题目内容
2010年7月，江苏省某国内旅行社组织接待了从外地某市来江苏旅游的团队一行30人，在参观游览过程中，作为地陪的王某调整了接待计划，私自减少了两个计划内的景点，在对每位客人加收50元钱后，增加了三个计划外景点。在团队活动期间，王某还以司机名义向客人兜售了10件旅游纪念品。旅游结束后，该团客人集体签名向旅游行政管理部门投诉，认为导游员违背了当初双方签订的旅游合同内容，要求对王某和委派该导游员的旅行社进行处罚。 依据《导游人员管理条例》可进行处罚的具体内容是什么______
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
2009年12月，某学校10名教师与旅行社签订旅游协议，定于2010年2月8日，组团赴新马泰港澳进行旅游活动。旅游者按规定每人预付了800元旅游费。2月5日旅行社电话告知旅游者，由于机票无法解决，此团被迫取消。该旅行社境外部经理到学校说明情况，赔礼道歉，退还预付旅游费。双方发生争执。旅游者投诉要求旅行社赔偿损失每人5000元。 请根据本案的法律事实，回答以下问题： 旅游者投诉后不久，认为旅游者中有的已经买了礼品，准备出国时馈赠亲友；有的已经与境外亲友约定会面，却因旅行社单方面取消协议，使其无法与境外亲友团聚，精神上的损失难以弥补，所以要求将旅行社的赔偿金额增加到2000元。针对此情况，以下说法______正确。
If you intend using humor in your talk to make people smile, you must know how to identify shared experiences and problems. Your humor must be relevant to the audience and should help to show them that you are one of them or that you understand their situation and are in sympathy with their point of view. Depending on whom you are addressing, the problems will be different. If you are talking to a group of managers, you may refer to the disorganized methods of their secretaries; alternatively if you are addressing secretaries, you may want to comment on their disorganized bosses. Here is an example, which I heard at a nurse’s convention, of a story which works well because the audience all shared the same view of doctors. A man arrives in heaven and is being shown around by St. Peter. He sees wonderful accommodations, beautiful gardens, sunny weather, and so on. Everyone is very peaceful, polite and friendly until, waiting in a line for lunch; the new arrival is suddenly pushed aside by a man in a white coat, who rushes to the head of the line, grabs his food and stomps over to a table by himself. "Who is that" the new arrival asked St. Peter. "Oh, that’s God,," came the reply, "but sometimes he thinks he’s a doctor." If you are part of the group which you are addressing, you will be in a position to know the experiences and problems which are common to all of you and it’ll be appropriate for you to make a passing remark about the inedible canteen food or the chairman’s notorious bad taste in ties. With other audiences you mustn’t attempt to cut in with humor as they will resent an outsider making disparaging remarks about their canteen or their chairman. You will be on safer ground if you stick to scapegoats like the Post Office or the telephone system. If you feel awkward being humorous, you must practice so that it becomes more natural. Include a few casual and apparently off-the-cuff remarks which you can deliver in a relaxed and unforced manner. Often it’s the delivery which causes the audience to smile, so speak slowly and remember that a raised eyebrow or an unbelieving look may help to show that you are making a light-hearted remark. Look for the humor. It often comes from the unexpected. It’s a twist on a familiar quote "If at first you don’t succeed, give up" or a play on words or on a situation. Search for exaggeration and understatements: Look at your talk and pick out a few words or sentences which you can turn about and inject with humor. The passage discusses all of the following EXCEPT ______.
2010年7月，江苏省某国内旅行社组织接待了从外地某市来江苏旅游的团队一行30人，在参观游览过程中，作为地陪的王某调整了接待计划，私自减少了两个计划内的景点，在对每位客人加收50元钱后，增加了三个计划外景点。在团队活动期间，王某还以司机名义向客人兜售了10件旅游纪念品。旅游结束后，该团客人集体签名向旅游行政管理部门投诉，认为导游员违背了当初双方签订的旅游合同内容，要求对王某和委派该导游员的旅行社进行处罚。 对导游员王某应扣除几分______
Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only four years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers — one every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers — which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature — the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk — the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells — it is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely. Science is built on the honor system; the method of peer-review, in which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the field, is not meant to catch cheats. In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success. The questions raised anew by Hwang’s fall are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers. Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters; cell biologists have Cell; neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the accolades of academics and satisfy the publish- or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications. Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature, not just the public. Scientists tend to pay more attention to the Big Two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they’re more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being off-cited will increase a scientist’s "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the Impact Factor as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they’re considering supporting. Whether the clamor to appear in these journals has any beating on their ability to catch fraud is another matter. The fact is that fraud is terrifically hard to spot. Consider the process Science used to evaluate Hwang’s 2005 article. Science editors recognized the manuscript’s import almost as soon as it arrived. As part of the standard procedure, they sent it to two members of its Board of Reviewing Editors, who recommended that it go out for peer review (about 30 percent of manuscripts pass this test). This recommendation was made not on the scientific validity of the paper, but on its "novelty, originality, and trendiness", says Denis Duboule, a geneticist at the University of Geneva and a member of Science’s Board of Reviewing Editors, in the January 6 issue of Science. After this, Science sent the paper to three stem-cell experts, who had a week to look it over. Their comments were favorable. How were they to know that the data was fraudulent "You look at the data and do not assume it’s fraud," says one reviewer, anonymously, in Science. In the end, a big scandal now and then isn’t likely to do much damage to the big scientific journals. What editors and scientists worry about more are the myriad smaller infractions that occur all the time, and which are almost impossible to detect. A Nature survey of scientists published last June found that one-third of all respondents had committed some forms of misconduct. These included falsifying research data and having "questionable relationships" with students and subjects — both charges leveled against Hwang. Nobody really knows if this kind of fraud is on the rise, but it is worrying. Science editors don’t have any plans to change the basic editorial peer-review process as a result of the Hwang scandal. They do have plans to scrutinize photographs more closely in an effort to spot instances of fraud, but that policy change had already been decided when the scandal struck. And even if it had been in place, it would not have revealed that Hwang had misrepresented photographs from two stem cell colonies as coming from 11 colonies. With the financial and deadline pressures of the publishing industry, it’s unlikely that the journals are going to take markedly stronger measures to vet manuscripts. Beyond replicating the experiments themselves, which would be impractical, it’s difficult to see what they could do to make Science beyond the honor system. According to the passage, manuscripts of science are evaluated to______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付