问答题Practice 1 If chief executives of leading U. S. agri-biotech companies have been suffering from heartburn lately, it isn’t because of anything they’ve been eating. Rather, it’s the unsettling knowledge that long-simmering European anxieties over genetically modified (g. m.) crops, like ocean-hopping viruses, are spreading across the world. Unlike Britons, whose concerns about what they eat have been on the rise ever since “mad cow disease” (even though it had nothing to do with genetic engineering), Americans have seemed indifferent to g.m. foods. If foodmakers can no longer count on the public’s unquestioning acceptance of their products, it’s not just because of activist theatrics and shrill agitprop. With billions of dollars at risk, the biotech industry has begun to fight back, forming corporate alliances and launching a major p. r. effort that includes lobbying, new research efforts to still public fears and TV, radio and newspaper ads. So far, the regulators have approved dozens of genetically modified plants for human consumption. But if public pressure grows, it may be forced to go slower in the future. One possibility: the FDA could begin applying to g.m. foods the powers it already has to regulate food additives. By overreacting to fears fanned by well-fed consumers in the industrialized world, food producers might uproot an industry that could someday provide billions of people in the rest of the world with crops they desperately need.
问答题
Practice 1 If chief executives of leading U. S. agri-biotech companies have been suffering from heartburn lately, it isn’t because of anything they’ve been eating. Rather, it’s the unsettling knowledge that long-simmering European anxieties over genetically modified (g. m.) crops, like ocean-hopping viruses, are spreading across the world. Unlike Britons, whose concerns about what they eat have been on the rise ever since “mad cow disease” (even though it had nothing to do with genetic engineering), Americans have seemed indifferent to g.m. foods. If foodmakers can no longer count on the public’s unquestioning acceptance of their products, it’s not just because of activist theatrics and shrill agitprop. With billions of dollars at risk, the biotech industry has begun to fight back, forming corporate alliances and launching a major p. r. effort that includes lobbying, new research efforts to still public fears and TV, radio and newspaper ads. So far, the regulators have approved dozens of genetically modified plants for human consumption. But if public pressure grows, it may be forced to go slower in the future. One possibility: the FDA could begin applying to g.m. foods the powers it already has to regulate food additives. By overreacting to fears fanned by well-fed consumers in the industrialized world, food producers might uproot an industry that could someday provide billions of people in the rest of the world with crops they desperately need.
参考解析
解析：
暂无解析
相关考题：
― Where have you been lately? ― _________________. A.I’ve been to Shanghai on businessB.I’ve a lot of work to doC.Everything is fineD.Yes, I haven’t seen you either
It’s the first time that he has been to Australia, ?A. isn’t he B. hasn’t he C. isn’t it D. hasn’t it
I have to see the doctor because I a lot lately. ( )A. have been coughingB. had coughedC. coughedD. cough
----we’ve spent too much money recently.----well, it isn’t surprising. Our friends and relatives______around all the timeA. are comingB. had comeC. were comingD. have been coming
We can obviously notice that over a period of no practice what has been learned tends to be forgotten from______.
Tom：Yeah，I haven’t been home a lot lately．And I've had a lot of word and social engagements．Oh，Philip， 3 to London?
