题目内容
According to the news, American troops in Panama
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
One argument used to support the idea that employment will continue to be the dominant form. of work, and that employment will eventually become available for all who want it, is that working time will continue to fall. People in jobs will work fewer hours in the day, fewer days in the week, fewer weeks in the year, and fewer years in a lifetime, than they do now. This will mean that more jobs will be available for more people. This, it is said, is the way we should set about restoring full employment.
There is no doubt that something of this kind will happen. The shorter working week, longer holidays, earlier retirement, job-sharing -- these and other ways of reducing the amount of time people spend on their jobs -- are certainly likely to spread. A mix of part-time paid work and part-time unpaid work is likely to become a much more common work pattern than today, and a flexi-life pattern of work -- involving paid employment at certain stages of life, but not at others -- will become widespread. But it is surely unrealistic to assume that this will make it possible to restore full employment as the dominant form. of work.
In the first place, so long as employment remains the overwhelmingly important form. of work and source of income for most people that it is today, it is very difficult to see how reductions in employees' working time can take place on a scale sufficiently large and at a pace sufficiently fast to make it possible to share out the available paid employment to everyone who wants it. Such negotiations as there have recently been, for example in Britain and Germany, about the possibility of introducing a 35-hour working week, have highlighted some of the difficulties. But, secondly, if changes of this kind were to take place at a pace and on a scale sufficient to make it possible to share employment among all who wanted it, the resulting situation --in which most people would not be working in their jobs for more than two or three short days a week -- could hardly continue to be one in which employment was still regarded as the only truly valid form. of work. There would be so many people spending so much of their time on other activities, including other forms of useful work, that the primacy of employment would be bound to be called into question, at least to some extent.
The author uses the negotiations in Britain and Germany as an example to
During the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, advertising was a relatively straightforward means of announcement and communication and was used mainly to promote novelties and fringe products. But when factory production got into full swing and new products, e.g. processed foods, came onto the market, national advertising campaigns and brand-naming of products became necessary. Before large-scale factory production, the typical manufacturing unit had been small and adaptable and the task of distributing and selling goods had largely been undertaken by wholesalers. The small non specialised factory which did not rely on massive investment in machinery had been flexible enough to adapt its production according to changes in public demands.
But the economic depression which lasted from 1873 to 1894 marked a turning point between the old method of industrial organisation and distribution and the new. From the beginning of the nineteenth century until the 1870s, production had steadily expanded and there had been a corresponding growth in retail outlets. But the depression brought on a crisis of over-production and under-consumption -- manufacture goods piled up unsold and prices and profits fell. Towards the end of the century many of the small industrial firms realised that they would be in a better position to weather economic depressions and slumps if they combined with other small businesses and widened the range of goods they produced so that all their eggs were not in one basket. They also realised that they would have to take steps to ensure that once their goods had been produced there was a market for them. This period ushered in the first phase of what economists now call "monopoly capitalism", which, roughly speaking, refers to the control of the market by a small number of giant, conglomerate enterprises. Whereas previously competitive trading had been conducted by small rival firms, after the depression the larger manufacturing units, and combines relied more and more on mass advertising to promote their new range of products.
A good example of the changes that occurred in manufacture and distribution at the turn of the century can be found in the soap trade. From about the 1850s the market had been flooded with anonymous bars of soap, produced by hundreds of small manufacturers and distributed by wholesalers and door-to-door sellers. Competition grew steadily throughout the latter half of the century and eventually the leading companies embarked on more aggressive selling methods in order to take customers away from their rivals. For instance, the future Lord Leverhulme decided to "brand" his soap by selling it in distinctive packages in order to facilitate recognition and encourage customer loyalty.
