题目内容
听力原文：W: Could you help me, Sir？ My flight got in 15 minutes ago. Everyone else has picked up their luggage, but mine hash' t come through.
M: I' m sorry, Madame. I'will go and find out if there is any more to come.
Q: What's the woman's problem？
(18)
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
听力原文： On 15th, Feb 1989 an instant survey was carded out among 18 overseas postgraduate students. 11 students were male and 7 were female. The purpose of the survey was to discover the views of the students on a number of matters of personal concern. The survey was conducted by means of a questionnaire given to the students to complete. There were 5 questions. The first question concerned favorite color and the second favorite number. The next 3 questions were all concerned with aspects of marriage. No. 3 looked at the ideal age to get married, No. 4 ex mined the qualities looked for in a partner and No. 5 asked about the ideal number of children. The main findings were as follows. Blue was the most popular color. This was followed by Green and Purple. There was no real significance in the choice of lucky number. About one third of the students said that they had none. Sixty-one percent of the students selected the age group 26 to 30 years as ideal for marriage, followed by 21 to 25 years. In looking at the most important qualities in an ideal partner, someone hoped the person to be Intelligent, others chose Natural, still others indicated Attractive and Honest. The ideal number of children was 2, followed by 3. It is not easy to reach any del mite conclusions based upon such a small sample of students from such widely different backgrounds. However, it is clear that the majority favoried 26 to 30 as the ideal age to get married with an intelligent partner, producing 2 children.
(33)
领导全国公安机关督察工作的是（）。
听力原文：W: How did you do on the maths exam, John？
M: I barely made it. It was just a passing score but better than I had expected.
Q: What do we learn from the conversation？
(14)
Like chess or painting or writing novels, making money is a very specialized skill. But for some reason we treat this skill differently. No one complains when a few people surpass all the rest at playing chess or writing novels, but when a few people make more money than the rest, we get editorials saying this is wrong. Why？ The pattern of variation seems no different than for any other skill. What causes people to react so strongly when the skill is making money？
I think there arc three reasons we treat making money as different: the misleading model of wealth we learn as children; the disreputable way in which, till recently, most fortunes were accumulated; and the worry that great variations in income are somehow bad for society. As far as I can tell, the first is mistaken, the second outdated, and the third empirically false. Could it be that, in a modem democracy, variation in income is actually a sign of health？
When I was five I thought electricity was created by electric sockets. I didn't realize there were power plants out there generating it. Likewise, it doesn't occur to most kids that wealth is something that has to be generated. It seems to be something that flows from parents.
Because of the circumstances in which they encounter it, children tend to misunderstand wealth. They confuse it with money. They think that there is a fixed amount of it. And they think of it as something that's distributed by authorities (and so should be distributed equally), rather than something that has to be created (and might be created unequally). In fact, wealth is not money. Money is just a convenient way of trading one form. of wealth for another. Wealth is the underlying stuff--the goods and services we buy. When you travel to a rich or poor country, you don't have to look at people' s bank accounts to tell which kind you're in. You can see wealth-- in buildings and streets, in the clothes and the health of the people.
Where does wealth come from？ People make it. This was easier to grasp when most people lived on farms, and made many of the things they wanted with their own hands. Then you could see in the house, the herds, and the granary the wealth that each family created. It was obvious then too that the wealth of the world was not a fixed quantity that had to be shared out, like slices of a pie. If you wanted more wealth, you could make it.
This is just as true today, though few of us create wealth directly for ourselves. Mostly we create wealth for other people in exchange for money, which we then trade for the forms of wealth we want. Because kids are unable to create wealth, whatever they have has to be given to them. And when wealth is something you're given, then of course it seems that it should be distributed equally. As in most families it is. The kids see to that. "Unfair," they cry, when one sibling (兄弟姐妹) gets more than another.
In the real world, you can't keep living off your parents. If you want something, you either have to make it, or do something of equivalent value for someone else, in order to get them to give you enough money to buy it. In the real world, wealth is (except for a few specialists like thieves and speculators) something you have to create, not something that's distributed by Daddy. And since the ability and desire to create it vary from person to person, it's not made equally.
You get paid by doing or making something people want, and those who make more money are often simply better at doing what people want. Top actors make a lot more money than B-list actors.
微信支付 
支付宝支付