未分类题

听力原文：M: Which area, of all the ones that you've visited, is your favorite?
W: Um... you know, different places for different things. (19)The South Seas are a pretty divine sort of place to be, I mean Fiji, the islands east of therE.(19)I'm very fond of South East Asia because it's got such wonderful past. It's got so many temples buried in jungles and so on. (19)And the Galapagos Islands with fantastic birds and reptiles.
M: I wonder what makes you come back to England?
W: Well, I think, change is like happiness. No change produces no happiness in many ways. It seems to me that happiness has something to do with changing. (20)The happiest time's when you're always just about to do something, and when you've just moved from this to that. Because actually life is always changing, people around you are changing, you're getting older, emotional things change, and so on.
M: Before all this you were on the management side of the BBC, in fact, for eight years. Didn't you feel very frustrated because you really wanted to be a creative artist?
W: (21)I think, new things, new challenges, that's corny phrase for you, nonetheless, they are very important and if someone, if you care about making television programs, because of the technical characteristics of the network you're running, you will be the first color network in Europe, so we want you to think how perhaps color should be useD.Well, you again have to be a very funny television producer to say 'I'm not interesteD.'
(20)
A.Fiji, the South Seas and the Pacific Ocean.
B.South East Asia, the South Seas and West AfricA.
C.The South Seas, South East Asia and the Galapagos Islands.
D.South East Asia, West Africa and the South Seas.

A...
B.
M:
C.
M:
D.'
(20)
A.Fiji,
E.
B.South
F.
C.The
G.
D.South

【参考答案】

C
解析：细节辨认题。对话一开始，主持人就提问，你最喜欢参观过的哪个地方。受访者分别介绍了三个地方The So......

(↓↓↓ 点击下方‘点击查看答案’看完整答案 ↓↓↓)

<上一题目录下一题>

热门试题

未分类题

Economizing of the PoorComprehending Economizing of the PoorWalking down the aisles of a supermarket, low-income shoppers must consider a number of factors including quantity, price, quality and nutritional differences when selecting food products. Food-purchase decisions by the poor often entail balances among taste, preference and quality factors--either real or perceived--to meet spending constraints. Within broad product categories such as cereal, cheese, meat and poultry, and fruits and vegetables, shoppers can choose among many substitutable products. Low-income shoppers can extend their food dollars in a number of ways. They may shop in discount food stores; they may purchase and consume less food than higher-income shoppers; they may purchase low-priced (and possibly lower quality) food products; or they may rely on some combination of all threE.A better understanding of how the poor economize in food spending addresses important policy questions raised by researchers, nutrition educators, and food-assistance program managers.The Correlation between the Location and PriceWhether the poor face significantly different food prices due to where they shop for food remains an unresolved empirical question. Extensive research over the years has tried to answer the question--Do the poor pay less for food? The Economic Research Service (ERS) in 1997 received the results of studies comparing price differences in grocery stores across different income levels and combined these with current census data on the distribution of low-income households by urbanization typE.The ERS study concluded that, in general, the poor face higher prices due to their greater representation in urban and rural areas (as opposed to suburban areas), where food prices tend to be higher.Higher Prices but Less SpendingBased on results from household surveys, ERS also found that despite facing higher prices, low-income shoppers spend less than higher-income shoppers for food purchased in food stores. Due to their level of aggregation and lack of in-store sales and promotion information, such surveys shed little light on the economizing practices of households. To learn more about how low-income shoppers spend less for food despite facing higher prices, we obtained food-store purchase data that incorporate per-capita quantity and expenditure-measure equivalents (household measures adjusted for household size) across income levels.The Main Economizing PracticesThe resulting comparisons describe how individuals with different levels of income vary in their food-spending patterns. By using actual transaction data, detailed information about the product purchased (for example, price, product description, package size, and brand name) as well as the condition of purchase (promotion, coupon, or sale item) was obtaineD.From these, the average unit cost (per ounce, per pound) for each item was calculateD.Low-income shoppers may use four primary economizing practices to reduce their food spending. First, they may purchase a greater proportion of discounted products. Second, they may purchase more private-label products (generic or store brand) versus brand products than higher-income shoppers buy. Third, they may take advantage of volume discounts by purchasing larger package sizes. Fourth, they may purchase a less-expensive food product within a product class. Although quality differences such as freshness, convenience and taste often contribute to prices differences, differences in nutritional quality are also evident.More Spending on Promotional ItemsThe use of promotions is measured by comparing the percentage of expenditures and quantities of each product purchased on promotion (manufacurers' coupons, store coupons, store sales, and other promotions). For random-weight cheese, fruit, vegetables and meat in 1998, low-income households (less than $ 25,000 per yeA.YB.NC.NG

