题目内容
XML代码段是正确的。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
下面关于EDI的说法正确的是（25)。A．EDI的中文含义是电子数据交换，是企业和消费者之间进行电子商务下面关于EDI的说法正确的是(25)。
内部控制制度应根据国家政策、法律及经营管理的需要适时修改完善，并保证得到全面落实执行，不得有任何空间、时限及人员的例外。这体现了内部控制的完整性原则。()
What makes the second premise problematic is the use of the Puritan colonies as a basis for comparison. Quite properly, Davis decries the excessive influence ascribed by historians to the Puritans in the formation of American culture. Yet Davis inadvertently adds weight to such ascriptions by using the Puritans as the standard against which to assess the achievements and contributions of Southern colonials. Throughout, Davis focuses on the important, and undeniable, differences between the Southern and Puritan colonies in motives for and patterns of early settlement, in attitudes toward nature and native Americans, and in the degree of receptivity to metropolitan cultural influences②.
However, recent scholarship has strongly suggested that those aspects of early New England culture that seem to have been most distinctly Puritan, such as the strong religions orientation and the communal impulse, were not even typical of New England as a whole, but were largely confined to the two colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut③. Thus, what in contrast to the Puritan colonies appears to Davis to be peculiarly Southern—acquisitiveness, a strong interest in politics and the law, and a tendency to cultivate metropolitan cultural models—was not only more typically English than the cultural patterns exhibited by Puritan Massachusetts and Connecticut, but also almost certainly characteristic of most other early modern British colonies from Barbados north to Rhode Island and New Hampshire④. Within the larger framework of American colonial life, then, not the Southern but the Puritan colonies appear to have been distinctive, and even they seem to have been rapidly assimilating to the dominant cultural patterns by the last Colonial period.
The author is primarily concerned with ______.
"Junk English is much more than loose and casual grammar. It is a signal of human weaknesses and cultural license: abandoning the language of the educated yet giving birth to its own self-glorifying words and phrases, favoring appearance over substance, broadness over precision, and loudness above all. It is some times innocent, sometimes lazy, sometimes well intended, but most often it is a trick we play on ourselves to make the unremarkable seem important. Its scope has been widened by politicians, business executives, and the PR and advertising industries in their employ, who use it to spread fog before facts they would rather keep hidden. The result is...a world of humbug in which the more we read and hear, the less we know."
Smith is, of course, saying something not true—it is difficult to imagine that Junk English will be noticed, much less read, by those who most could profit from it—but it is an instructive and entertaining instructions and explanation all the same. He tries his hands at all the right places—jargon, clichés, euphemisms, and exaggeration—but he doesn't swing blindly. "Although jargon often sounds ugly to outsiders, it speeds communication within the community that uses it"—and that "clichés, though popular objects of scorn, are useful when they most compactly express an idea; deliberate avoidance of an appropriate cliché sometimes produces even worse writing."
In other words, Smith may be passionate but he's also sensible. In a section about "free-for-all verbs," for example, he acknowledges that "There is no law against inventing one's own verbs" before citing a few funny instances of what happens when "Things get a little out of hand," i.e. "We're efforting to work this out" or "She tried to guilt him into returning the money." In the end, though, being sensible about language is in essence trying to insist that words mean what they properly mean and are used accordingly. Thus, for example, Smith insists that "dialogue" and "discussion" are not synonyms and should not be used interchangeably; that "complimentary" does not mean "free"; that "experience" does not mean "feel"; that "facilitate" does not mean "ease'; that "generate" does not mean "produce"; that "lifestyle'' does not mean "life".
Smith obviously has spent a lot of time making notes about the ways in which we ruin and abuse our language, with results that are impressive in their thoroughness and depressing in their going to far②. Occasionally he overlooks the obvious—among euphemisms he mentions "customer care representative" but not "courtesy call," and among the previously mentioned palsy-walsy language he inexplicably overlooks "Your call is important to us"—but then, as he says at the outset, he intended to write a short book and as a result had to leave out many misdeeds. The ones he includes more than do the job.
Which of the following best describes junk English？
微信支付 
支付宝支付