题目内容
Section ADirections: This section is to test your ability to give proper answers to questions. There are 5 recorded questions in it. After each question, there is a pause. The questions will be spoken two times. When you hear a question you should decide on the correct answer from the 4 choices marked A), B), C)and D) given in your test paper. Then you should mark the corresponding letter on the Answer Sheet with a single line through the center.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
In order to rent and drive a car in Japan, you require a Japanese driving license or an international driving permit. In case of France, Germany and Switzerland, an official translation of your home country’s driving license is required. International driving permits must be obtained in your home country, usually through the National Automobile Association, before you leave for Japan. They are valid for one year and must be accompanied by your home country’s driving license in order to be valid. Japan recognizes only international driving permits, which are based on the Geneva Convention of 1949. Some countries, such as France, Germany and Switzerland, however, issue international driving permits, Which are based on different conventions. The permits issued by those countries are not valid in Japan. Instead, people with a French, German or Swiss driver’s license can drive in Japan for up to one year with an official Japanese translation of their driving licenses. Contact the respective embassies or consulates in Japan for details on how to obtain a recognized translation. The minimum age for driving in Japan is 18 years. What kind of permit should one obtain if he wants to rent or drive a car in Japan
International Publishing House119 Sharon Road. 5th Floor. Room 503Tel: 549-0344 Fax: 549-0345 Oct 13, 2008Our ref: GH/6/08Your ref: JB/3/08Mr. Henry,Purchasing Manager,West Bank Ltd.P.O.BOX 294Canada.Dear Mr. Henry, Your Order No.3890 Thank you for your letter of Sep 10, 2008. I am pleased to inform you that your order will be shipped to you by M.V. Kiro Maro, which is due to arrive in Canada on Nov 13, 2008. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. I look forward to hearing from you again. Yours sincerely, Bessie Howard Marketing Manager Enclosures: invoice, bill of lading(提单) When will the order be shipped to the West Bank Ltd. It will be shipped on______．
Scientists have come up with a theory for why time flies when you are having fun and drags when you are bored. Scans have shown that (62) of activity in the brain change depending on how we focus on a task. Concentrating on time passing, as we do when bored, will (63) brain activity which will make it seem as though the clock is ticking more (64) . The research, by the French Laboratory of Neurobiology and Cognition, is published in the magazine Science. In the study, 12 volunteers watched an image while researchers (65) their brain activity using MRI(核磁共振成像) scans. Volunteers were given a (66) of tasks. In one they were told to concentrate simply on the duration of an image, in (67) they were asked to focus on the (68) , and in a third they were asked to concentrate on both duration and color. The results showed that a network of brain regions was (69) when more subjects were paid attention to duration. It is thought that if the brain is busy focusing on many aspects of a task, then it has to spread its resources thinly, and pays less (70) to time passing. Therefore, time passes without us really (71) it, and seems to go quickly. (72) , if the brain is not stimulated in this way, it concentrates its (73) energies on monitoring the passing of time. This may make time seem to (74) , but in fact it is probably a more accurate perception of reality. (75) the researchers found that the more volunteers concentrated on the duration of the images, the more (76) were their estimates of its duration.Lead researcher Dr. Jennifer Coull said many of the areas of the brain (77) in estimating time were the same that played a key role in controlling movement, and (78) for action. She said this overlap suggests that the brain may make sense of time as (79) between movements, in much the same way (80) musicians mark time with his foot, or (81) anticipate the sound of a starter’s pistol.
