查题吧_考试题库_网课答案_大学生必备搜题网站

Passage One The study of social science is more than the study of the individual social sciences. Although it is true that to be a good social scientist you must know each of those components, you must also know how they interrelate. By specializing too early, many social scientists can lose sight of the interrelationships that are so essential to understanding modern problems. That’s why it is necessary to have a course covering all the social sciences. In fact, it would not surprise me if one day a news story such as the one above should appear. The preceding passage placed you in the future. To understand how and when social science broke up, you must go into the past. Imagine for a moment that you’re a student in 1062, in the Italian city of Bologna, site of one of the first major universities in the western world. The university has no buildings. It consists merely of a few professors and students. There is no tuition fee. At the end of a professor’s lecture, if you like it, you pay. And if you don’t like it, the professor finds himself without students and without money. If we go back still earlier, say to Greece in the sixth century B. C., we can see the philosopher Socrates walking around the streets of Athens, arguing with his companions. He asks them questions, and then other questions, leading these people to reason the way he wants them to reason (this became known as the Socratic method). Times have changed since then; universities sprang up throughout the world and created colleges within the universities. Oxford, one of the first universities, now has thirty colleges associated with it, and the development and formalization of educational institutions has changed the roles of both students and faculty. As knowledge accumulated, it became more and more difficult for one person to learn, let alone retain it all. In the sixteenth century one could still aspire to know all there was to know, and the definition of the Renaissance man (people were even more sexist then than they are now) was of one who was expected to know about everything. Unfortunately, at least for someone who wants to know everything, the amount of information continues to grow exponentially while the size of the brain has grown only slightly. The way to deal with the problem is not to try to know everything about everything. Today we must specialize. That is why social science separated from the natural sciences and why it, in turn, has been broken down into various subfields, such as anthropology and sociology. What does the underlined word "exponentially" mean in the first sentence of the last paragraph

Passage One The study of social science is more than the study of the individual social sciences. Although it is true that to be a good social scientist you must know each of those components, you must also know how they interrelate. By specializing too early, many social scientists can lose sight of the interrelationships that are so essential to understanding modern problems. That’s why it is necessary to have a course covering all the social sciences. In fact, it would not surprise me if one day a news story such as the one above should appear. The preceding passage placed you in the future. To understand how and when social science broke up, you must go into the past. Imagine for a moment that you’re a student in 1062, in the Italian city of Bologna, site of one of the first major universities in the western world. The university has no buildings. It consists merely of a few professors and students. There is no tuition fee. At the end of a professor’s lecture, if you like it, you pay. And if you don’t like it, the professor finds himself without students and without money. If we go back still earlier, say to Greece in the sixth century B. C., we can see the philosopher Socrates walking around the streets of Athens, arguing with his companions. He asks them questions, and then other questions, leading these people to reason the way he wants them to reason (this became known as the Socratic method). Times have changed since then; universities sprang up throughout the world and created colleges within the universities. Oxford, one of the first universities, now has thirty colleges associated with it, and the development and formalization of educational institutions has changed the roles of both students and faculty. As knowledge accumulated, it became more and more difficult for one person to learn, let alone retain it all. In the sixteenth century one could still aspire to know all there was to know, and the definition of the Renaissance man (people were even more sexist then than they are now) was of one who was expected to know about everything. Unfortunately, at least for someone who wants to know everything, the amount of information continues to grow exponentially while the size of the brain has grown only slightly. The way to deal with the problem is not to try to know everything about everything. Today we must specialize. That is why social science separated from the natural sciences and why it, in turn, has been broken down into various subfields, such as anthropology and sociology. We can infer from the text that______.

试述国际贸易风险种类及各国厂商应该如何防范这些风险。

国际生产折中理论的提出者是

Passage Three Successful business tends to continue implementing the ideas that made them successful. But in a rapidly changing world, ideas often become obsolete overnight. What worked in the past won’t necessarily work in the future. In order to thrive in the future, you must constantly create new ideas for every aspect of your business. In fact, you must continually generate new ideas just to keep your head above water. Businesses that aren’t creative about their future may not survive. Although Bill Gates is the richest, most successful man on the planet, he did not anticipate the Internet. Now he’s scrambling to catch up. If Bill Gates can miss a major aspect of his industry, it can happen to you in your industry. Your business needs to continually innovate and create its future. Gates is now constantly worried about the future of Microsoft. Here’s what he said in a recent interview in U.S. News World Report: "Will we be replaced tomorrow No. In a very short time frame, Microsoft is an incredibly strong company. But when you look to the two to three-year time frame, I don’t think anyone can say with a straight face that any technology company has a guaranteed position. Not Intel, not Microsoft, not Compaq, not Dell, take any of your favorites. And that’s totally honest." You may remember that in 1985 the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls were the best-selling toy on the market. But after Coleco Industries introduced their sensational line of dolls they became complacent and didn’t create any new toys worth mentioning. As a result, Coleco went bankrupt in 1988. The most successful businesses survive in the long term because they constantly reassess their situations and reinvest themselves accordingly. The 3M Company has a 15% rule: Employees are encouraged to spend 15% of their time developing new ideas on any project they desire. It’s no surprise, then, that 3M has been around since 1902. Most businesses are not willing to tear apart last year’s model of success and build a new one. Here’s a familiar analogy to explain why they are lulled into complacency; imagine that your business is like a pot of lobsters. To cook lobsters, you put them into a pot of warm water and gradually turn up the heat. The lobsters don’t realize they’re being cooked because the process is so gradual. As a result, they become complacent and die without a struggle. However, if you throw a lobster into the pot when the water is boiling, it will desperately try to escape. This lobster is not lulled by a slowly changing environment. It realizes instantly that it’s in a bad environment and takes immediate action to change its status. Judging from the context, "to keep your head above water" (Para. 1) probably means______.

