题目内容
A．It has spoiled friendship and caused the latecomer to lose his or her job.B．It has c
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
1 Despite Denmark's manifest virtues, Danes never talk about how proud they are to be Danes. This would sound weird in Danish. When Danes talk to foreigners about Denmark, they always begin by commenting on its tininess, its unimportance, the difficulty of its language, the general small-mindedness and self-indulgence of their countrymen and the high taxes. No Dane would look you in the eye and say "Denmark is a great country." You're supposed to figure this out for yourself.
2 It is the land of the silk safety net, where almost half the national budget goes toward smoothing out life's inequalities, and there is plenty of money for schools, day care, retraining programs, job seminars -- Danes love seminars: three days at a study center hearing about waste management is almost as good as a ski trip. It is a culture bombarded by English, in advertising, pop music, the Internet, and despite all the English that Danish absorbs -- there is no Danish Academy to defend against it -- old dialects persist in Jutland that can barely be understood by Copenhageners. It is the land where, as the saying goes, "Few have too much and fewer have too little," and a foreigner is struck by the sweet egalitarianism that prevails, where the lowliest clerk gives you a level gaze, where Sir and Madame have disappeared from common usage, even Mr. and Mrs.. It's a nation of recyclers -- about 55% of Danish garbage gets made into something new --and no nuclear power plants. It's a nation of tireless planners. Trains run on time. Things operate well in general.
3 Such a nation of overachievers -- a brochure from the Ministry of Business and Industry says, "Denmark is one of the world's cleanest and most organized countries, with virtually no pollution, crime, or poverty. Denmark is the most corruption-free society in the Northern Hemisphere.' So, of course, one's heart lifts at any sighting of Danish sleaze: skinhead graffiti on buildings ("Foreigners Out of Denmark!"), broken beer bottles in the gutters, drunken teenagers slumped in the park.
4 Nonetheless, it is an orderly land. You drive through a Danish town, it comes to an end at a stone wall, and on the other side is a field of barley, a nice clean line: town here, country there. It is not a nation of jaywalkers. People stand on the curb and wait for the red light to change, even if it's 2 a. m. and there's not a car in sight. However, Danes don't think of themselves as a waiting-at-2-a, m.-for-the-green-light people -- that's how they see Swedes and Germans. Danes see themselves as jazzy people, improvisers, more free spirited than Swedes, but the truth is (though one should not say it) that Danes are very much like Germans and Swedes. Orderliness is a main selling point. Denmark has few natural resources, limited manufacturing capability; its future in Europe will be as a broker, banker, and distributor of goods. You send your goods by container ship to Copenhagen, and these bright, young, English-speaking, utterly honest, highly disciplined people will get your goods around to Scandinavia, the Baltic States, and Russia. Airports, seaports, highways, and rail lines are ultramodern and well-maintained.
5 The orderliness of the society doesn't mean that Danish lives are less messy or lonely than yours or mine, and no Dane would tell you so. You can hear plenty about bitter family feuds and the sorrows of alcoholism and about perfectly sensible people who went off one day and killed themselves. An orderly society cannot exempt its members from the hazards of life.
6 But there is a sense of entitlement and security that Danes grow up with. Certain things are yours by virtue of citizenship, and you shouldn't feel bad for taking what you're entitled to, you're as good as anyone else. The rules of the welfare system are clear to everyone, the benefits you get if you lose your job, the steps you take to get a
SECTION C NEWS BROADCAST
Directions: In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. At the end of each news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the questions.
听力原文： A militant group linked to al-Qaida has taken credit for Wednesday's bombing of the national police headquarters in Saudi Arabia. Some analysts say the attack opens a new chapter in al-Qaida's fight against the West and its allies in the Middle East. Analysts in the region are offering explanations, and advice on what the Saudi government should do about it.
The Saudi government expressed outrage at the bombing, and in Cairo, Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa condemned the attackers for, in his words, terrorizing our societies.
Mr. Moussa said most of the victims are civilians, and he called the attack unacceptable.
The attack, carried out by Muslims against Muslims, also drew harsh condemnation from Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority, which said unjustly killing a Muslim is the gravest crime.
In Egypt, the banned Islamic group known as the Muslim Brotherhood also condemned the Saudi blast as destabilizing and damaging to Islam.
So why do such attacks continue in spite of both secular and religious criticism in the Arab world？ Mohammed Salah, director of the Arabic language al-Hayat newspaper in London, says anger against U. S. policies in the region is encouraging groups like al-Qaida.
Mr. Salah says antagonistic feelings against the West are leading the attackers to target governments they see as supporting the United States. Anger is particularly sharp over the invasion of Iraq and U. S. support for Israel.
Who was found to be involved in the bombing of the National police headquarters？
2 Quite apart from specialized terms of this kind in groups, trades and professions, there are all kinds of standards of correctness at which most of us feel more or less obliged to aim, because we know that certain kinds of English invite irritation or downright condemnation. On the other hand, we know that other kinds convey some kind of prestige and bear a welcome cachet.
