题目内容
Passage FourLetting it out may be bad for your emotional health. Many people assume that sharing feelings openly and often is a positive ideal that promotes mental health. But some social critics and psychologists now conclude that repressing one’s feelings may do more good than venting emotions."A small number of researchers are taking an empirical look at the general assumption that speaking out and declaring one’s feelings is better than holding them in," writes Christina Sommers, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.At Suffilk University, psychologist Jane Bybee classified high-school students on the basis of their self-awareness: "sensitizers" were extremely aware of their internal states, "repressors" focused little on themselves, and "intermediates" occupied the middle range. Bybee then collected Student evaluations of themselves and each other, along with teacher evaluations of the students. On the whole, the repressors were more socially and academically successful than their more "sensitized" classmates. Bybee speculated that repressed people, not emoters, may have a better balance of moods.In a study at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., researcher George Bonanno tested the assumption that, in order to recover mental health, people need to vent negative emotions by discussing their feelings openly. Bonanno and other researchers found that, among adolescent girls who had suffered sexual abuse, those who "showed emotional avoidance" were healthier than those who more openly expressed grief or anger.One study of Holocaust survivors supports Bonanno in suggesting that verbalizing strong emotions may not improve a person’s mental health. Researchers found that Holocaust survivors who were encouraged to talk about their experiences in the war fared worse than repressors. They concluded that repression was not pathological response to Holocaust experience and that "talking through" the atrocities failed to being closure to the survivors.Sommers note that in many societies it has been considered normal to repress private feelings, and that "in most cultures stoicism and reticence are valued, while the free expression of emotions is deemed a personal shortcoming." She is concerned that pushing someone to be "sensitizers" may also create a preoccupation with self that excludes outside interests. Sommers is particularly critical of educational approaches that attempt to encourage self-discovery and self-esteem through excessive "openness".Healthy stoicism should not be confused with the emotional numbness that may be brought on by post-traumatic stress disorder. Most people experiencing such traumas as war, assault, or natural disaster can benefit from immediate counseling, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. The word "vent" (Paragraph 1) most probably means （）.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Passage ThreeIt is hard to predict how science is going to turn out, and if it is really good science it is impossible to predict. If the things to be found are actually new, they are by definition unknown in advance. You cannot make choices in this matter. You either have science or you don’t, and if you have it you are obliged to accept the surprising and disturbing pieces of information, along with the neat and promptly useful bits.The only solid piece of scientific truth about which I feel totally confident is that we are profoundly ignorant about nature. I regard this as the major discovery of the past hundred years of biology. It is, in its way, an illuminating piece of news. It would have amazed the brightest minds of the 18th century Enlightenment to be told by any of us how little we know and how bewildering seems the way ahead. It is this sudden confrontation with the depth and scope of ignorance that represents the most significant contribution of the 20th century science to the human intellect. In earlier times, we either pretended to understand how things worked or ignored the problem, or simply made up stories to fill the gaps. Now that we have begun exploring in earnest, we are getting glimpses of how huge the questions are, and how far they are from being answered. Because of this, we are depressed. It is not so bad being ignorant if you are totally ignorant; the hard thing is knowing in some detail the reality of ignorance, the worst spots and here and there the not-so-bad spots, but no true light at the end of the tunnel nor even any tunnels that can yet be trusted.But we are making a beginning, and there ought to be some satisfaction. There are probably no questions we can think up that can’t be answered, sooner or later, including even the matter of consciousness; to be sure, there may well be questions we can’t think up, ever, and therefore limits to the reach of human intellect, but that is another matter. Within our limits, we should be able to work our way through to all our answers, if we keep at it long enough, and pay attention. Which of the following is NOT mentioned about scientists in earlier times ？（）