It’S the first time that he has been to Australia，____________?A．isn，t heB．hasn’t heC．isn’t itD．hasn’t it
Teenagers do not want their parents to approve of what they do because _______.A. they don’t like their parents’ way of lifeB. they are not likely to win over the adultsC. they have already been accepted into the adult worldD. they don’t want to be isolated from people of their own age
It’s the first time that he has been to Austrulia, ? A isn’t he B hasn’t he C isn’t it D hasn’t it
China’s markets have been strengthened by Strong domestic consumption and it also stimulated both multinationals and domestic companies to shift the emphasis of their operations from 'Made in China' to 'Made for China'.()此题为判断题(对，错)。
– David, you've been losing your temper over nothing lately.– ( ).A. I haven’t been getting much sleep eitherB. You’d better not push yourself too hard, or you’ll get sickC. I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have blown up like thatD. You’d better do exercises regularly
Mother's Day is thought to __________in the 19lOs, isn't it?A．first markB．be first markedC．have first markedD．have first been marked
下列教学片段选自某高中课堂实录，阅读后回答问题。T: Today we are going to talk about "travelling". Mike, have you ever traveledM: Yes, I have ever been to Beijing.T: When did you go thereM: Last summer.T: How did you go thereM: We went there by bus.T: Why did you go there by busM: Because it isn′t too far away from here and it′ s very convenient to go there by bus.T: Good. How about you Li Ming, have you ever travelledL: Yes, I have been to Hainan last winter vacation.T: How did you go thereL: I went there by plane.T: WhyL: Because it′s too far from here and we can save lots of time by going there by plane.Ask more students like this.根据上面所给信息，回答下面三个问题：(1)该片段反映了教学中哪个环节(2)分析该教学环节的目的。(3)从教学有效性角度评析这个片段。
"The lecturer was a tall thin man with white hair.""Then it（ ）Dr.Firld because he is short and fat.It Dr.Jones;he is thin."A.can’t be...must beB.couldn’t have been...might have beenC.must be...can't beD.can't have been...must have been
Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?Boards today value most executives_____A.communication skillsB.professional competenceC.moral rntegrityD.loyalty to the company
Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?We can infer from Paragraphs 4 and 5 that——A.many executives behaved badly because of their eagerness to protect brand reputationB.only a small percentage of the stories about executives have been proved trueC.a firm may suffer heavy losses due to an insensitive remark from its executivesD.social media is encouraging misconducts among chief executives with its great power
Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?The report from PwC reveals——A.decreased tolerance to incompetent executivesB.increased immoral behaviors among executivesC.improvement in executives'job performanceD.increased requirements on executives'accountability
Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?The phrase"slapped on the wrist"（Line 2,Para.1）is closest in meaning to_____A.given an easy penaltyB.forced to resignC.despised by the publicD.arrested by the police
Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?The author's attitude towards James Gunn can be described as——A.criticalB.sympatheticC.contemptuousD.appreciative
—I‘ve been told to pay the rent．—But it‘s already been paiD．It______by someone else．A.must beB.may beC.must be paidD.must have been paid
问答题Practice 7 Average household debt in the United States is currently 130 percent of average household income. The U. S. household savings rate is close to zero. Consumer confidence has plummeted with the value of 401(k) plans and retirement nest eggs. Car sales are at a fifteen-year low. And credit card defaults look like the next shoe to drop as cash-strapped Americans have run up credit card debt to postpone the day of reckoning. Too many Americans have been expressing the Dream through the acquisition of stuff. Americans need a refresher course on the American dream. The Constitution speaks of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not an automatic chicken in every pot. The American Dream embraced by immigrants over the past two centuries has been the opportunity to set one’s own goals and pursue them honestly to the limits of one’s ambition and ability. Too many Americans have been expressing the Dream through the acquisition of stuff. Others see the Dream as raising a family in a land that delivers Franklin Roosevelt’s four freedoms. Still others dream of their children accessing the highest possible level of education, living healthy lives, being good citizens in their communities.
单选题David, you've been losing your temper over nothing lately.（）AI haven‘t been getting much sleep either.BYou‘d better not push yourself too hard, or you‘ll get sick.CI‘m sorry. I shouldn‘t have blown up like that.DYou‘d better do exercises regularly.
单选题If my plan isn't（）of by the committee, all my work will have been wasted.AapprovedBconsentedCagreedDadmitted
单选题He has been（）from the swimming race because he did not win any of the practice races.AreducedBdeletedCeliminatedDdiminished
问答题Practice 1 The catchphrase of the hour is that America is living beyond its means. The expression is used so much by politicians, economists and editorial writers that it is depreciating faster than the dollar. But there's no way around it. It tells the story. The Data Resources numbers show Americans increase their spending this year almost three times as fast as their after-tax income. What else can we explain it? What is more, as a nation, the U.S. has been doing the same thing throughout the 1990s. For years the country has been consuming more than it produces, making up the difference by borrowing abroad. It can't go on. The stock market's tumble, which has caused a loss of $1 trillion in paper wealth, is but the first step in a process that must sober the nation. At the same time, in the next few years the U. S. will have to throw its amazing dream machine into reverse and start paying its debts. Inevitably, this will mean a lowering in the U.S. standard of living as Americans are forced to produce more than they consume to service a soaring foreign debt. Per capital income may keep rising but more slowly than in the past. The trade account will go slowly towards balance or even surplus in the mid-1990s. But in the meantime, Americans will receive less for their exports because the dollar will fall considerably before U. S. exports are competitive. And pressures to reduce the federal deficit will tighten the lid on defense spending.
问答题Ironically, the eighteenth constitutional amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol may have been responsible to the A B Crise of organized crime in the 1920’s. No error D E