单项选择题

根据下列内容，回答191-195题。
Building a house costs quite a lot of money. Suppose you plan to build a house. Your first stepwill be to find a right piece of land. Your choice will depend on many different things. You willprobably try to find a sunny place, with pleasant surroundings near shops and bus stops, not toofar from your friends and the place where you work.
Next you will find a good builder, and together with the builder you will work out a plan. Thebuilder will draw the plan. It will show the number of rooms, their position and size, and otherparts, which must be noticed, such as windows, doors, and electric outlets. The builder will workout how much money is needed to build your house. He will work out the cost of the wood, bricks,the glass, and everything else that must be used in building the house. Later on, when he starts tobuild, this estimate must be corrected and revised. His estimate is based on existing prices, butprices of such things may change, and many other things may happen between the time when hemakes the estimate and the time when he builds the house.
When the builder gives his estimate, you may wish to change your plan.(You may also wish tochange your builder, if his estimate is too high! ) You may find that the house you wanted at firstcosts too much, or that you can spend a little more and add something to your plan. The builder'sestimate depends on the plan, but the final plan depends on the builder's estimate.
The best title of this passage is

A.BuildingaHouseCostsMuchMoney
B.EstimateIsImportant
C.PlanningaHouse
D.DependontheBuilder

<上一题目录下一题>

热门试题

单项选择题

An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted — the trouble is, no one knows which half. In the internet age, at least in theory, this fraction can be much reduced.By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.In the past couple of weeks a quarrel has illustrated the value to advertisers of such fine- grained information: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?In December 2010 America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed adding a “do not track” (DNT) option to internet browsers, so that users could tell advertisers that they did not want to be followed.Microsoft’s Internet Explorerand Apple’s Safari both offerDNT; Google’s Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industrywould get cracking on responding to DNT requests.On May 31st Microsoft set off the row. It said that Internet Explorer 10, the version due to appear with Windows 8, would have DNT as a default.Advertisers are horrified.Human nature being what it is, most people stick with default settings. Few switch DNT on now, but if tracking is off it will stay off. Bob Liodice, the chief executive of the Association of National Advertisers, says consumers will be worse off if the industry cannot collect information about their preferences. People will not get fewer ads, he says. “They’ll get less meaningful, less targeted ads.”It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond.Getting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so. Unable to tell whether someone really objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsoft’s default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.Also unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone.A.fter all, it has an ad business too, which it says will comply with DNT requests, though it is still working out how. If it is trying to upset Google, which relies almost wholly on advertising, it has chosen an indirect method: There is no guarantee that DNT by default will become the norm. DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for Windows 8 — though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably with Google’s on that count before. Brendon Lynch, Microsoft’s chief privacy officer, blogged: “We believe consumers should have more control.” Could it really be that simple?Bob Liodice holds that setting DNT as a default ______.

A.goesagainsthumannature
B.failstoaffecttheadindustry
C.willnotbenefitconsumers
D.maycutthenumberofjunkads

单项选择题

On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial.A.rizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justices — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power.” The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could.It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they ______.

A.oversteppedtheauthorityoffederalimmigrationlaw
B.disturbedthepowerbalancebetweendifferentstates
C.deprivedthefederalpoliceofConstitutionalpowers
D.contradictedboththefederalandstatepolicies