题目内容
Adam Smith was the first person to see the importance of the division of the labor. He gave us an example of the process by which pins were made in England.
"One man draws out the wire, another strengthens it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, and a fifth gives it a head. Just to make the head requires two or three different operations. The work of making pins is divided into about eighteen different operations, which in some factories are all performed by different people, though in others the same man will sometimes perform. two or three of them.
Ten men, Smith said, in this way, turned out twelve pounds of pins a day or about 4, 800 pins a worker. But if all of them had worked separately and independently without division of labor, they certainly could not have made twenty pins in a day and not even one.
There can be no doubt that division of labor is an efficient way of organizing work. Fewer people can make more pins. Adam Smith saw this, but he also took it for granted that division of labor is itself responsible for economic growth and development and it accounts for the difference between expanding economies and those that stand still. But division of labor adds nothing new, it only enables people to produce more of what they already have.
According to the passage, Adam Smith was the first person to______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Human relations have commanded people's attention from early times. The ways of people have been recorded in innumerable myths, folktales, novels, poems, plays, and popular or philosophical essays. Although the full significance of a human relationship may not be directly evident, the complexity of feelings and actions that can be understood at a glance is surprisingly great. For this reason psychology holds a unique position among the sciences. "Intuitive" knowledge may be remarkably penetrating and can significantly help us understand human behavior. whereas in the physical sciences such common-sense knowledge is relatively primitive. If we erased all knowledge of scientific physics from our modern world, not only would we not have cars and television sets, we might even find that the ordinary person was unable to cope with the fundamental mechanical problems of pulleys and levers. On the other hand, if we removed all knowledge of scientific psychology from our world, problems in interpersonal relations might easily be coped with and solved much as before. We would still "know" how to avoid doing something asked of us and how to get someone to agree with us; we would still "know" when someone was angry and when someone was pleased. One could even offer sensible explanations for the "whys" of much of the self's behavior. and feeling. In other words, the ordinary person has a great and profound understanding of the self and of other people which, though unformulated or only vaguely conceived, enables one to interact with others in more or less adaptive ways. Kohler in referring to the lack of great discoveries in psychology as compared with physics, accounts for this by saying that "people were acquainted with practically all territories of mental life a long time before the founding of scientific psychology."
Paradoxically, with all this natural, intuitive, common-sense capacity to grasp human relations, the science of human relations has been one of the last to develop. Different explanations of this paradox have been suggested. One is that science would destroy the vain and pleasing illusions people have about themselves; but we might ask why people have always loves to read pessimistic, debunking writings, from Ecclesiastes to Freud. It has also been proposed that just because we know so much about people intuitively, there has been less incentive for studying them scientifically: why should one develop a theory, carry out systematic observations, or make predictions about the obvious？ In any case, the field of human relations, with its vast literary documentation but meager scientific treatment, is in great contrast to the field of physics in which there are relatively few nonscientific books.
According to the passage, it has been suggested that the science of human relations was slow to develop because______.
It can be inferred that the author assumes that common-sense knowledge of human relations
Why doesn't Professor Nadehnanne agree that tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies
SECTION B INTERVIEW
Directions: In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. Questions 1 to 5 are based on an interview. At the end of the interview you will be given 10 seconds to answer each of the following five questions.
Now listen to the interview.
听力原文：INTERVIEWER: Professor Nadelmanne, you have been one of the earliest and most listened voices in favor of drug legalization. Why are you for it？
INTERVIEWEE: Well, in my opinion, the most violent, outlaw economies created by drug prohibition are worse than drag use itself.
INTERVIEWER: Suppose drug legalization is in effect, then what's the first riling you do？
INTERVIEWEE: The case for legalizing marijuana is an extremely powerful one. But my idea of legalization is not based on the tobacco model, in which we make a highly addictive and deadly substance available at seven cents a piece to be sold in vending machines in packages of twenty. What you do is make it available, more or less like alcohol is made available, in places where it is relatively controlled, where you have to show proof of ID. With legal marijuana you could have health warnings on the label.
INTERVIEWER: Do you think that tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies will come to dominate the business？
INTERVIEWEE: No, we can't afford that. Look at the tobacco industry internationally. Do they ever make an effort not to have it sold to children？ I'd like to see the federal tax on tobacco doubled or tripled. That would significantly reduce consumption, especially among new users, but would not raise the price so high it would encourage a black market.
INTERVIEWER: So marijuana is legal, what next？
INTERVIEWEE: On a realistic level, we're going to have to go step by step. For example, we are not going to legalize crack; what we will do is legalize 15 percent cocaine. Let's say the government will make available 15 percent-pure cocaine. What would happen？ Clearly a lot of people using 60 percent cocaine would be just as satisfied with 15 percent. They would be better-off, in all likelihood, because they are using a weaker drug and not as much of it.
INTERVIEWER: What would you do about PCP and heroin？
INTERVIEWEE: I don't think it's a good idea to introduce particular types of drugs into places where there is no demand for them. But if there is a lot of PCP use in this city, then the government comes in and regulates its sale. The object is to undercut the criminal element.
INTERVIEWER: What do you sec when you look into the future of the drug situation？
INTERVIEWEE: You hear knowledgeable people say that the knowledge to manufacture mindalerting substances at home is the type of knowledge anybody with a high school chemistry education will have.
INTERVIEWER: So what are we going to do then.* To ban high school chemistry courses？
INTERVIEWEE: Well, almost every society has found some form. of chemical substance to alter one's state of consciousness. Some societies have been very successful at integrating this into their culture and using it in almost totally nondestructive ways. Somehow public policy has to find a way of encouraging people not to abuse drugs, or at least to use them more safely. Then we need to find the best ways to deal with those people who don't know how to use them safely. Not by throwing them in jail, but by finding ways to help them.
This interview is mainly about______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付