题目内容
A．situationsB．conditionsC．comparisonsD．surroundings
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
A．introductionB．commentC．preparationD．conclusion
A．decideB．considerC．calculateD．determine
？Read the article below about negotiations.
？Choose the correct word or phrase to fill each gap from A, B, C, or D.
？For each question 21—30, mark one letter (A, B, C, or D) on your Answer Sheet.
When you are negotiating with someone, listen for the message that he or she might be sending to you. For example, the word "difficult" does not (21) the same as impossible. Imagine you are staying in a hotel, and you want to change your room. The manager's answer, "That would be difficult, Sir", does not mean that he is saying "no". It just means that he wants to know (22) you are prepared to offer him in return for the change of room. If you (23) you will cause him a lot of trouble if he does not change your room, he might (24) it would be better for him to do as you ask.
If you are buying a new car, and want to pay less than the price being asked, then the salesman's (25) , "I' m sorry, but we never negotiate on the price" means that they do negotiate on other things, like the (26) time or the "extras" that might be available as part of the purchase.
In all of these (27) the message is never communicated in clear terms. In any negotiation, the two "players" wish to get. as much out of it as they can, of course. In the three (28) above the salesmen and the hotel manager are hoping that you will accept their price or conditions but their "messages" make it clear that there may be (29) for movement and compromise. In a successful negotiation, the two sides move towards each other and reach agreement on conditions that (30) both sides.
(21)
Doctors at Stanford University are studying a medication they hope will alleviate the suffering of millions of American women. But their target isn't breast cancer, osteoporosis, or a similarly well-known affliction. Despite its alarming impact on its victims, the malady in question has received comparatively little medical scrutiny. It's a "hidden epidemic," according to the Stanford researchers: compulsive shopping disorder.
That's right. What was once merely a punchline in television sitcoms is now being taken seriously by many clinicians. According to the Stanford study's leader, Dr. Lorrin Koran, compulsive shopping is "motivated by 'irresistible' impulses, characterized by spending that is excessive and inappropriate, has harmful consequences for the individual, and tends to be chronic and stereotyped." Compulsive shoppers "binge buy" --most often clothes, shoes, makeup, and jewelry--and then suffer intense guilt. That, in turn, helps trigger another frenzied trip to the mall, and the cycle continues.
Could compulsive shopping be a health hazard associated with America's unparalleled economic prosperity？ "It seems to be a disease of affluence," says Dr. Jerrold Pollak, a clinical psychologist who's treated several shopaholics. "Advertisers... would like us to think that shopping is a reason to live," agrees Dr. Cheryl Carmin, another clinical psychologist. "If you do not have the time or inclination to go to the mall or grocery store, there are catalogs, delivery services, home shopping networks on TV, and endless items to buy via the Internet." Indeed, this year, US advertisers will spend $ 233 billion--an amount equal to six federal education budgets to persuade Americans to buy, buy, buy.
Yet the possibility that US advertisers may be driving certain women in our society t9 psychosis is only part of the story. It seems that the pharmaceutical companies' quest to cure the effects of excessive marketing may itself be little more than a cleverly-disguised marketing scheme. The Stanford study, like many of its kind, is being funded by a pharmaceutical company. The undisclosed drug is an FDA-approved antidepressant, specifically an SSRI--a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor. (The researchers are also studying behavioral therapies for compulsive shoppers.)
The researchers running the Stanford study refused to reveal their sponsor. However, only five SSRIs are currently on the US market. Pfizer (makers of Zolofi), Eli Billy (Prozac) and SmithKline Beecham (Paxil) all reported that they are neither conducting nor planning any studies of their drugs for compulsive shopping. Solvay (Luvox)also seems an unlikely candidate. In 1997, researchers at the University of Iowa tried using Luvox to treat compulsive shoppers and found no measurable differences between the effects of the drug and those of a placebo. Perhaps the manufacturers of Luvox want to give their product another shot. More likely, however, the mysterious benefactor of the Stanford Study is Forest Pharmaceuticals (Celexa). Their PR department neither confirmed nor denied any involvement in Koran's study.
Why would a pharmaceutical company anonymously spend money to license one of its top-selling drugs for a marginal disorder like compulsive shopping？ A big part of the answer is profit. The mystery company presumably hopes to carve a unique slice out of the mental disorder pie in order to market it together with a ready-made treatment. This is not at all a new strategy for the world's mammoth pharmaceutical firms, as David Healy, a professor at the University of Wales College of Medicine, explains in his book "The Anti- Depressant Em." Healy's book describes a process by which companies Seek to "educate" both patients and clinicians about a new disorder, to sell the disorder in preparation for selling its cure. Funding clinical trials is a crucial part of that process.
SXB#
微信支付 
支付宝支付