A.The
B.
Higher
C.
The
D.
More
E.Y
B.N

未分类题

1 But if language habits do not represent classes, a social stratification into something as bygone as 'aristocracy' and 'commons', they do still of course serve to identify social groups. This is something that seems fundamental in the use of languagE.As we see in relation to political and national movements, language is used as a badge or a barrier depending on which way we look at it. The new boy at school feels out of it at first because he does not know the right words for things, and awe-inspiring pundits of six or seven look down on him for not being aware that racksy means 'dilapidated', or hairy 'out first ball'. The miner takes a certain pride in being 'one up' on the visitor or novice who calls the cage a 'lift'or who thinks that men working in a warm seam are in their 'underpants' when anyone ought to know that the garments are called hoggers. The 'insider'is seldom displeased that his language distinguishes him from the 'outsider'.2 Quite apart from specialized terms of this kind in groups, trades and professions, there are all kinds of standards of correctness at which most of us feel more or less obliged to aim, because we know that certain kinds of English invite irritation or downright condemnation. On the other hand, we know that other kinds convey some kind of prestige and bear a welcome cachet.3 In relation to the social aspects of language, it may well be suggested that English speakers fall into three categories: the assured, the anxious and the indifferent. At one's end of this scale, we have the people who have 'position' and 'status', and who therefore do not feel they need worry much about their use of English. Their education and occupation make them confident of speaking an unimpeachable form. of English. no fear of being criticized or corrected is likely to cross their minds, and this gives their speech that characteristically unselfconscious and easy flow which is often envieD.4 At the other end of the scale, we have an equally imperturbable band, speaking with a similar degree of careless ease, because even if they are aware that their English is condemned by others, they are supremely indifferent to the fact. The Mrs. Mops of this world have active and efficient tongues in their heads, and if we happened not to like their ways of saying things, well, we 'can lump it'. That is their attitudE.Curiously enough, writers are inclined to represent the speech of both these extreme parties with -in' for lng. On the one hanD.'We're goin' huntin', my dear sir;'on the other, 'We're goin' racin', matE.'5 In between, according to this view we have a far less fortunate group, the anxious. These actively try to suppress what they believe to be bad English and assiduously cultivate what they hope to be good English. They live their lives in some degree of nervousness over their grammar, their pronunciation, and their choice of words, sensitive, and fearful of betraying themselves. Keeping up with the Joneses is measured not only in houses, furniture, refrigerators, cars, and clothes, but also in speech.6 And the misfortune of the 'anxious' does not end with their inner anxiety. Their lot is also the open or veiled contempt of the 'assured' on one side of them and of the 'indifferent' on the other.7 It is all too easy to raise an unworthy laugh at the anxious. The people thus uncomfortably stilted on linguistic highheels so often form. part of what is, in many ways, the most admirable section of any society, the ambitious, tense, inner-driven people, who are bent on 'going places and doing things'. The greater the pity, then, if a disproportionate amount of their energy goes into what Mr. Sharpless called 'this shabby obsession' with variant forms of English -- especially if the net result is (as so often) merely to sound affected and ridiculous. 'Here', according to Bacon, 'is the first disteA.critical.B.anxious.C.self-conscious.D.nonchalant.

A.2
B.
3
C.
4
D.'
5
E.
6
F.
7
G.critical.
B.anxious.
C.self-conscious.