题目内容
For centuries people have been fighting over whether governments should allow trade between countries. There have been, and probably always will be, (1) to the argument. Some people argue that just (2) is best for both the country and the world. Others argue that trade with other countries (3) for some people to make a good living. Both sides are at least (4) .International trade matters a lot. Its effects on (5) are enormous. Imagine a world in which your country (6) at all with other countries. Imagine what kind of job you would be (7) and what goods you could buy or not buy in such a world.For the United States, for example, start by imagining that it lived without its (8) a year in imported oil, and cut back on its (9) because the remaining domestic oil and other energy sources were (10) . Producers and consumers in other parts of the economy would (11) if they were suddenly stripped of foreign-made goods like CD players and clothing. On the (12) side, suppose that Boeing could sell airplanes, and farmers could sell their crops, (13) the United States, and that U. S. universities could admit only (14) . In each case there are people who gain and people who lose from (15) international trade. In any case, less or more international trade will have (16) on your career as well as your life.For years, American companies are often faced with the choice of buying (17) , which are expensive, and foreign-made goods, which are cheap. If the company buys American goods, it may (18) taxpayers by failing to keep prices low. But if it buys foreign goods, it may (19) the jobs of American workers. Recently, Congress has passed a law compelling American companies with government contracts to (20) domestic goods and services. 8（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Questions 11～15It’s estimated that every year 100,000 children aged 16 and under run away from home. The London Refuge, an unremarkable house on an unremarkable street, is the only place in Britain that will give them a bed. Last year it gave sanctuary to 238 children of whom the youngest was 11. What happened to the other 99,762 Nobody knows, although it’s a fair bet that some of them ended up on the streets, that some fell into inappropriate and dangerous company, that some didn’t survive. "The mere fact that they’re running away puts them at risk," says Lorna Simpson, the refuge’s deputy manager. "On the streets they’ 11 mix with other young people. They’ re so naive; they don’t understand that people who are nice to them will want payback. Our job is to make them safe. "Simpson, a former social worker, is a calm woman of great warmth. The refuge has six beds and has been open since 1993, often with the threat of closure hanging over it. The problem has nothing to do with the quality of its service and everything to do with funding. A week’s placement costs ￡2. 278 and three successive governments have argued that the annual running costs of ￡720. 000 should be locally funded. But because it is used by children from many parts of London, and beyond, local authorities are reluctant to contribute.The Government has now agreed to work on a strategy to support runaway children in England and Wales, which is rich after its withdrawal of funding from the refuge in December. Since then the NSPCC, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which runs the refuge in conjunction with St Christopher’s Fellowship, has financed it through a donation from an individual, but that money will last only until late next year. "Without this facility there’s nothing; children who run away are on the street," says Nasima Patel, the assistant director of the NSPCC. "One of the strengths of the refuge is that children who have left home can ring up directly and will get a bed and supportive staff without having to go through a process of assessment".The refuge accommodates six children plus staff. Many of the admissions are at night and children can stay up to 21 days in three months, although most stay for three to five days. They find it through social services, through ChildLine and through word of mouth."Children run away from everything you can think of," Simpson says. "Arguments with step-parents, sexual abuse, alcoholic parents, being left to bring up their younger siblings, neglected children who have been failed by social services, girls who have been trafficked. We get doctors’ and lawyers’ children who run away because they want more pocket money, or want to stay out later than their parents allow. They’ve been given everything, they get to 15 and no one thinks to pull the reins in. By that time it’s too late; they rebel. "Most of the children are from families known to social services, and for them the refuge’s ordered regimen is a welcome contrast to the chaos they know. Staff listen without judging and without encouraging dependency, trying to establish why the children have run away. The aim is to get them home or into the care of social services and, after discharge from the refuge, a family support worker is available. According to the passage, the London Refuge used to be funded by （）.
Questions 6～10It is Monday morning, and you are having trouble waking your teenagers. You are not alone. Indeed, each morning, few of the country’s 17 million high school students are awake enough to get much out of their first class, particularly if it starts before 8 am. Sure, many of them stayed up too late the night before, but not because they wanted to.Research shows that teenagers’ body clocks are set to as schedule that is different from that of younger children or adults. This prevents adolescents from dropping off until around 11 pm, when they produce the sleep-inducing hormone melatonin, and waking up much before 8 am when their bodies stop producing melatonin.The result is that the first class of the morning is often a waste, with as many as 28 percent of students falling asleep; according to a National Sleep foundation poll. Some are so sleepy they do not even show up, contributing to failure and dropout rates.Here is an idea: stop focusing on testing and instead support changing the hours of the school day, starting it later for teenagers and ending it later for all children. Indeed, no one does well when they are sleep-deprived, but insufficient sleep among children has been linked to obesity and to learning issues like attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. You would think this would spur educators to take action, and a few have.In 2002, high schools in Jessamine County in Kentucky pushed back the first bell to 8:40 am, from 7:30 am. Attendance immediately went up, as did scores on standardized tests, which have continued to rise each year. In Minneapolis and Edina, Minnesota, which instituted high school start times of 8:40 am and 8:30 am respectively in 1997, students’ grades rose slightly and lateness, behavioral problems and dropout rates decreases. Later is also safer. When high schools in Fayette County in Kentucky delayed their start times to 8:30 am, the number of teenagers involved in car crashes dropped, even as they rose in the state.So why has not every school board moved back that first bell Well, it seems that improving teenagers’ performance takes a back seat to more pressing concerns: the cost of additional bus service, the difficulty of adjusting after school activity schedules and the inconvenience to teachers and parents.But few of these problems actually come to pass, according to the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota. In Kentucky and Minnesota, simply flipping the starting times for the elementary and high schools meant no extra cost for buses.There are other reasons to start and end school at a later time. According to Paul Reville, a professor of education policy at Harvard and chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Education, "trying to cram everything out 21th-century students need into a 19th-century six-and-a-half-hour day just isn’t working". He said that children learn more at a less frantic pace, and that lengthening the school day would help "close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their better-off peers". The phrase "takes a back seat to" (para. 6) could be best replaced by（）
