientists need not throw up their hands and believe that they have nothing useful to say about the role of individuals in international relations. The theoretical objections raised over the years do not stand up under closer examination and should not prevent us from mining this rich ore. Too arrogant because too many political scientists imply or assert that the impersonal forces on which they focus their attention explain the vast majority of events in international relations. In so doing, they marginalize the crucial impact of individuals on war and diplomacy and neglect they extent to which social science can tease out useful generalizations regarding the role played by individuals.It is time to rescue men and women, as individuals, from the oblivion to which political scientists have consigned them. This article is not intended as a comprehensive account of the importance of individuals——such an effort would require the work of many lifetimes——but it is intended to question scholars’ current assumptions about international politics and show the plausibility of analyzing international relations by focusing on the role of individuals.What is the impact of individuals on international relations? What aspects of state behavior do they affect? Under what conditions are they influential? These are the questions this article seeks to answer. We contend that the goals, abilities, and foibles of individuals are crucial to the intentions, capabilities, and strategies of a state. Indeed individuals not only affect the actions of their own state but also shape the reactions of other nations, which must respond to the aspirations, abilities, and aggressiveness of foreign leaders. Of course, individuals matter more to international relations under certain circumstances. Individual personalities take on added significance when power is concentrated in the hands of a leader, when institutions are in conflict, or in times of great change. Individuals also shape many of the drivers identified by other theorists, such as the balance of power, domestic opinion, and bureaucratic politics. These paradigms suffer when individuals are ignored.

We can be sure, however, that cities will remain the ground zero of convergence. Although forest clearance and export monocultures have played fundamental roles in the transition to a new geological epoch, the prime mover has been the almost exponential increase in the carbon footprints of urban regions in the northern hemisphere. Heating and cooling the urban built environment alone is responsible for an estimated 35 to 45 per cent of current carbon emissions, while urban industries and transportation contribute another 35 to 40 per cent. In a sense, city life is rapidly destroying the ecological niche——Holocene climate stability——which made its evolution into complexity possible.Yet there is a striking paradox here. What makes urban areas so environmentally unsustainable are precisely those features, even in the largest megacities, that are most anti-urban or suburban. First among these is massive horizontal expansion, which combines the degradation of vital natural services——aquifers, watersheds, truck farms, forests, coastal eco-systems——with the high costs of providing infrastructure to sprawl. The result is grotesquely oversized environmental footprints, with a concomitant growth of traffic and air pollution and, most often, the downstream dumping of waste. Where urban forms are dictated by speculators and developers, bypassing democratic controls over planning and resources, the predictable social outcomes are extreme spatial segregation by income or ethnicity, as well as unsafe environments for children, the elderly and those with special needs; inner-city development is conceived as gentrification through eviction, destroying working-class urban culture in the process. To these we may add the socio-political features of the megapolis under conditions of capitalist globalization: the growth of peripheral slums and informal employment, the privatization of public space, low-intensity warfare between police and subsistence criminals, and bunkering of the wealthy in sterilized historical centers or walled suburbs.By contrast, those qualities that are most ‘classically’ urban, even on the scale of small cities and towns, combine to generate a more virtuous circle. Where there are well-defined boundaries between city and countryside, urban growth can preserve open space and vital natural systems, while creating environmental economies of scale in transportation and residential construction. Access to city centers from the periphery becomes affordable and traffic can be regulated more effectively. Waste is more easily recycled, not exported downstream. In classic urban visions, public luxury replaces privatized consumption through the socialization of desire and identity within collective urban space. Large domain of public or non-profit housing reproduce ethnic and income heterogeneity at fractal scales throughout the city. Egalitarian public services and cityscapes are designed with children, the elderly and those with special needs in mind. Democratic controls offer powerful capacities for progressive taxation and planning, with high levels of political mobilization and civic participation, the priority of civic memory over proprietary icons and the spatial integration of work, recreation and home life.1.As the author discusses the issues in this passage, he sounds （）.2.Why in many big cities there are extreme spatial segregation by income or ethnicity, as well as unsafe environments for children, the elderly and those with special needs?3.What does the word “these” in the second paragraph refer to?4.Which of the following words is not synonymous to the word “virtuous” in the last paragraph?5.Which of the following will not be the outcome under the condition that there are well-defined boundaries between city and countryside?

