题目内容
Which of the following is one way in which Nevelson's art illustrates her theory as it is
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
For most people, the idea of giving a presentation to a group of people is a fate worse than death. Recent research has shown that up to 87% of us regard it as more traumatic than air-travel, bankruptcy, death or moving home! We suffer from sweaty hands, palpitations, panic attacks, nervous laughter and in extreme cases some unfortunate people even find themselves spending frequent and extended periods in the bathroom.
The problem is the same whether we are faced with an intimate after-dinner talk, a wedding speech or a lecture to a few hundred business or academic colleagues: nerves. The novelist Mark Twain, author of! Tom Sawyer “stated that.” There are two types of public speakers: those that are nervous and those that are liars."
Controlling your nerves can mean the difference between sink or swim in the cut throat world we live in. A good public presentation can have a huge impact on one's professional standing and consequently, training courses in this art have proliferated to the extent that they can now be found throughout the country;
These courses promise to convert the timid into the charismatic, the mouse into the maestro. The basic understanding is that public speaking can be learned through practice. We must always aim high, the theory goes, and not expect any pity from an audience., the worst thing you can do is provoke their sympathy.
There are clear "Dos and Don'ts" in this sphere~ one of the most basic is "know your stuff". If you know your material well then you can choose your words at the point of delivery. If you combine detailed research and confident delivery then the battle is half-won.
Communications psychologists can help by providing some hints and tips. Lenny Laskowski, the US author of Ten Days to More Confident Public Speaking says that fear of public speaking regularly tops the charts of people's worst fears but that there are easy ways to improve one's performance.
Something as simple as a smile can be the ultimate ice-breaker and gets you off to a good start. First impressions count, this might be a cliche but it is true nonetheless--your audience will judge you in the first 30 seconds. Be punctual.., turning up late is a death knell for your presentation. Dress appropriately--money goes to money: if you look the part, people will be more inclined to trust you and your product.
Dress smartly and avoid novelty items such as loud ties which simply distract your audience.
Test the equipment: nothing is worse than a presentation reliant on technology when the power goes off and you are left with nothing but your own lungs. You need to know who to call if things go wrong. Also, u- sing IT technology may just be a hindrance to the delivery of your message.
You should also relax. Breathe slowly and regularly, hold it for 5 or 6 seconds then exhale. Practice relaxing tense facial muscles such as those around the eyes and mouth. Above all, never, ever apologize for being nervous, it's the sign of a real amateur.
Structure what you do. have the best material at the beginning and end and sandwich the rest in the middle. You need to keep it interesting and not just tail off to the end. Get rid of the script, while it may keep you on track, staring into your notes will alienate and bore your audience, they'll be asking why you don't just mail it to them instead!
Lastly, your audience can quickly smell a fake. If you are one person at the bar and another at the podium, don't imagine your listeners won't notice. Don't try to be someone you are not.., be yourself. (619)
What is the author's attitude to high-tech equipment？
In English Civil War, also called the Puritan Revolution, a famous general _____ defeated
Those proponents say that the bill does not promote filial responsibility. It kicks in where filial responsibility fails. The law cannot legislate filial responsibility any more than it can legislate love. All the law can do is to provide a safety net where this morality proves insufficient. Singapore needs this bill not to replace morality, but to provide incentives to shore it up.
Like many other developed nations, Singapore faces the problems of an increasing proportion of people over 60 years of age. Demography is inexorable. In 1980, 7.2% of the population was in this bracket. By the end of the 20th century that figure grew to 11%. By 2030, the proportion is projected to be 26~. The problem is not old age per se. It is that the ratio of economically active people to economically inactive people will decline.
But no amount of government exhortation or paternalism will completely eliminate the problem of old people who have insufficient means to make ends meet. Some people will fall through the holes in any safety net.
Traditionally, a person's insurance against poverty in his old age was his family, life is not a revolutionary concept. Nor is it uniquely Asian. Care and support for one's parents is a universal value shared by all civilized societies.
The problem in Singapore is that the moral obligation to look after one's parents is unenforceable. A father can be compelled by law to maintain his children. A husband can be forced to support his wife. But, until now, a son or daughter had no legal obligation to support his or her parents.
In 1980, an Advisory Council was set up to look into the problems of the aged. Its report stated with a tinge of complacency that 95% of those who did not have their own income were receiving cash contributions from relations, But what about the 5% who aren't getting relatives' support？ They have several options: (a) get a job and work until they die; (b) apply for public assistance (you have to be destitute to apply). or (c) starve quietly. None of these options is socially acceptable. And what if this 5% figure grows, as it is likely to do, as society ages？
The Maintenance of Parents Bill was put forth to encourage the traditional virtues that have so far kept Asian nations from some of the breakdowns encountered in other affluent societies. This legislation will allow a person to apply to the court for maintenance from any or all of his children. The court would have the discretion to refuse to make an order if it is unjust.
Those who deride the proposal for opening up the courts to family lawsuits miss the point. Only in extreme cases would any parent take his child to court. If it does indeed become law, the bill's effect would be far more subtle.
First, it will reaffirm the notion that it is each individual's--not society's--responsibility to look after his parents. Singapore is still conservative enough that most people will not object to this idea. It reinforces the traditional values and it doesn't hurt a society now and then to remind itself of its core values.
Second, and more important, it will make those who are inclined to shirk, their responsibilities think twice. Until now, if a person asked family eiders, clergymen or the Ministry of Community Development to help get financial support from his children, the most they could do was to mediate. But mediators h
According to the news, what did private companies do after they built new roads？
微信支付 
支付宝支付