题目内容
TEXT D The world has spent on preparation for war more than $112 billion a year, roughly $450 per head for every man, woman, and child in the world. Let us consider for a moment what could be done with this sum of money if it were spent on peace and not on war. Some of it, at any rate, in the more prosperous countries, could be spent on the reduction of taxation. The rest should be spent in ways that will, at the same time, be of benefit to mankind and a solution to the economic problem of change from war industry to the expansion of peace industries. As to this expansion, let us begin with the most elementary of all needs, namely, food. Today, the majority of mankind suffers from undernourishment, and in view of the population explosion, this situation is likely to grow worse in the coming decades. A very small part of what is now being spent upon weapons would improve our predicament. Not only could the American surplus of grain, which was for many years uselessly destroyed, be spent in relief of famine, but, by irrigation, large region now desert could be made fertile, and by improvement in transport, distribution from regions of excess to regions of scarcity could be helped. Housing, even in the richest countries, is often disastrously inadequate. This could be relieved by a tiny fraction of what is being spent on missiles. Education everywhere, but especially in the newly liberated countries of Africa and Asia, demands an expenditure many times as great as that which it receives now. But it is not only greater expenditure that is needed in education. If the terror of war were removed, science could be devoted to improving human welfare, instead of to the invention of increasingly expensive methods of mutual killing, and schools would no longer think it a part of their duty to promote hatred of possible enemies by means of ignorance hardened by lies. It can be inferred that schools of today often have to ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
TEXT D The world has spent on preparation for war more than $112 billion a year, roughly $450 per head for every man, woman, and child in the world. Let us consider for a moment what could be done with this sum of money if it were spent on peace and not on war. Some of it, at any rate, in the more prosperous countries, could be spent on the reduction of taxation. The rest should be spent in ways that will, at the same time, be of benefit to mankind and a solution to the economic problem of change from war industry to the expansion of peace industries. As to this expansion, let us begin with the most elementary of all needs, namely, food. Today, the majority of mankind suffers from undernourishment, and in view of the population explosion, this situation is likely to grow worse in the coming decades. A very small part of what is now being spent upon weapons would improve our predicament. Not only could the American surplus of grain, which was for many years uselessly destroyed, be spent in relief of famine, but, by irrigation, large region now desert could be made fertile, and by improvement in transport, distribution from regions of excess to regions of scarcity could be helped. Housing, even in the richest countries, is often disastrously inadequate. This could be relieved by a tiny fraction of what is being spent on missiles. Education everywhere, but especially in the newly liberated countries of Africa and Asia, demands an expenditure many times as great as that which it receives now. But it is not only greater expenditure that is needed in education. If the terror of war were removed, science could be devoted to improving human welfare, instead of to the invention of increasingly expensive methods of mutual killing, and schools would no longer think it a part of their duty to promote hatred of possible enemies by means of ignorance hardened by lies. According to the passage, the problem of famine can be relieved by the following means EXCEPT ______.