Lord Leverhulme was one of the first industrialists to realise that advertisements should contain "logical and considered" arguments as well as eye-catching and witty slogans. Many advertisers followed his lead and started to include "reason-why" copy in their ads. For example, one contemporary Pears soap ad went into great detail about how the product could enhance marital bliss by cutting down the time the wife had to spend with her arms in a bowl of frothy suds. And an ad for Cadbury's cocoa not only proclaimed its purity but also detailed other benefits.. "for the infant it is a delight and a support; for the young girl, a source of healthy vigour; for the young miss in her teens a valuable aid to development ..." and so on. As the writer E.S. Turner rightly points out, the advertising of this period had reached the "stage of persuasion as distinct from proclamation or iteration". Indeed advertise or bust seemed to be the rule of the day as bigger and more expensive campaigns were mounted and smaller firms who did not, or could not, advertise, were squeezed or bought out by the larger companies.
An example of a product which might well have been advertised dur
Within a society, social change is also likely to occur more frequently and more readily (1) in the material aspects of the culture than in the non-material, for example, in technology rather than in values; (2) in what has been learned later in life rather than what was learned early; (3) in the less basic, less emotional, or less sacred aspects of society than in their opposites, like religion or a system of prestige; (4) in the simple elements rather than in the complex ones; (5) in form. rather than in substance; and (6) in elements congenial to the culture rather than in strange elements.
Furthermore, social change is easier if it is gradual. For example, it comes more readily in human relations on a continuous scale rather than one with sharp dichotomies. This is one reason why change has not come more quickly to Black Americans as compared to other American minorities, because of the sharp difference in appearance between them and their white counterparts.
According to the passage, the main difference between a homogeneous society and a heterogeneous one lies in
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：A: So, you're an architect？
B: Yes.
A: Do you work for a public or private organisation, or are you self-employed, that is, working on your own？
B: I'm working for a private design and construction company.
A: How did you start your career？
B: I started with the government.
A: Oh, did you？ What made you decide to work for the government？
B: Well, it was a matter of chance really. I saw an advertisement for a vacant position in a newspaper, and I thought "Why don't you try it？" In fact, I have no preferences to where I work, public or private.
A: And do you still have this idea, or...
B: More or less, yes, although I'm now working for a private firm. I worked for the government for about three years. It was alright. Of course there's the bureaucracy one has to put up with, but it's not that bad, if you don't mind bureaucratic wheels turning slowly, and things not being as efficient.
A: Ah-ah. And what made you leave the public sector？
B: Money mainly. You see, I got married, and my wife doesn't work, and we wanted to start a family right away. So we thought it might be better off if I moved to the private sector. This is why it's hard for me to be self-employed because self employed work has the disadvantage that there may be time, or a period of time when you're unemployed.
A: I see, so did you join this company straight away or...
B: No, I worked for, in a couple of private firms before I came to this one.
A: Hmm, hmm. Now what qualifications does one have to have to become an architect？
B: Well, you've got to have a degree in architecture. That means before you apply to study architecture in any university, you have to pass exams, usually three A-levels with good results. Also you generally have to study sciences at school rather than arts.., as the basis for the subject to be studied at university level, although when you really get down to it, the subject involves some aspects of arts too. Then you need between six and seven years to work through, by the end of which you usually Sit for the final examination.
A: So you mean to take up architecture, one has to have a scientific background？ '
B: Well, yes, mainly scientific, but it helps if you have some general arts background too. You know, architecture is not a pure science.
A: Now, if one wants to take up architecture, one has got to be able to draw？ Is that really true？
B: Well, it is true that the work of an architect involves a lot of drawing, and to be an architect you must be able to draw. But this doesn't mean that if you can't at present draw, you won't have the opportunity to be an architect, because you can be taught to draw. In fact drawing in architecture is different from drawing in art. An artist's drawing must be good in the sense that it gives a certain impression in the mind of the viewer, in fact some famous artists can't draw very well at all, at least not from a technical point of view. On the other hand, an architect's drawing must be accurate. So I'd say that accuracy of the drawings is what we aim at, what's important.
A: Now what qualities do you think make a good architect, apart from being accurate in his drawings？
B: Well, I'm not sure if I can generalise about that. You see architecture is a mixture of theory and practice. So I suppose a good architect should be good at both. An architect's work is good in as much as the construction is built precisely as the theory requires, so that it doesn't collapse or can't be used after a period of time because it's dangerous, i don't mean a well-built construction will last for ever, but it's predictab
微信支付 
支付宝支付