D．prevalent
40．What is the author’s attitude towards working irregular hours？
A．Positive.
B．Negative.
C．Indifferent.
D．Objective.
Passage Two
Most human beings actual1y decide before they think. When any human being----executive, specialized expert, or person in the street----encounters a complex issue and forms an opinion, often within a matter of seconds, how thoroughly has he or she explored the implications of the various courses of action? Answer: not very thoroughly. Very few people, no matter how inte1ligent or experienced, can take inventory of the many branching possibilities, possible outcomes, side effects, and undesired consequences of a policy or a course of action in a matter of seconds. Yet, those who pride themse1ves on being decisive often try to do just that. And once their brains lock onto an opinion, most of their thinking thereafter consists of finding support for it.
A very serious side effect of argumentative decision making can be a lack of support for the chosen course of action on the pat of the “losing” faction. When one faction wins the meeting and the others see themselves as losing, the battle often doesn’t end when the meeting ends. Anger, resentment, and jealousy may lead them to sabotage the 4ecision later, or to reopen the debate at later meetings.
There is a better. As philosopher Aldous Huxley said, “It isn’t who is right, but what is right, that counts.”
The structured-inquiry method offers a better alternative to argumentative decision making by debate. With the help of the Internet and wireless computer technology the gap between experts and executives is now being dramatically closed. By actually putting the brakes on the thinking process, slowing it down, and organizing the flow of logic, it’s possible to create a level of clarity that sheer argumentation can never match.
The structured-inquiry process introduces a level of conceptual clarity by organizing the contributions of the experts, then brings the experts and the decision makers closer together. Although it isn’t possible or necessary for a president or prime minister to listen in on every intelligence analysis meeting, it’s possible to organize the experts’ information to give the decision maker much greater insight as to its meaning. This process may somewhat resemble a marketing focus group; it’s a simple, remarkably clever way to bring decision makers closer to the source of the expert information and opinions on which they must base their decisions.
4l．From the first paragraph we can learn that .
A．executive, specialized expert, are no more clever than person in the street
B．very few people dec1de before they think
C．those who pride themselves on being decisive often fail to do so
D．people tend to consider carefully before making decisions
42．Judging from the context, what does the word “them” (line 4, paragraph 2) refer to?/
A．Decision makers.
B．The “losing” faction.
C．Anger, resentment, and jealousy.
D．Other people.
43．Aldous Huxley’s remark (Paragraph 3) implies that .
A．there is a subtle difference between right and wrong
B．we cannot tell who is right and what is wrong
C．what is right is more important than who is right
D．what is right accounts for the question who is right
44．According to the author, the function of the structured-inquiry method is .
A．to make decision by debate
B．to apply the Internet and wireless computer technology.
C．to brake on the thinking process, slowing it down
D．to create a level of conceptual clarity
45．The structured-inquiry process can be useful for .
A．decision makers
B．intelligence analysis meeting
C．the experts’ information
D．marketing focus groups
Passage Three
Sport is heading for an indissoluble marriage with television and the passive spectator will enjoy a private paradise. All of this will be in the future of sport. The spectator (the television audience) will be the priority and professional clubs will have to readjust their structures to adapt to the new reality: sport as a business.
The new technologies will mean that spectators will no longer have to wait for broadcasts
by the conventional channels. They will be the ones who decide what to see. And they will have to pay for it. In the United States the system of the future has already started: pay-as-you-view. Everything will be offered by television and the spectator will only have to choose. The review Sports Illustrated recently published a full profile of the life of the supporter at home in the middle of the next century. It explained that the consumers would be able to select their view of the match on a gigantic, flat screen occupying the whole of one wall, with images of a clarity which cannot be foreseen at present; they could watch from the trainer’s stands just behind the batter in a game of baseball or from the helmet of the star player in an American football game. And at their disposal will be the sane option s the producer of the recorded programmer has to select replays, to choose which camera to me and to decide on the sound whether to hear the public, the players, the trainer and so on.
Many sports executives, largely too old and too conservative to feel at home with the new technologies will believe that sport must control the expansion of television coverage in order to survive and ensure that spectators attend matches. They do not even accept the evidence which contradicts their view while there is more basketball than ever on television, for example, it is also certain that basketball is more popular than ever.
It is also the argument of these sports executives that television harming the modest teams. This is true, but the future of those team is also modest. They have reached their ceiling . It is the law of the market. The great events continually attract larger audience.
The world I being constructed on new technologies so that people can make the utmost use of their time and , in their home have access to the greatest possible range of recreational activities. Sport will have to adapt itself to the new world.
The most visionary executives go further. That philosophy is: rather than see television take over sport why not have sports taken over television?
46．What does the writer mean by use of the phrase “an indissoluble marriage” in the first paragraph?/
A．sport is combined with television.
B．sport controls television.
C．television dictates sports.
D．Sport and television will go their own ways
47．What does “they” in line 2 paragraph 2 stand for?
A．Broadcasts.
B．Channels.
C．Spectators.
D．Technologies.
48．How do many sports executives feel with the new technologies?
A．they are too old to do anything.
B．They feel ill at ease.
C．They feel completely at home.
D．Technologies can go hand in hand with sports.
49．What is going to be discussed in the following paragraphs?
A．the philosophy of visionary executives.
B．The process of television taking over sport.
C．Television coverage expansion.
D．An example to show how sport has taken over television.
50．What might be the appropriate title of this passage?
A．the arguments of sports executives.
B．The philosophy of visionary executives.
C．Sports and television in the 21st century.
D．Sports: a business.
Passage Four
Convenience food helps companies by creating growth, but what is its effect on people? For people who think cooking was the foundation of civilization ,the microwave is the last enemy. The communion of eating together
Is easily broken by a device that liberates households citizens from waiting for mealtimes. The first great revolution in the history of food is in danger of being undone. The companionship of the campfire, cooking pot and common table, which have helped to bond humans in collaborative living for at least 150000 years could be destroyed.
Meals have certainly sated from the rise of convenience food. The only meals regularly taken together in Britain these days are at the weekend, among rich families struggling to retain something of the old symbol of togetherness. Indeed, the day’s first meal has all but disappeared. In the 20th century the leisure British breakfast was undermined by the corn flake; in the 21st breakfast is vanishing altogether a victim of the quick cup of coffee in Starbucks and the cereal bar.
Convenience food has also made people forget how to cook one of the apparent paradoxes of modern food is that while the amount of time spent cooking meals has fallen from 60 minutes a day in 1980 to 13M a day in 2002, the number of cooks and television programmer on cooking has multiplied. But perhaps this isn’t a paradox. Maybe it is became people can’t cook anymore, so they need to be told how to do it, or maybe it is because people buy books about hobbies---golf, yachting ---not about chores. Cooking has ceased to be a chore and has become a hobby.
相关推荐：
loading