Passage Four The study of philosophies should make our own ideas flexible. We are all of us apt to take certain general ideas for granted, and call them common sense. We should learn that other people have held quite different ideas, and that our own have started as very original guesses of philosophers. A scientist is apt to think that all the problems of philosophy will ultimately be solved by science. I think this is true for a great many of the questions on which philosophers still argue. For example, Plato thought that when we saw something, one ray of light came to it from the sun, and another from our eyes and that seeing was something like feeling with a stick. We now know that the light comes from the sun, and is reflected into our eyes. We don’t know in much detail how the changes in our eyes give rise to sensation. But there is every reason to think that as we learn more about the physiology of the brain, we shall do so, and that the great philosophical problems about knowledge are going to be pretty fully cleared up. But if our descendants know the answers to these questions and others that perplex us today, there will still be one field of which they do not know, namely the future. However exact our science; we cannot know it as we know the past. Philosophy may be described as argument about things of which we are ignorant. And where science gives us a hope of knowledge it is often reasonable to suspend judgment. That is one reason why Marx and Engels quite rightly wrote to many philosophical problems that interested their contemporaries. But we have got to prepare for the future, and we cannot do so rationally without some philosophy. Some people say we have only got to do the duties revealed in the past and laid down by religion, and god will look after the future. Others say that the world is a machine and the course of future events is certain, whatever efforts we may make. Marxists say that the future depends on ourselves, even though we are part of the historical process. This philosophical view certainly does inspire people to very great achievements. Whether it is true or not, it is powerful guide to action. We need a philosophy, then, to help us to tackle the future. Agnosticism easily becomes an excuse for laziness and conservatism. Whether we adopt Marxism or any other philosophy, we cannot understand it without knowing something of how it developed. That is why knowledge of the history of philosophy is important to Marxists, even during the present critical days. What field can our descendants know

Another test was done with slightly older infants at bedtime. In some groups the room was silent; in others recorded lullabies were played. In others a ticking metronome was operating at the heart-beat speed of 72 beats per minute. In still others the heart-beat recording itself was played. It was then checked to see which groups fell asleep more quickly. The heart-beat group dropped off in half the time it took for any of the other groups. This not only clinches the idea that the sound of the heart beating is a powerfully calming stimulus, but it also shows that the response is a highly specific one. The metronome imitation will not do—at least, not for young infants. So it seems fairly certain that this is the explanation of the mother’s left-side approach to baby-holding. It is interesting that when 466 Madonna and child paintings (dating back over several hundred years) were analyzed for this feature, 373 of them showed the baby on the left breast. Here again the figure was at the 80 per cent level. This contrasts with observations of females carrying parcels, where it was found that 50 per cent carried them on the left and 50 per cent on the right. What other possible results could this heart-beat imprinting have It may, for example, explain why we insist on locating feelings of love in the heart rather than the head. As the song says: "You gotta have a heart!" It may also explain why mothers rock their babies to lull them to sleep. The rocking motion is carried on at about the same speed as the heart-beat, and once again it probably ’reminds’ the infants of the rhythmic sensations they became so familiar with inside the womb, as the great heart of the mother pumped and thumped away above them.

