题目内容

Before considering this question it is interesting to review briefly the evolution of 【M1】
the mind as the instrument. The commonest way that has been used to find out the
relative intellectual level of creatures at different stage
of evolutionary complexity has 【M2】
been to study the way they behave when giving different kinds of puzzles. For example, 【M3】
an ant possesses a complex routine of behaviour, but can it think？ The answer is what 【M4】
if an ant is forced to go through a maze of passages, many of which are dead ends,
on its way to its nestle, it starts by making a lot of mistakes and taking a great many 【M5】
wrong turnings. In the end, however, after it has to worry its way through often 【M6】
enough, it does learn to get to its nest without going into any of the blind alleys.
As one moves up the evolutionary scale the test of mind-power exemplified by solving 【M7】
the problem of getting through a maze becomes very simple. Among mammals, 【M8】
for example, the maze is an inadequate test. The learning problem does not tax enough
attributes of the mind. In this sort of learning, as a matter of fact, rats can hit university
undergraduates and have, in fact, repeatedly done so. The next, more subtle test of 【M9】
mental ability is to see what level an animal can think about something when 【M10】
it is not there.
【M1】

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

Question 4
Suppose you are in charge of a toll bridge that is essentially cost free. The demand for bridge crossings Q is given by P=12-2Q.
(a)Draw the demand curve for bridge crossings.
(b)How many people would cross the bridge if there were no toll？
(c)What is the loss of consumer surplus associated with the charge of a bridge toll of ＄6？

Question 6
Assume that GDP grew from ＄120 billion in 1994 to ＄160 billion in 1995 and the GDP deflator from 100 in 1994 to 130 in 1995.
(a)Calculate the rate of growth of nominal GDP for 1995.
(b)Calculate the rate of growth of real CDP for 1995.
(c)What is the inflation rate for 1995？

目前司法与舆论的交融和互动已是大势所趋，司法机关与社会舆论打交道也趋于频繁。请你谈谈司法机关该如何直面社会舆论，社会舆论又该如何监督司法机关？

When familiar structures disappear, borders become irrelevant and the language of the market invades every aspect of dally life, people increasingly look to their cultural roots. They seek to reassert their identity-in terms of language, ethnic origin, religion or cultural heritage. To want to know who and what you are is a natural and very powerful human need. It is a need, I believe, responsible leaders should respond to, got suppress, because only the right kind of response will prevent people from turning to the false and dangerous supporter of nationalism, fundamentalism or xenophobia. However—and this is crucial— responsible leaders must resist the temptation to exploit this need for their own purposes. The frightening scenario of escalating cultural conflict in a world of soon seven billion people should be a strong incentive for all of us to look for practical ways to foster cooperation.
We are required to provide honest answers to tough questions which I do not want to suppress. What are different religious groups ready to contribute to this joint effort？ Is there a readiness to seriously discuss the tensions and contradictions that arise from a strict interpretation of different religions on the one hand and fundamental human rights as we understand them on the other？ Can we reach a consensus on the rights of women, on their full participation in society, on their equal right to education and training？ Is there a broad consensus to unambiguously condemn any religious justification of suicide attacks？ Can we work together to find a peaceful and just agreement on the question of Jerusalem, thereby resolving one of the most difficult issues of the Middle East conflict？ An agreement which will provide a peaceful solution that satisfies all the faithful, one that is worthy of the three great religions？ Those are questions we cannot evade if we are serious about preventing cultural and political faultiness.
We must engage in a dialogue among civilizations, a commitment to the peaceful resolution of differences, to tolerance and mutual respect. That is a challenge that requires a clear understanding, however, of our own fundamental values, values we must defend but also live up to.
Our world will always be defined by the diversity of our societies and cultural traditions. If there is respect and tolerance for our differences, they will enrich all our lives. But if such differences are exploited for political ends, they may cause untold harm.
What is the real meaning of tolerance and dialogue in this whole process？ This dialogue can only succeed, if Orient and Occident engage in it on equal terms. Tolerance, then, means respecting the fact that civilizations are different. Dialogue, as I see it, means seeking a common understanding of those values that will guide us through the twenty-first century.
This kind of "intercultural dialogue" is a very ambitious goal. To achieve it, we must all begin work at home, within our own societies. We for our part are striving to develop and practice the kind of tolerance I have described. That needs time and in some cases requires difficult judgments.
Once we have reached a clear and solid consensus on those values we hold in common, it is up to political leaders to endorse these rights. They must defend this spirit of openness in society, defend it against the modem fundamentalisms that seek to impose their own absolute truths. For me, this also means people must be free to practice their religion. The way minorities