3 In relation to the social aspects of language, it may well be suggested that English speakers fall into three categories: the assured, the anxious and the indifferent. At one's end of this scale, we have the people who have "position" and "status", and who therefore do not feel they need worry much about their use of English. Their education and occupation make them confident of speaking an unimpeachable form. of English. no fear of being criticized or corrected is likely to cross their minds, and this gives their speech that characteristically unselfconscious and easy flow which is often envied.
4 At the other end of the scale, we have an equally imperturbable band, speaking with a similar degree of careless ease, because even if they are aware that their English is condemned by others, they are supremely indifferent to the fact. The Mrs. Mops of this world have active and efficient tongues in their heads, and if we happened not to like their ways of saying things, well, we "can lump it". That is their attitude. Curiously enough, writers are inclined to represent the speech of both these extreme parties with -in' for lng. On the one hand. "We're goin' huntin', my dear sir;"on the other, "We're goin' racin', mate."
5 In between, according to this view we have a far less fortunate group, the anxious. These actively try to suppress what they believe to be bad English and assiduously cultivate what they hope to be good English. They live their lives in some degree of nervousness over their grammar, their pronunciation, and their choice of words, sensitive, and fearful of betraying themselves. Keeping up with the Joneses is measured not only in houses, furniture, refrigerators, cars, and clothes, but also in speech.
6 And the misfortune of the "anxious" does not end with their inner anxiety. Their lot is also the open or veiled contempt of the "assured" on one side of them and of the "indifferent" on the other.
7 It is all too easy to raise an unworthy laugh at the anxious. The people thus uncomfortably stilted on linguistic highheels so often form. part of what is, in many ways, the most admirable section of any society, the ambitious, tense, inner-driven people, who are bent on "going places and doing things". The greater the pity, then, if a disproportionate amount of their energy goes into what Mr. Sharpless called "this shabby obsession" with variant forms of English -- especially if the net result is (as so often) merely to sound affected and ridiculous. "Here", according to Bacon, "is the first diste
Economizing of the Poor
Comprehending Economizing of the Poor
Walking down the aisles of a supermarket, low-income shoppers must consider a number of factors including quantity, price, quality and nutritional differences when selecting food products. Food-purchase decisions by the poor often entail balances among taste, preference and quality factors--either real or perceived--to meet spending constraints. Within broad product categories such as cereal, cheese, meat and poultry, and fruits and vegetables, shoppers can choose among many substitutable products. Low-income shoppers can extend their food dollars in a number of ways. They may shop in discount food stores; they may purchase and consume less food than higher-income shoppers; they may purchase low-priced (and possibly lower quality) food products; or they may rely on some combination of all three. A better understanding of how the poor economize in food spending addresses important policy questions raised by researchers, nutrition educators, and food-assistance program managers.
The Correlation between the Location and Price
Whether the poor face significantly different food prices due to where they shop for food remains an unresolved empirical question. Extensive research over the years has tried to answer the question--Do the poor pay less for food？ The Economic Research Service (ERS) in 1997 received the results of studies comparing price differences in grocery stores across different income levels and combined these with current census data on the distribution of low-income households by urbanization type. The ERS study concluded that, in general, the poor face higher prices due to their greater representation in urban and rural areas (as opposed to suburban areas), where food prices tend to be higher.
Higher Prices but Less Spending
Based on results from household surveys, ERS also found that despite facing higher prices, low-income shoppers spend less than higher-income shoppers for food purchased in food stores. Due to their level of aggregation and lack of in-store sales and promotion information, such surveys shed little light on the economizing practices of households. To learn more about how low-income shoppers spend less for food despite facing higher prices, we obtained food-store purchase data that incorporate per-capita quantity and expenditure-measure equivalents (household measures adjusted for household size) across income levels.
The Main Economizing Practices
The resulting comparisons describe how individuals with different levels of income vary in their food-spending patterns. By using actual transaction data, detailed information about the product purchased (for example, price, product description, package size, and brand name) as well as the condition of purchase (promotion, coupon, or sale item) was obtained. From these, the average unit cost (per ounce, per pound) for each item was calculated. Low-income shoppers may use four primary economizing practices to reduce their food spending. First, they may purchase a greater proportion of discounted products. Second, they may purchase more private-label products (generic or store brand) versus brand products than higher-income shoppers buy. Third, they may take advantage of volume discounts by purchasing larger package sizes. Fourth, they may purchase a less-expensive food product within a product class. Although quality differences such as freshness, convenience and taste often contribute to prices differences, differences in nutritional quality are also evident.
More Spending on Promotional Items
The use of promotions is measured by comparing the percentage of expenditures and quantities of each product purchased on promotion (manufacurers' coupons, store coupons, store sales, and other promotions). For random-weight cheese, fruit, vegetables and meat in 1998, low-income households (less than $ 25,000 per ye
微信支付 
支付宝支付