Who’s Afraid of Google Rarely if ever has a company risen so fast in so many ways as Google, the world’s most popular search engine. This is true by just about any measure: the growth in its market value and revenues; the number of people clicking in search of news, the nearest pizza parlor or a satellite image of their neighbor’s garden; the volume of its advertisers; or the number of its lawyers and lobbyists. Such an ascent is enough to evoke concerns -- both paranoid(偏执的) and justified. The list of constituencies that hate or fear Google grows by the week. Television networks, book publishers and newspaper owners feel that Google has grown by using their content without paying for it. Telecoms firms such as America’s AT&T and Verizon are annoyed that Google prospers, in their eyes, by free-riding on the bandwidth that they provide; and it is about to bid against them in a forthcoming auction for radio spectrum. Many small firms hate Google because they relied on exploiting its search formulas to win prime positions in its rankings, but dropped to the Internet’s equivalent of Hades after Google modified these algorithms(运算法则). And now come the politicians. Libertarians dislike Google’s deal with China’s censors. Conservatives moan about its uncensored videos. But the big new fear is to do with the privacy of its users. Google’s business model assumes that people will entrust it with ever more information about their lives, to be stored in the company’s "cloud" of remote computers. Some users now keep their photos, blogs, videos, calendars, e-mail, news feeds, maps, contacts, social networks, documents, spreadsheets (电子数据表), presentations, and credit-card information -- in short, much of their lives -- on Google’s computers. But the privacy problem is much subtler than that. As Google compiles more information about individuals, it faces numerous trade-offs. At one extreme it could use a person’s search history and advertising responses in combination with, say, his location and the itinerary in his calendar, to serve increasingly useful and welcome search results and ads. This would also allow Google to make money from its many new services. But it could scare users away. As a warning, Privacy International, a human-rights organization in London, has berated Google, charging that its attitude to privacy "at its most blatant is hostile, and at its most benign is ambivalent". And Google could soon, if it wanted, compile files on specific individuals. This presents "perhaps the most difficult privacy issues in all of human history," says Edward Felten, a privacy expert at Princeton University. Speaking for many, John Battelle, the author of a book on Google and an early admirer, recently wrote on his blog that "I’ve found myself more and more wary" of Google "out of some primal, lizard-brain fear of giving too much control of my data to one source."More JP Morgan than Bill Gates Google is often compared to Microsoft; but its evolution is actually closer to that of the banking industry. Just as financial institutions grew to become repositories of people’s money, and thus guardians of private information about their finances, Google is now turning into a supervisor of a far wider and more intimate range of information about individuals. Yes, this applies also to rivals such as Yahoo! and Microsoft. But Google, through the sheer speed with which it accumulates the treasure of information, will be the one to test the limits of what society can tolerate. It does not help that Google is often seen as arrogant. Granted, this complaint often comes from sourgrapes rivals. But many others are put off by Google’s assertion of its own holiness, as if it merited unquestioning trust. This after all is the firm that chose "Don’t be evil" as its corporate motto and that explicitly intones that its goal is "not to make money", as its boss, Eric Schmidt, puts it, but "to change the world". Its ownership structure is set up to protect that vision. Ironically, there is something rather cloudlike about the multiple complaints surrounding Google. The issues are best parted into two cumuli: a set of "public" arguments about how to regulate Google; and a set of "private" ones for Google’s managers, to do with the strategy the firm needs to get through the coming storm. On both counts, Google -- contrary to its own propaganda -- is much better judged as being just like any other "evil" money-grabbing company.Grab the money That is because, from the public point of view, the main contribution of all companies to society comes from making profits, not giving things away. Google is a good example of this. Its "goodness" stems less from all that guff about corporate altruism than from Adam Smith’s invisible hand. It provides a service that others find very useful -- namely helping people to find information (at no charge) and letting advertisers promote their wares to those people in a finely targeted way. Given this, the onus of proof is with Google’s would-be prosecutors to prove it is doing something wrong. On antitrust, the price that Google charges its advertisers is set by auction, so its monopolistic clout is limited; and it has yet to use its" dominance in one market to muscle into others in the way Microsoft did. The same presumption of innocence goes for copyright and privacy. Google’s book-search product, for instance, arguably helps rather than hurts publishers and authors by rescuing books from obscurity and encouraging readers to buy copyrighted works. And, despite Big Brotherish talk about knowing what choices people will be making tomorrow, Google has not betrayed the trust of its users over their privacy. If anything, it has been better than its rivals in standing up to prying governments in both America and China. That said, conflicts of interest will become inevitable -- especially with privacy. Google in effect controls a dial that, as it sells ever more services to you, could move in two directions. Set to one side, Google could voluntarily destroy very quickly any user data that it collects. That would assure privacy, but it would limit Google’s profits from selling to advertisers information about what you are doing, and make those services less useful, ff the dial is set to the other side and Google hangs on to the information, the services will be more useful, but some dreadful intrusions into privacy could occur. The answer, as with banks in the past, must lie somewhere in the middle in that the right point for the dial is likely to change, as circumstances change. That will be the main public interest in Google. But, as the bankers (and Bill Gates) can attest, public scrutiny also creates a private challenge for Google’s managers: how should they present their case One obvious strategy is to allay concerns over Google’s trustworthiness by becoming more transparent and opening up more of its processes and plans to scrutiny. But it also needs a deeper change of heart. Pretending that just because your founders are nice young men and you give away lots of services, society has no right to question your motives no longer seems sensible. Google is a capitalist tool -- and a useful one. Better, surely, to face the coming storm on that foundation, than on a stale slogan that could be your undoing. If Google assures privacy by destroying user data, this would negatively influence its ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付