CHonesty comes in many forms. First there’s self-honesty. Is what people see the real article or do you appear through smoke and mirrors? I find that if I try to be something I’m not , I feel unsure of myself and take out a part from my PBA(personal bank account ).I love how singer Judy Garland put it, “Always be a first-class version(版本) of yourself , instead of a second-class version of somebody else .”Then there’s honesty in our actions. Are you honest at school, with your parents , and with your boss ? If you’ve ever been dishonest, I think we all have, try being honest, and notice how whole it makes you feel. Remember, you can’t do wrong and feel right. This story by Jeff is a good example of that:In my second year of study, there were three kids in my math class who didn’t do well. I was really good at it. I would charge them three dollars for each test that I helped them pass. I’d write on a little piece of paper all the right answers, and hand them off.At first I felt like I was making money, kind of a nice job. I wasn’t thinking about how it could hurt all of us. After a while I realized I shouldn’t do that anymore, because I wasn’t really helping them. They weren’t learning anything, and it would only get harder down the road. Cheating certainly wasn’t helping me.It takes courage to be honest when people all around you are getting away with cheating on tests, lying to their parents, and stealing at work. But , remember , every act of honesty is a deposit（储蓄）into your PBA and will build strength .49. The underlined part “appear through smoke and mirrors” in the first paragraph means “ ” .A. to be honestB. to be unrealC. to become clearD. to come from an imagined world
C
Honesty comes in many forms. First there’s self-honesty. Is what people see the real article or do you appear through smoke and mirrors? I find that if I try to be something I’m not , I feel unsure of myself and take out a part from my PBA(personal bank account ).I love how singer Judy Garland put it, “Always be a first-class version(版本) of yourself , instead of a second-class version of somebody else .”
Then there’s honesty in our actions. Are you honest at school, with your parents , and with your boss ? If you’ve ever been dishonest, I think we all have, try being honest, and notice how whole it makes you feel. Remember, you can’t do wrong and feel right. This story by Jeff is a good example of that:
In my second year of study, there were three kids in my math class who didn’t do well. I was really good at it. I would charge them three dollars for each test that I helped them pass. I’d write on a little piece of paper all the right answers, and hand them off.
At first I felt like I was making money, kind of a nice job. I wasn’t thinking about how it could hurt all of us. After a while I realized I shouldn’t do that anymore, because I wasn’t really helping them. They weren’t learning anything, and it would only get harder down the road. Cheating certainly wasn’t helping me.
It takes courage to be honest when people all around you are getting away with cheating on tests, lying to their parents, and stealing at work. But , remember , every act of honesty is a deposit（储蓄）into your PBA and will build strength .
49. The underlined part “appear through smoke and mirrors” in the first paragraph means “ ” .
A. to be honest
B. to be unreal
C. to become clear
D. to come from an imagined world
相关考题：
Idon’tknowifJack_________.Ifhe__________,callme,please.A.willcome;willcomesB.comes;comeC.comes;willcomeD.willcome;comes
There she ( )! We ( ) any longer. A、is coming/ don’t need to waitB、has come/ don't need waitC、comes/ needn’t waitD、comes/ needn’t to wait
He()to the party if he()invited. A、comes; isB、will come; will beC、comes; will beD、will come; is
1.importjava.util.*；2.classAddStuff｛3.publicstaticvoidmain（String[]args）｛4.TreeSet〈String〉s＝newTreeSet〈String〉（）；5.s.add（one）；6.s.add（two）；7.//insertcodehere8.for（Strings2：sorted）9.System.out.print（s2+）；10.｝11.｝和四个代码片段：s1.SortedSetsorted＝s.tailSet（s.first（））；s2.SortedSet〈String〉sorted＝s.tailSet（s.first（））；s3.SortedSetsorted＝（SortedSet）s.tailSet（s.first（））；s4.SortedSetsorted＝（SortedSet〈String〉）s.tailSet（s.first（））；分别插入到第7行，哪项可以编译？（）A.s1B.s2C.s2和s3D.s2和s4
Examine the following options, Multicasting supports applications that communicate.() A. many - to - oneB. one - to - oneC. one - to - manyD. many - to - many
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment,as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses,a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many,like the Fundamental Physics Prize,are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields,they say,and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What’s not to like?Quite a lot,according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class,as the old saying goes,and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels,The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock,others to draw people into science,or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before,there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences,launched this year,takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living,has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were,of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards,two things seem clear.First,most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second,it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere,It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research,after all—but it is the prize-givers’money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen asA.a symbol of the entrepreneurs’wealth.B.a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes.C.an example of bankers’investments.D.a handsome reward for researchers.
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment,as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses,a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many,like the Fundamental Physics Prize,are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields,they say,and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What’s not to like?Quite a lot,according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class,as the old saying goes,and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels,The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock,others to draw people into science,or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before,there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences,launched this year,takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living,has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were,of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards,two things seem clear.First,most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second,it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere,It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research,after all—but it is the prize-givers’money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.According to Paragraph 4,which of the following is true of the Nobels?A.Their endurance has done justice to them.B.Their legitimacy has long been in dispute.C.They are the most representative honor.D.History has never cast doubt on them.