Questions 26～30It was books that first captured my imagination about faraway places. TV travelogues always seemed the poor relation to the classic written accounts, although of course the pictures were rather better. And then there was the issue of authenticity. All those pretentious theatrical types dying of thirst in the desert, as if we didn’t realize there was a camera crew on hand to cater for their every need. These days programme-makers know that the audience is more sophisticated and the presence of the camera is acknowledged. But can a journey with filming equipment ever be anything other than a cleverly constructed fictionI recently got the chance to find out, when I was asked to present two one-hour programmes for an adventure travel series. The project was the brainchild of the production company Trans-Atlantic Films, which wanted the series presented by writers and adventurers, as well as TV professionals. My sole qualification was as a journalist specialising in "adventure" travel. However, I was thought to have "on-screen" potential.The first programme was filmed in Costa Rica. Within 24 hours of my arrival, I realized that this was going to be very different from my usual "one man and his laptop" expeditions. For a start, there were five of us—director, cameraman, sound recordist, producer and presenter. And then there was the small matter of ￡100,000 worth of equipment. I soon realized that the director, Peter Macpherson, was a vastly experienced adventure film-maker. In his case, the term "adventure" meant precisely that. "Made a film with X," he would say (normally a famous mountaineer or skier), before describing a death-defying sequence at the top of a glacier in Alaska or hand-gliding off the Angel Falls in Venezuela. Invariably, these reminiscences would end with the words: "Had a great deal of respect for X. Dead now, sadly... "Part of the brief for the series was to put the presenter in unusual situations and see how he or she coped. One such sequence was the night we spent in the rainforest canopy near the National Park in Guanacaste province. I don’t have a head for heights and would make a poor rock-climber, so my distress is real enough as the camera catches me dangling on a rope some 30 metres up, well short of the canopy platform.Ironically, it was the presence of the camera, looking down on me from above, that gave me the impetus for the final push to the top. By this time, I’d learnt how "sequences" were cut together and realized that one last effort was required. I had to struggle to stay coherent while the camera swooped within a few millimeters of my face for my reaction In the end, it was a magical experience, hightened all the more by the sounds of the forest—a family of howler monkeys in a nearby tree, amplified through the sound recordist’s headphones.Learning how to establish a rapport with the camera is vital and it took me a while to think of it as a friend rather than a judge and jury. The most intimidating moments were when Peter strolled up to me, saying that the light would only be right for another 10 minutes, and that he needed a "link" from one sequence to another. The brief was simple. It needed to be 30 seconds long, sum up my feelings, be informative, well-structured and, most important of all, riveting to watch "Ready to go in about five minutes" he would say breezily. Shortly after arriving in Costa Rica, the writer became aware that （）.
Questions 11～15It’s estimated that every year 100,000 children aged 16 and under run away from home. The London Refuge, an unremarkable house on an unremarkable street, is the only place in Britain that will give them a bed. Last year it gave sanctuary to 238 children of whom the youngest was 11. What happened to the other 99,762 Nobody knows, although it’s a fair bet that some of them ended up on the streets, that some fell into inappropriate and dangerous company, that some didn’t survive. "The mere fact that they’re running away puts them at risk," says Lorna Simpson, the refuge’s deputy manager. "On the streets they’ 11 mix with other young people. They’ re so naive; they don’t understand that people who are nice to them will want payback. Our job is to make them safe. "Simpson, a former social worker, is a calm woman of great warmth. The refuge has six beds and has been open since 1993, often with the threat of closure hanging over it. The problem has nothing to do with the quality of its service and everything to do with funding. A week’s placement costs ￡2. 278 and three successive governments have argued that the annual running costs of ￡720. 000 should be locally funded. But because it is used by children from many parts of London, and beyond, local authorities are reluctant to contribute.The Government has now agreed to work on a strategy to support runaway children in England and Wales, which is rich after its withdrawal of funding from the refuge in December. Since then the NSPCC, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which runs the refuge in conjunction with St Christopher’s Fellowship, has financed it through a donation from an individual, but that money will last only until late next year. "Without this facility there’s nothing; children who run away are on the street," says Nasima Patel, the assistant director of the NSPCC. "One of the strengths of the refuge is that children who have left home can ring up directly and will get a bed and supportive staff without having to go through a process of assessment".The refuge accommodates six children plus staff. Many of the admissions are at night and children can stay up to 21 days in three months, although most stay for three to five days. They find it through social services, through ChildLine and through word of mouth."Children run away from everything you can think of," Simpson says. "Arguments with step-parents, sexual abuse, alcoholic parents, being left to bring up their younger siblings, neglected children who have been failed by social services, girls who have been trafficked. We get doctors’ and lawyers’ children who run away because they want more pocket money, or want to stay out later than their parents allow. They’ve been given everything, they get to 15 and no one thinks to pull the reins in. By that time it’s too late; they rebel. "Most of the children are from families known to social services, and for them the refuge’s ordered regimen is a welcome contrast to the chaos they know. Staff listen without judging and without encouraging dependency, trying to establish why the children have run away. The aim is to get them home or into the care of social services and, after discharge from the refuge, a family support worker is available. We learn from the passage that the London Refuge is faced with the threat of closure （）.
微信支付 
支付宝支付