题目内容
听力原文：M: Hey, Jane. What do you think of the art museum you visited last week？
W: It is wonderful, especially the new wing.
M: I have just read an article about that new wing and it says the cost is ninety million total. It's amazing, I think.
W: Yeah, the guide mentioned that. You could see they built it at all costs.
M: Hmm. It looks really unusual, at least from what I saw in the picture.
W: It's really impressive. There are triangles all over the paving stones in the courtyard, the skylights, and even a lot of the sculptures. All the sculptures are mobile and are made of pieces of aluminum that move slowly in the air. You'll like it, I bet.
M: The article said that, too. It was said the original was steel, and it weighed so much that it wasn't safe to hang.
W: Right. They used aluminum later so that those sculptures wouldn't come down on someone's head.
M: From the article, I also learned there appeared many other problems when they built it.
W: The article sounds interesting.
M: Yes, it went into every detail about the new wing. There was even an interview with the sculptor.
W: I'd like to read that. May I borrow your magazine？
M: Of course. Just come to my place and take it tonight.
(20)
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
A．He worked there as a guide.B．He read about it.C．He had just visited it.D．He intervie
Section B
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. You should decide on the best choice.
Over the past decade, American companies have tried hard to find ways to discourage senior managers from feathering their own nests at the expense of their shareholder. The three most popular reforms have been recruiting more outside directors in order to make boards more independent, linking bosses' pay to various performance measures, and giving bosses share options so that they have the same long-term interests as their shareholders.
These reforms have been widely adopted by America's larger companies, and surveys suggest that many more companies are thinking of following their lead. But have they done any good？ Three papers presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Boston this week suggest not. As is usually the case with boardroom tinkering, the consequences have differed from those intended.
Start with those independent boards. On the face of it, dismissing the boss's friends from the board and replacing them with outsiders looks a perfect way to make senior managers more accountable. But that is not the conclusion of a study by Professor James Westphal. Instead, he found that bosses with a boardroom full of outsiders spend much of their time building alliances, doing personal favors and generally pleasing the outsiders.
All too often, these seductions succeed. Mr. Westphal found that, to a remarkable degree, "independent" boards pursue strategies that are likely to favor senior managers rather than shareholders. Such companies diversify their business, increase the pay of executives and weaken the link between pay and performances. To assess the impact of performance-related pay, Mr. Westphal asked the bosses of 103 companies with sales of over $1 billion what measurements were used to determine their pay. The measurements varied widely, ranging from sales to earnings per share. But these researchers uncovered a startling finding: executives "attend to measures that affect their own incomes and ignore or play down other factors that determine a company's overall success".
In short, bosses are quick to turn every imaginable system of corporate government to their advantage, which is probably why they are the people who are put in charge of things. Here is a paradox for the management theorists: any boss who cannot beat a system designed to keep him under control is probably not worth having.
The purpose of the large companies in recruiting outsiders and putting them on the board of directors is to ______.
A．Because it was one of the first tools.B．Because it developed human capacities.C．Beca
New Hopes for Preventing AIDS
The success of anti-retroviral(抑止肿瘤病毒) drugs in treating HIV is getting researchers at the 16th International AIDS conference excited at the prospect that the potent(效力大的) medicines might be exploited to perform. double duty. Why not use the power of these ARVs to prevent an HIV transmission or infection from taking hold in the first place？ Bill and Melinda Gates asked that provocative question on the opening day of the conference, and are committing their considerable financial resources toward finding an answer. In their remarks, they highlighted the need to develop microbicides(杀菌剂) and oral prevention drugs while we wait for a vaccine. And they will get their first hint at how smart their decision was this Thursday, when scientists from West Africa report the initial result% from the first trial studying an oral prevention drug.
So how realistic are the Gates in expecting even more from the ARVs？ "I do think the range of prevention options we have within the next decade will greatly expand," says Dr. Helene Gayle, President of Care USA and co-chair of the conference. "The biologic plausibility for both microbicides and oral prevention drugs is so great." Dr. Mark Dybul, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, said that if a microbicide or prevention drug becomes available to protect people from infections, they would be funded under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief if countries chose to use them. "We would support all of that; it would be perfectly within our mandate to do all that," he told TIME.
Preventing HIV is the only way to keep the number 'of new infections that occur each year—4 million—from growing. And yet prevention strategies, always the ugly stepsister to treatment programs, have not really taken hold in the developing nations where the rate of infection is highest. An effective vaccine, of course, is the ultimate prevention weapon, but as the Gates' pointed out, an HIV shot is still a long way off. In the meantime, microbicides could be one way to co-opt ARVs into the prevention war; these are chemical compounds, usually in the form. of a gel or cream, that women can use vaginally prior to intercourse to stop the transmission of HIV—it's the same idea behind spermicides(杀精子剂), which are chemical barriers to sperm entering the vagina and causing pregnancy. It's an elegantly simple approach, made even simpler by the fact that researchers didn't really have to start from scratch to come up with new anti-HIV compounds; they already have them in the ARVs, which now interrupt the virus from infecting cells at various points in its life cycle.
The key difference is that in a microbicide, the drugs are being used in healthy people rather than in those infected with HIV. When ARVs are used for treatment, both doctors and patients are willing to tolerate a higher level of side effects—after all, if the choice is between dying from HIV-AIDS and side effects, most patients opt for the latter. If the drugs are to be used to prevent infection, however, everything changes; understandably, healthy people aren't as likely to accept the same level of side effects and toxicities as those already infected.
That's why clinical trials are so significant. So far, there are 30 to 40 different microbicide candidates being tested in animals, and five trials in Ghana, Nigeria and other developing nations at the most advanced stages of testing in women. Dr. Gita Ramjee, of the HIV Prevention Research Unit in Durban, South Africa, has worked with all five, and is hopeful that they will prove effective and make an impact on the disease. Because these latest microbicides are reformulated ARVs, however, the problem of the virus becoming resistant to them is a potential drawback. Dr. Peter Plot, of UNAIDS, suggests basing microbicides only on the drugs do not make it through the pharmaceutical pipeline many are rejected because they
微信支付 
支付宝支付