题目内容
Which of the following does not support the statement "Yet there are some crucial ways in
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Part B Listening Comprehension
Directions: In this part of the test there will be some short talks and conversations. After each one, you will be asked some questions. The talks, conversations and questions will be spoken ONLY ONCE. Now listen carefully and choose the right answer to each question you have heard and write the letter of the answer you have chosen in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.
听力原文：Man: Were conditions in coal mines in the nineteenth century really as bad as people imagine？
Woman: Well, up to the middle of the nineteenth century at least, miners did work in terrible conditions, even worse than most people imagine probably. And of course it wasn't only the men who had to work in the mines—most mining families were so poor, you see, that the women and children had to go down the mine as well. Now the men had the job of actually digging the coal out, which meant that sometimes they had to crouch doubled up in tiny tunnels and dig away at the coal face. And the women had the job of face, such as carrying the coal away, and in the very early days they actually had to carry the coal in sacks on their backs from the coal face all the way up to the surface, up steep ladders.
Man: What about the children？
Woman: Well, they could use horses in the widest tunnels. When the tunnels were*too low for the horses, then they used file children instead, and these children had to pull trucks of coal, weighing, ooh, sometimes as much as half a ton or a ton along passages that were only a few feet high, and the owners sometimes made the children work for 12 hours or more at a time, and they made them stay down the mine underground all that time, and they didn't let them have breaks for food or anything like that. They just had to work. And this was really the worst part of it, that the mine owners had complete power, you see, they could do whatever they liked. If they wanted to, they could make them work longer hours and there wasn't really anything the miners could do about it, and this went on for quite a long time, partly because mining communities were so isolated that people didn't realise that mine owners were making children do the terrible jobs, and later when the public did find out about it, people began to raise objections.
Man: So then laws were introduced. Were they to make it illegal to use children？
Woman: Yes that's right, in the 1840s, But the interesting thing was that even when they did know what was happening, people weren't so worried about children having to work in mines, the main tiling they objected to was women and young girls working in the mines with men, which they thought was immoral. You see, it was very hot down the mines and so the miners wore very few clothes, and people found this very shocking. And that was why after the first law was passed in 1842, children were still allowed to work underground for several more years.
Man: Of course at that time I suppose there were no unions of anything like that—the miners had no power at all？
Woman: No, none at all, at first. In fact at the beginning of the nineteenth century there were actually laws called Combination Laws. Now according to these laws, workers weren't allowed to join together in any way to fight for more pay or shorter hours or better working conditions, and if they did so, those responsible would be arrested and put into prison. And it was only later that the miners were actually allowed to form. unions, and of course this made an enormous difference, because then the owners had to start improving conditions and introduce safety measures—but it all happened very slowly and things didn't really start to improve until very late in the nineteenth century.
Questions:
1.What work did men have to do in coal mines in the early nineteenth century？
2.According to the woman, why were children used in coal mines？
3.What was the main thing that people objected to when they knew what w
BRITAIN locks up more of its people than any other country in western Europe: 145 out of every 100,000 compared with France's 88 (though a fraction of America's 738). Sentences have got tougher, with longer stints in prison for pettier offences. Crime is, broadly, falling. Yet the British have less confidence in their government's ability to crack down on violence and crime than the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish or Americans, an Ipsos-MORl poll revealed last week.
For that, thank a run of bad news which has Britons reeling from headline to headline. If one were to believe the tabloids, pedophiles are rampaging through the schools and unreported foreign felons through the countryside. A string of crimes by convicts on early release culminated in a particularly sad and nasty sexual assault on a three-year-old girl, which came before the courts this month.
Carefully stoked by the press, popular passions are running high against everyone involved with the administration of justice. One home secretary (the minister in charge of prisons, the police and immigration) got the boot in May. His successor, John Reid, is busily putting the boot into everyone else, lambasting judges for being soft on crime and scaring the daylights out of his department. The Tories are demanding more prisons. Meanwhile, Tony Blair was due on June 23rd to urge a new balance between the rights of offenders and those of victims in favour of the latter.
Mr. Blair is right to ask whether society's interests are best served by the status quo. The criminal justice system requires a degree of public trust that at the moment is lacking. This is a chance not for lock-'emup posturing, but for a dispassionate look at how to make the administration of justice more effective. Start with one simple fact behind most of the headlines: Britain's prisons are bursting at the seams.