Passage One The study of social science is more than the study of the individual social sciences. Although it is true that to be a good social scientist you must know each of those components, you must also know how they interrelate. By specializing too early, many social scientists can lose sight of the interrelationships that are so essential to understanding modern problems. That’s why it is necessary to have a course covering all the social sciences. In fact, it would not surprise me if one day a news story such as the one above should appear. The preceding passage placed you in the future. To understand how and when social science broke up, you must go into the past. Imagine for a moment that you’re a student in 1062, in the Italian city of Bologna, site of one of the first major universities in the western world. The university has no buildings. It consists merely of a few professors and students. There is no tuition fee. At the end of a professor’s lecture, if you like it, you pay. And if you don’t like it, the professor finds himself without students and without money. If we go back still earlier, say to Greece in the sixth century B. C., we can see the philosopher Socrates walking around the streets of Athens, arguing with his companions. He asks them questions, and then other questions, leading these people to reason the way he wants them to reason (this became known as the Socratic method). Times have changed since then; universities sprang up throughout the world and created colleges within the universities. Oxford, one of the first universities, now has thirty colleges associated with it, and the development and formalization of educational institutions has changed the roles of both students and faculty. As knowledge accumulated, it became more and more difficult for one person to learn, let alone retain it all. In the sixteenth century one could still aspire to know all there was to know, and the definition of the Renaissance man (people were even more sexist then than they are now) was of one who was expected to know about everything. Unfortunately, at least for someone who wants to know everything, the amount of information continues to grow exponentially while the size of the brain has grown only slightly. The way to deal with the problem is not to try to know everything about everything. Today we must specialize. That is why social science separated from the natural sciences and why it, in turn, has been broken down into various subfields, such as anthropology and sociology. Why does the author say "people were even more sexist then than they are now"

Passage One The study of social science is more than the study of the individual social sciences. Although it is true that to be a good social scientist you must know each of those components, you must also know how they interrelate. By specializing too early, many social scientists can lose sight of the interrelationships that are so essential to understanding modern problems. That’s why it is necessary to have a course covering all the social sciences. In fact, it would not surprise me if one day a news story such as the one above should appear. The preceding passage placed you in the future. To understand how and when social science broke up, you must go into the past. Imagine for a moment that you’re a student in 1062, in the Italian city of Bologna, site of one of the first major universities in the western world. The university has no buildings. It consists merely of a few professors and students. There is no tuition fee. At the end of a professor’s lecture, if you like it, you pay. And if you don’t like it, the professor finds himself without students and without money. If we go back still earlier, say to Greece in the sixth century B. C., we can see the philosopher Socrates walking around the streets of Athens, arguing with his companions. He asks them questions, and then other questions, leading these people to reason the way he wants them to reason (this became known as the Socratic method). Times have changed since then; universities sprang up throughout the world and created colleges within the universities. Oxford, one of the first universities, now has thirty colleges associated with it, and the development and formalization of educational institutions has changed the roles of both students and faculty. As knowledge accumulated, it became more and more difficult for one person to learn, let alone retain it all. In the sixteenth century one could still aspire to know all there was to know, and the definition of the Renaissance man (people were even more sexist then than they are now) was of one who was expected to know about everything. Unfortunately, at least for someone who wants to know everything, the amount of information continues to grow exponentially while the size of the brain has grown only slightly. The way to deal with the problem is not to try to know everything about everything. Today we must specialize. That is why social science separated from the natural sciences and why it, in turn, has been broken down into various subfields, such as anthropology and sociology. What can we learn from the second paragraph

Passage Four The study of philosophies should make our own ideas flexible. We are all of us apt to take certain general ideas for granted, and call them common sense. We should learn that other people have held quite different ideas, and that our own have started as very original guesses of philosophers. A scientist is apt to think that all the problems of philosophy will ultimately be solved by science. I think this is true for a great many of the questions on which philosophers still argue. For example, Plato thought that when we saw something, one ray of light came to it from the sun, and another from our eyes and that seeing was something like feeling with a stick. We now know that the light comes from the sun, and is reflected into our eyes. We don’t know in much detail how the changes in our eyes give rise to sensation. But there is every reason to think that as we learn more about the physiology of the brain, we shall do so, and that the great philosophical problems about knowledge are going to be pretty fully cleared up. But if our descendants know the answers to these questions and others that perplex us today, there will still be one field of which they do not know, namely the future. However exact our science; we cannot know it as we know the past. Philosophy may be described as argument about things of which we are ignorant. And where science gives us a hope of knowledge it is often reasonable to suspend judgment. That is one reason why Marx and Engels quite rightly wrote to many philosophical problems that interested their contemporaries. But we have got to prepare for the future, and we cannot do so rationally without some philosophy. Some people say we have only got to do the duties revealed in the past and laid down by religion, and god will look after the future. Others say that the world is a machine and the course of future events is certain, whatever efforts we may make. Marxists say that the future depends on ourselves, even though we are part of the historical process. This philosophical view certainly does inspire people to very great achievements. Whether it is true or not, it is powerful guide to action. We need a philosophy, then, to help us to tackle the future. Agnosticism easily becomes an excuse for laziness and conservatism. Whether we adopt Marxism or any other philosophy, we cannot understand it without knowing something of how it developed. That is why knowledge of the history of philosophy is important to Marxists, even during the present critical days. What is the main idea of this passage