题目内容
PART C
Directions: You will hear three dialogues or monologues. Before listening to each one, you will have 5 seconds to read each of the questions which accompany it. While listening, answer each question by choosing A, B, C or D. After listening, you will have 10 seconds to check your answer to each question. You will hear each piece ONLY ONCE.
听力原文：If you have a well-balanced diet, then you should be getting all the vitamins that you need for normal daily living. However, sometimes we think we're eating the right foods but the vitamins are escaping, perhaps as a result of cooking and anyway we're not getting the full benefit of them. Now, if you lack vitamins in any way, the solution isn't to rush off and take vitamin pills. Though they can sometimes help. No, it's far better to look at your diet and how you prepare your food. So what are vitamins？ Well, the dictionary tells us they arc "food factors essential in small quantities to maintain life". Now, there are fat soluble vitamins which can be stored for quite some time by the body and there are water soluble vitamins and which need regular replacement in the boy so a regular daily intake of these vitamins is needed.
OK, so how can you ensure that your diet contains enough of the vitamins you need？ Well, first of all, you may have to establish some new eating habits! No more chips at the unit canteen, I'm afraid ! Now firstly, you must eat a variety of foods. Then you need to ensure that you eat at least four servings of fruit and vegetables daily. Now you'll need to shop two or three times a week to make sure that they're fresh, and store your vegetables in the fridge or in a cool, dark place. Now let's just refresh our memories by looking at the Healthy Diet Pyramid.
OK, can you all see that？ Good. Well, now as you see, we've got three levels to our, pyramid. At the top in the smallest area are the things which we should really be trying to avoid as much as possible. Things like ... yes, sugar, salt, butter ... all that sort of things.
Next, on the middle of our pyramid we find the things that we can eat in moderation. Not too much though! And that's where we find milk, lean meat, fish, nuts, eggs. And then at the bottom of the pyramid are the things that you can eat tots of! Because they're the things that are really good for you. And here we have bread, vegetables and fruit. So don't lose sight of your healthy diet pyramid when you do shopping.
According to the talk, how did vitamins lose in one's body？
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
In the United States, the traditional view embraced by society is that fences are European, out of place in the American landscape. This notion turns up repeatedly in nineteenth-century American writing about the landscape. One author after another denounces "the Englishman's insultingly inhospitable brick wall, topped with broken bottles." Frank J. Scott, an early landscape architect who had a large impact on the look of America's first suburbs, worked tirelessly to rid the landscape of fences, which he derided as a feudal holdover from Britain. Writing in 1870, he held that "to narrow our own or our neighbor's views of the free graces of Nature" was selfish and undemocratic. To drive through virtually any American suburb today, where every lawn steps right up to the street in a gesture of openness and welcome, is to see how completely such views have triumphed. After a visit to the United States, British novelist Vita Sackville West decided that "Americans... have no sense of private enclosure."
In many American suburbs such as the one where I grew up, a fence or a hedge along the street meant one thing: the family who lived behind it was antisocial, perhaps even had something to hide. Fences and hedges said: Ogres within; skip this place on Halloween. Except for these few dubious addresses, each little plot in our development was landscaped like a miniature estate, the puniest "expanse" of unhedged lawn was made to look like a public park. Any enjoyment of this space was sacrificed to the conceit of wide-open land, for without a fence or hedge, front yards were much too public to spend time in. Families crammed their activities into microscopic backyards, the one place where the usefulness of fences and hedges seemed to outweigh their undemocratic connotations.
But the American prejudice against fences predates the suburban development. Fences have always seemed to us somehow un-American. Europeans built wailed gardens; Americans from the start distrusted the hortus conclusus. If the space within the wall was a garden, then what was that outside the wall？ To the Puritans the whole American landscape was a promised land and to draw lines around sections of it was to throw this paramount idea into question. When Anne Bradstreet, the Massachusetts colony's first poet, set about writing a traditional English garden ode, she tore down the conventional garden wall—or (it comes to the same thing) made it capacious enough to take in the whole of America.
The nineteenth-century transcendentalists, too, considered the American landscape "God's second book" and they taught us to read it for moral instruction. Residues of this idea persist, of course; we still regard and write about nature with high moral purpose (an approach that still produces a great deal of pious prose). And though, in our own nature writing, guilt seems to have taken the rhetorical place of nineteenth-century ecstasy, the essential religiosity remains. We may no longer spell it out, but most of us still believe the landscape is somehow sacred, and to meddle with it sacrilegious. And to set up hierarchies within it—to set off a garden from the surrounding countryside—well, that makes no sense at all.
In Para. 1, Frank J. Scott's observation implies that nature ______.
The last paragraph of the passage suggests that for the majority of women scientists, the
This week's massive one-day protest, drawing 1m-3m people on to the streets, was no exception. This particular stand-off, between the centre right government of Dominique de Villepin and those protesting against his effort to inject a tiny bit of liberalism into France's rigid labour market, may be defused. The Constitutional Council was due to rule on the legality of the new law on March 30th. But the underlying difficulty will remain: the apparent incapacity of the French to adapt to a changing world. On the face of it, France seems to be going through one of those convulsions that this nation born of revolution periodically requires in order to break with the past and to move forward. Certainly the students who kicked off the latest protests seemed to think they were re-enacting the events of May 1968 their parents sprang on Charles de Gaulle. They have borrowed its slogans ("Beneath the cobblestones, the beach!") and hijacked its symbols (the Sorbonne university). In this sense, the revolt appears to be the natural sequel to last autumn's suburban riots, which prompted the government to impose a state of emergency. Then it was the jobless, ethnic underclass that rebelled against a system that excluded them.
Yet the striking feature of the latest protest movement is that this time the rebellious forces are on the side of conservatism. Unlike the rioting youths in the banlieues, the objective of the students and public-sector trade unions is to prevent change, and to keep France the way it is. Indeed, according to one astonishing poll, three quarters of young French people today would like to become civil servants, and mostly because that would mean "a job for life". Buried inside this chilling lack of ambition are one delusion and one crippling myth.
The delusion is that preserving France as it is, in some sort of formaldehyde solution, means preserving jobs for life. Students, as well as unqualified suburban youngsters, do not today face a choice between the new, less protected work contract and a lifelong perch in the bureaucracy. They, by and large, face a choice between already unprotected short-term work and no work at all. And the reason for this, which is also the reason for France's intractable mass unemployment of nearly 10%, is simple: those permanent life-time jobs are so protected, and hence so difficult to get rid of, that many employers are not creating them any more.
This delusion is accompanied by an equally pernicious myth: that France has more to fear from globalisation, widely held responsible for imposing the sort of insecurity enshrined in the new job contract, than it does to gain. It is true that the forces of global capitalism are not always benign, but nobody has yet found a better way of creating and spreading prosperity. In another startling poll, however, whereas 71% of Americans, 66% of the British and 65% of Germans agreed that the free market was the best system available, the number in France was just 36%. The French seem to be uniquely hostile to the capitalist system that has made them the world's fifth richest country and generated so many first-rate French companies. This hostility appears to go deeper than resistance to painful reform, which is common to Italy and Germany too; or than a desire for a strong welfare state, which Scandinavian countries share; or even than a fondness for protectionism, which America periodically betrays.
The choice belongs to France. A bold eff
A．A chief editor.B．A psychologist.C．A program presenter.D．A columnist.
微信支付 
支付宝支付