An emerging awareness of the costs of sprawl——and the role of government politics in facilitating sprawl——is transforming metropolitan area politics around the country. Elected officials from cities and inner suburbs; downtown corporate, philanthropic, and civic interests; minority and low-income community representatives; environmentalists; slow-growth advocates in the new suburbs; farmers and rural activists all are realizing that uncoordinated suburban expansion brings needless costs. In Chicago the Commercial Club, an organization of top regional business leaders, has released the Chicago Metropolis 2020 report, an ambitious plan for meeting that area’s myriad challenges in the coming decades. In Ohio elected officials from inner suburbs around Cleveland are joining forces with farm preservation constituencies to push state growth management reforms. In Maryland a coalition of environmentalists (the Chesapeake Bay Foundation), business leaders and inner-city advocates are leading statewide efforts to curb suburban sprawl and promote reinvestment in older established communities. In Missouri a coalition of eighty Protestant and Catholic churches is leading the fight to promote smarter growth in the Si. Louis area.These nascent coalitions reach past city limits and cross traditional constituency lines. The motivations behind these coalitions differ. Groups that are driven by a concern for equity and the burden of concentrated poverty that cities and inner suburbs must bear push for tax reforms that would reduce fiscal disparities among jurisdictions. Coalitions concerned about runaway growth advocate curbs on sprawl and try to direct infrastructure investment to older established areas. Both kinds of coalitions seek metropolitan collaboration to solve such cross-jurisdictional problems as transportation, environmental quality, water treatment, and work force and economic development. These reforms are mutually reinforcing. Mayors who care about tax-base equity may find common cause with no-growth advocates in the outer suburbs. Environmentalists and rural constituencies pushing to conserve open space and farmland understand that a stronger urban core is in their interest. As one would expect, the various coalitions encompass diverse interests that reflect the nature of their metropolitan areas.The new metropolitan coalitions are making a difference on transportation and land use issues. Leaders in Chattanooga, Portland, and St. Louis are choosing to repair existing infrastructure, invest in mass transit, and preserve open space rather than to build more roads. In virtual revolt over congested roads, overcrowded schools, and loss of open space, citizens of outer suburban communities of such fast-growing metropolitan areas as northern Virginia and Seattle have pushed county governments to increase developer fees, scale back existing plans for residential growth, and buy land to preserve open space. Often, however, there coalitions find that power over land use, welfare, housing tax policy, and local governance is exercised in state capitals and Washington, D. C.Several states have recognized the power of a new “metropolitics” and are pursuing a variety of policies to support it. They have embraced land use reforms to manage growth at the metropolitan fringe. They have begun to steer infrastructure investment and other resources to older established areas. They have restructured taxes to pool resources among jurisdictions. And they have authorized new forms of metropolitan governance to handle such cross-jurisdictional issues as transportation, environmental protections, waste management, and economic development.1.The best title of this passage would be （）.2.What is the major problem with city development according to the passage?3.The coalitions may be concerned with all of the following issues EXCEPT （）.4.In paragraph 3, the sentence “The new metropolitan coalitions are making a difference on transportation and land use issues” means the new metropolitan coalitions are （）.5.The success of the new “metropolitics” will depend a lot on （）.

The term “evaluation”, sometimes called “institutional” in higher education, has a different connotation from “measurement” and “assessment” as defined here. The process of date-gathering and scoring, coding or rating selected constructs is typically followed by more complex activities of adding some interpretive value and judgments to the information that is generated. This latter process of adding judgments of worth or merit to the results of measurement/assessment in applied decision-making contexts is termed “evaluation”. For example, if an individual’s examination score is 76, is it worth an “A” or a “B” grade? Should the individual be promoted to the next level of an undergraduate degree program? The process by which standards and criteria are applied to make such decisions is called evaluation. Evaluations, thus, are motivated by and closely tied to stakeholder needs for information that speak to particular educational practice or policy concerns.Evaluative decisions can be of two types, depending on how the assessment/measurement information is used: formative or summative. Formative evaluation efforts are designed for continuous quality improvement of particular institutional units, such as a department, school, program, or individual staff/faculty and students. Summative evaluations in institutions, on the other hand, are designed for making some final judgments of merit, worth or impact. Summative evaluations in the U. S. are frequently stimulated from the outside by government agencies, states, upper level college/university administrators, and accrediting bodies that are interested in making judgments on whether a college or university system is effective.Formative evaluations imply feedback loops; results must be shared with relevant stakeholders and program personnel so that changes, refinements and improvements to the units can occur using the information. An assumption is that all units in an organization strive for excellence, and that ongoing data generation will inform the development and progress of various units and the institution as a whole. For example, individual faculty and programs may wish to use results of student outcomes assessment formatively to improve teaching methods or provide added learning supports to under-prepared students.For assessment information to be useful in a formative way, evaluation researchers/users have to be able to explain the causal mechanisms and chain of events/actions that led to the results: If we failed to get outcome Y in this program, what should have happened that failed to happen? For diagnostic utility in the information, there has to be a focus on measuring not just outcomes, but also the preceding activities (processes) and expected resources (inputs).At the institutional level, summative evaluations and associated decisions often involve accountability actions, resource allocations or withdrawal of resources, imposition of sanctions, institutional accreditation, or recognition/rewards for individuals, programs or the institution. For individual students, summative evaluations can involve placement or admission into selective programs based on admissions testing, such as based on scored of the SAT (previously the Scholastic Assessment Test). For faculty, they can involve granting of tenure, merit recognitions, and related pay raises or promotions.1.How can “data-gathering and scoring, coding or rating selected constructs” in the first paragraph be processed?2.Summative evaluations in the U.S. are frequently stimulated by the following elements EXCEPT （）.3.Which of the following is NOT true about evaluation?4.The highlighted word “they” in the last paragraph refers to （）.5. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the whole passage?

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 3 4 5 6 7 8 下一页