Passage OneAnyone who doubts that global financial markets control national economies need only look at the crisis facing the "tigers" of the Far East. Last year, the value of their currencies dropped rapidly, after investors decided that their economic policies were not strong enough; now the region is suffering slower growth, lower living standards and rising unemployment.The situation in Asia shows how power has shifted from individual governments to the markets. In theory, governments are free to set their own economic policies; in practice, they must conform to a global economic model or risk being penalized by the markets.Adjusting to this new "economic order" is proving difficult. In the developed world, and in particular the European Union, globalization is facing widespread public resistance. Critics complain that, without the protection of trade barriers, jobs are being lost to workers in poorer countries, and wages for employees in rich countries are falling. Opponents in the European Union point to the effects that globalization has had in the U.S. and Britain. In those countries, wages are stagnant—except for a few privileged--and taxes and welfare benefits have been reduced to help companies compete with industries in the developing world.Those in favor of globalization accuse their critics of being shortsighted protectionists. They claim that a more integrated global economy will ultimately benefit everyone because it will enable countries to specialize in those areas where they perform best. Developing countries, with their higher populations and lower wages, will concentrate on labor-intensive industries. The richer countries, on the other hand, will diversify into high-tech industries, where high productivity and specialist knowledge are paramount. The effect of this will be to improve productivity in all countries, leading to higher living standards. The free movement of capital will also help poorer countries develop so that they can play a full and active role in the world economy.But how close are we to a truly global economy For those in favor of globalization, probably too close. But in terms of real economic integration, there are still many problems to be solved. A global economy would mean complete freedom of movement of goods and services, capital, and labor. Yet, even ignoring the tariffs and other restrictions still in place, cross-border trade remains tiny as compared with the volume of goods and services traded within countries; foreign investment is also extremely small, amounting to little more than five percent of the developed world’s domestic investments.But what is really holding globalization back is the lack of labor mobility. Labor markets remain overwhelmingly national~ even in areas like the European Union, where citizens can live and work in any EU country. The main reasons for this are language and cultural barriers; the lack of internationally recognized qualifications; and, in some cases, strict immigration controls. The word "paramount" (Paragraph 4) may be replaced by （）.
我方某公司出口某商品1000箱，对外报价为每箱20美元，FOB C3%广州，外商要求将价格改报为每箱CIF C5%汉堡。已知运费为每箱1美元，保险费为FOB价的0.8%，请问： (1)要维持出口销售外汇净收入不变，CIF C5%应改报为多少 (2)已知进货成本为160元人民币/箱，每箱的商品流通费为进货成本的3%，出口退税率为17%，该商品的出口销售盈亏率及换汇成本是多少(USD 100=CNY80923)
Passage OneAnyone who doubts that global financial markets control national economies need only look at the crisis facing the "tigers" of the Far East. Last year, the value of their currencies dropped rapidly, after investors decided that their economic policies were not strong enough; now the region is suffering slower growth, lower living standards and rising unemployment.The situation in Asia shows how power has shifted from individual governments to the markets. In theory, governments are free to set their own economic policies; in practice, they must conform to a global economic model or risk being penalized by the markets.Adjusting to this new "economic order" is proving difficult. In the developed world, and in particular the European Union, globalization is facing widespread public resistance. Critics complain that, without the protection of trade barriers, jobs are being lost to workers in poorer countries, and wages for employees in rich countries are falling. Opponents in the European Union point to the effects that globalization has had in the U.S. and Britain. In those countries, wages are stagnant—except for a few privileged--and taxes and welfare benefits have been reduced to help companies compete with industries in the developing world.Those in favor of globalization accuse their critics of being shortsighted protectionists. They claim that a more integrated global economy will ultimately benefit everyone because it will enable countries to specialize in those areas where they perform best. Developing countries, with their higher populations and lower wages, will concentrate on labor-intensive industries. The richer countries, on the other hand, will diversify into high-tech industries, where high productivity and specialist knowledge are paramount. The effect of this will be to improve productivity in all countries, leading to higher living standards. The free movement of capital will also help poorer countries develop so that they can play a full and active role in the world economy.But how close are we to a truly global economy For those in favor of globalization, probably too close. But in terms of real economic integration, there are still many problems to be solved. A global economy would mean complete freedom of movement of goods and services, capital, and labor. Yet, even ignoring the tariffs and other restrictions still in place, cross-border trade remains tiny as compared with the volume of goods and services traded within countries; foreign investment is also extremely small, amounting to little more than five percent of the developed world’s domestic investments.But what is really holding globalization back is the lack of labor mobility. Labor markets remain overwhelmingly national~ even in areas like the European Union, where citizens can live and work in any EU country. The main reasons for this are language and cultural barriers; the lack of internationally recognized qualifications; and, in some cases, strict immigration controls. The main opposition to globalization is that （）.
微信支付 
支付宝支付