At current rates of sentencing, the inspector of prisons warns, jails will be full by September. This matters: the shunting of prisoners from pillar to post by harried staff is undermining efforts to return offenders to society in a state fit to stay there. They lose touch with their families; they leave courses and drug-detox programmes; wardens they knew lose track of them. Two out of three re offend within two years of release. If politicians and judges, egged on by the press, insist on locking people up for longer, it will get worse.
How to fix things？ Building more prisons is the obvious answer. Labour has already added thousands of new places, and both main parties talk of adding more. But Britain's jails always fill up, no matter how many there are. And new cells cost about ￡100,000 ($184,000) apiece. A better answer than banging more people up inside is to strengthen facilities to deal with them outside.
Society is protected in the short run when offenders are locked up, and in the long run when they are reformed. Violent and dangerous criminals belong behind bars. But many others end up in prison for want of anywhere else to go. What about them？
Many mentally ill criminals would be more easily reclaimed in facilities other than catch-all prisons, though prison drug programmes are in fact quite successful. So would many women prisoners, who tend to show violence only to themselves and elsewhere thrive in smaller detention centres close to home. Halfway houses are a plausible place for non-violent offenders of both sexes on short sentences or nearing the end of their time. Those in touch with their families are less likely to re-offend, and so are those who have jobs to go to when they leave. Non-custodial community sentences have yet to prove their worth; the rate of recidivism seems disappointingly close to that of people who serve prison terms. But those figures may change as the approach becomes more common and new cohorts of offenders affect the statistics.
These suggestions are not new. The Home Office
A．Colloquial ArabicB．EsperantoC．Proper ArabicD．Written Arabic
听力原文：Man: Good evening. Today, we invited Professor Lynch, an expert on Arabian culture to tell us some facts about the language that we may not really know.
Woman: Hi, good evening. It's my honor to be here to share my knowledge with everybody.
Man: So, professor, I wonder if all the Arabs speak the same language, Arabic, just like people living in the North America all speak English.
Woman: It is generally thought that Arabic is a single language, spoken, written and understood by people in countries as widely separated as Iraq, Egypt and Morocco, but this is not so. It is only written Arabic (that is, the Classical Arabic of the Koran and the Modem Arabic of contemporary literature, journalism and broadcasting), that is more or less common to the whole of the Arab world. The colloquial Arabic, which is spoken in the different Arab societies today, differs as widely between Arab countries as do Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.
Man: That's surprising! So you mean all the Arabs from different countries can understand others' written language, but not the spoken language？
Woman: You are partly right. In the Arab world, written Arabic acts as a kind of Esperanto, providing a means of communication between educated people of different Arab nationalities. Written Arabic is, paradoxically, spoken too: on the radio and television, in public speeches, as well as between Arabs from different countries. We could call it pan Arabic. It is used in rather the same way as Latin was used by educated people in Europe in the Middle Ages.
Man: It seems as if there are a lot of differences between written Arabic and colloquial Arabic. Shall we say that they belong to one language？
Woman: It's a little complicated to explain. As we all know, even in English, of course, there are differences of grammar and vocabulary between the written and spoken language, but this difference is far less than that between the artificial pan-Arabic and the living colloquial language of any Arab country. Moreover, both written and spoken English are recognized in English-speaking countries as belonging to one living language, and both are taught in schools. Colloquial Arabic, on the other hand, is not regarded by the people who speak it as "proper" Arabic. Unlike colloquial English, it is not taught in schools, and it is not written; indeed, there is a strong feeling in Arab societies that it should not be used in a written form.
Man: So what language, pan-Arabic or colloquial Arabic, does an Arab, say, an Egyptian, use mainly in his everyday life？
Woman: An educated Egyptian uses pan-Arabic to talk to equally educated Iraqis, Saudis and Moroccans. No reasonable man, however, wishes to talk like a book or a newspaper, and the language that the same educated Egyptian uses with his family and with other Egyptians is quite different. This language is wholly Egyptian, and it is only spoken.
Questions:
11.What mistaken view do most people hold about Arabic？
12.According to the talk, which language is more or less common to the whole of the Arab world？
13.How is pan-Arabic similar to Esperanto？
14.Which of the following is NOT taught in schools？
15.Which of the following statements is TRUE according to the talk？
(31)
微信支付 
支付宝支付