TEXT B President Clinton’s decision on Apr. 8 to send Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji packing without an agreement on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization seemed to be a massive miscalculation. The President took a drubbing from much of the press, which had breathlessly reported that a deal was in the bag. The Cabinet and White House still appeared divided, and business leaders were characterized as furious over the lost opportunity. Zhu charged that Clinton lacked "the courage" to reach an accord. And when Clinton later telephoned the angry Zhu to pledge a renewed effort at negotiations, the gesture was widely portrayed as a flip-flop. In fact, Clinton made the right decision in holding out for a better WTO deal. A lot more horse trading is needed before a final agreement can be reached. And without the Administration’s goal of a "bullet-proof agreement" that business lobbyists can enthusiastically sell to a Republican Congress, the whole process will end up in partisan acrimony that could harm relations with China for years. THE HARD PART. Many business lobbyists, while disappointed that the deal was not closed, agree that better terms can still be had. And Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, National Economic Council Director Gene B. Sperling, Commerce Secretary William M. Daley, and top trade negotiator Charlene Barshefsky all advised Clinton that while the Chinese had made a remarkable number of concessions, "we’re not there yet," according to senior officials. Negotiating with Zhu over the remaining issues may be the easy part. Although Clinton can signal U. S. approval for China’s entry into the WTO himself, he needs Congress to grant Beijing permanent most-favored-nation status as part of a broad trade accord. And the temptation for meddling on Capital Hill may prove over-whelming. Zhu had barely landed before Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss) declared himself skeptical that China deserved entry into the WTO. And Senators Jesse A. Helms (R-N. C.) and Emest F. Hollings (D-S. C.) promised to introduce a bill requiring congressional approval of any deal. The hidden message from these three textile-state Southerners: Get more protection for the U. S. clothing industry. Hoping to smooth the way, the Administration tried, but failed, to budge Zhu on textiles. Also left in the lurch: Wall Street, Hollywood, and Detroit. Zhu refused to open up much of the lucrative Chinese securities market and insisted on "cultural" restrictions on American movies and music; He also blocked efforts to allow U. S. auto makers to provide fleet financing. BIG JOB. Already, business lobbyists are blanketing Capitol Hill to presale any eventual agreement, but what they’ve heard so far isn’t encouraging. Republicans, including Lott, say that "the time just isn’t right" for the deal. Translation: We’re determined to make it look as if Clinton has capitulated to the Chinese and is ignoring human, religious, and labor rights violations; the theft of nuclear-weapons technology; and the sale of missile parts to America’s enemies. Beijing’s fierce critics within the Democratic Party, such as Senator Paul D. Wellstone of Minnesota and House Minority leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, won’t help, either. Just how tough the lobbying job on Capitol Hill will be become clear on Apr. 20, when Rubin lectured 19chief executives on the need to discipline their Republican allies, With business and the White House still trading charges over who is responsible for the defeat of fast-track trade negotiating legislation in 1997, working together won’t he easy. And Republicans—with a wink—say that they’ll eventually embrace China’s entry into the WTO as a favor to Corporate America. Though not long before they torture Clinton. But Zhu is out on a limb, and if Congress overdoes the criticism, he may be forced by domestic critics to renege. Business must make this much dear to both its GOP allies and the White House: This historic deal is too important to risk losing to any more partisan squabbling Who plays the leading part in the deal in America
Your friend Mike invites you to attend a party at 6 pm next Monday. However, you have to meet your grandpa at the airport. Write a note to express your regret and give an explanation to him. Marks will be awarded for content, organization, grammar and appropriacy.
TEXT E The relationship between the home and market economies has gone through two distinct stages. Early industrialization began the process of transferring some production processes (e.g., cloth making, sewing and canning foods) from the home to the market place. Although the home economy could still produce these goods, the processes were laborious and the market economy was usually more efficient. Soon, the more important second stage was evident—the marketplace began producing goods and services that had never been produced by the home economy, and the home economy was unable to produce them (e.g., electricity and electrical appliances, the automobile, advanced education, sophisticated medical care). In the second stage, the question of whether the home economy was less efficient in producing these new goods and services was irrelevant; if the family were to enjoy these fruits of industrialization, they would have to be obtained in the marketplace. The traditional ways of taking care of these needs in the home, such as in nursing the sick, became socially unacceptable (and, in most serious cases, probably less successful). Just as the appearance of the automobile made the use of the ’horse-drawn carriage illegal and then impractical, and the appearance of television changed the radio from a source of entertainment to a source of background music, so most of the fruits of economic growth did not increase the options available to the home economy to either produce the goods or services or purchase them in the market. Growth brought with it increased variety in consumer goods, but not increased flexibility for the home economy in obtaining these goods and services. Instead, economic growth brought with it increased consumer reliance on the marketplace. In order to consume these new goods and services, the family had to enter the marketplace as wage earners and consumers. The neoclassical model that views the family as deciding whether to produce goods and services directly or to purchase them in the marketplace is basically a model of the first stage. It cannot accurately be applied to the second stage. It can be seen form the passage that in the second stage ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付