题目内容
Passage Four Handwriting analysis (graphology) circumvents the law by frying to determine an employee’s traits (e. g. stability) according to some handwriting group stereotype to which he or she belongs. (Indeed, some graphologists have m little respect for the law and m much confidence in their stereotyping that they have proposed using the technique in lieu of court proceedings to identify and prosecute criminals!) The analysis works by comparing the speed, size, slant, form, pressure, layout, and continuity of an individual’s handwriting with various patterns and typologies, and assimilating this person’s script into these types. As a result the individual judged ceases to be an individual and becomes little more than a composite of traits. This end result differs little from judgments based on race, sex, religion, etc. Granted, no individual is totally unique. Any evaluation of character, or for that matter skills, turns, in some measure, on employing generic ideas about virtue, vice, and technical competence. Still, there is a human individuality which manifests itself in our imagination and in the innovative arguments we choose to advance. Standardized handwriting analysis is far less respectful of individuality in this latter sense than other modes of screening. Individuals who are asked to write a personal essay describing their qualifications in their own terms; and who are given an opportunity in an interview to describe their motivations in seeking a particular job retain far more of what makes them distinctive. This more personalized format gives the individual an opportunity to express unusual or provocative opinions the employer may not have previously considered. Upon reflection, the employer may think these comments so pertinent that s/he awards the job to this candidate. Handwriting analysis, though, is ostensibly purely formal. It does not provide the candidate with any opportunity to distinguish himself or herself in this substantive fashion. At best, graphology will yield some vague assessment such as "the candidate is highly creative". It is worth remembering what the driving force is behind graphological testing. Handwriting analysis, like automated telephone screening, is increasingly being used early in the hiring process because it purports to deliver salient, accurate information cheaply. Yet precisely because these techniques are standardized, the data has reduced value. Judgments about the precise relevance of some perceived character traits to a job are rarely straightforward. Good interviewers learn through training and through interaction itself to qualify previous judgments. Perhaps the candidate who fails to make eye contact has a guilty conscience (as it is standardly assumed). On the other hand, perhaps the candidate is a recent immigrant from a country where eye contact is considered rude. Alternate interpretations sometimes suggest themselves in a face-to-face encounter with individuals who are fully present in their living, acting, and speaking personhood. Handwriting analysis, done at a distance by an expert who has never even met the candidate, will not stimulate the evaluator’s imagination in the way the in-person interview 6r personal essay might. On the contrary, the cheapness of the technique stems from its elimination of the important human activity of hypothesizing about the case at hand. The main purpose of this article is ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
信用证要求装运港装船时检验，签发证单日期为提单日期7天内签发(含提单日期)；出口换证凭单以标明的检验检疫有效期为准。( )
Passage Two The procedures followed by scholars studying literature are often unsatisfactory: the control over a cognitive project as a whole is often lost. The literary scholar seems to be collecting data, which is a preliminary operation, without making use of them. Like a diligent ant gathering food it will never eat, the contemporary literary scholar seems intent upon writing footnotes of a book s/he will never try to read. I propose that at the outset of a research project it is necessary to render explicitly the questions the scholar will try to answer, what methods will be used and the reason why s/he thinks that it may be worthwhile answering such questions. More over, the work of the people concerned with the study of literature seems casual. For instance, much research is devoted to one author, often on the occasion of an anniversary. Now there is no reason to think that our observations will be more valid, urgent, appropriate, useful, or interesting if the author of the texts we are concerned with was born or died or the texts were written fifty, one hundred, or two hundred years ago. This seems to be celebration and not research producing knowledge. It does not seem to make any sense to determine one’s research program by looking at the calendar. The widespread habit of limiting the scope of a research project to a single author often leads to a confined understanding of the author and the texts, which, in turn, offers marginal results. The average literary scholar considers these results satisfactory. But for what purpose are they satisfactory Often the research strategies and methods of the literary scholar are repetitive. A new operation that is anologous to previous ones is often considered worthwhile. It is on these premises that many texts concerning literature are produced and accepted. I propose instead that in a concrete project that tries to produce knowledge, any statement needs verification. But there is a point where it is unnecessary to repeat the same operation on new data, because the result has already been established: rather than additional confirmation of what is already known, it is the exploration of what is still unknown that deserves priority. Contemporary literary research seems to be based on habits that originated in the past and that bear little resemblance to research projects as they are intended now in other fields. If our main aim were the proposal of some objects as cultural models, then it would be useful to our purpose to try to attract our society’s attention toward these objects and the persons who produced them. It would be reasonable to perform our actions on the occasion of anniversaries, because we would not be doing research, but celebration and propaganda. Celebration aims at confirming certitudes and strengthening bonds of solidarity among the participants. It does not produce knowledge, but it confirms what is already known. Legitimating by means of the power of words has been for many centuries the main job of the man of letters. This article ______.
案例九 以下是某求助者的WAIS-RC的测验结果： 言语测验 操作测验 言语 操作 总分 知识 领悟 算术 相似 数广 词汇 合计 数符 填图 积木 图排 拼图 合计 原始分 33 30 23 16 9 25 40 11 36 20 lO 量表分 86 75 161 量表分 20 18 16 10 6 16 86 33 6 20 11 5 75 智商 111 100 105 根据该求助者的测验结果，以下解释正确的有( )。
Passage Five At some time around 2300BC, give or take a century or two, a large number of the major civilizations of the world collapsed, in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel, Anatolia, and Greece, as well as in Afghanistan and China. All of them the first urban civilizations fell into rain at more or less the same time. A thousand years later, around 1200BC, many of the civilizations of the same regions again collapsed at about the same time. The reasons for these widespread and apparently simultaneous disasters which coincided with changes to cultures and societies elsewhere, such as in Britain, have long been a fascinating mystery. Traditional explanations included warfare, famine, and more recently systems collapse, but the apparent absence of direct archaeological or written evidence for causes, as opposed to effects, has led many archaeologists and historians into a resigned assumption that no definite explanation can be found. Over the past 15 years, however, a new type of ’natural disaster’ has been proffered which is beginning to be regarded by many scholars as the most probable single explanation for widespread and simultaneous cultural collapse. The new theory has been advanced largely by astronomers and remains largely unknown by archaeologists (notable exceptions include Professor Baillie of Belfast and Dr. Euan Mackie in Glasgow). The theory postulates that the disasters were caused by the impact of comets or other types of cosmic debris on the Earth. French archaeologist Chude Schaeffer, in 1948, published his analysis and compared the destruction layers of more than 40 archaeological sites. He was the first scholar to detect that all of the sites had been totally destroyed several times in the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age, apparently simultaneously. Since the damage did not show signs of military or other human involvement, and, in any case, was too excessive, he argued that repeated seismic activity might have been responsible. Schaeffer was not taken seriously in 1948, but since then natural scientists have found widespread and unambiguous evidence for abrupt climate change, sudden sea level changes, catastrophic inundations, and seismic activity at several periods since the last Ice Age, particularly around 2300BC. Areas such as the Sahara, which were once farmed, became deserts. Tree rings show disastrous conditions at 2350BC. In Mesopotamia the land appears to have been inundated, devastated, or totally burned. Scholars who, following Schaeffer, favor earthquakes as the principal cause of civilization collapse, argue that the world can expect earthquakes every 1000 ～2000 years, leading to abandonment of sites; while scholars who prefer climate change as the principal cause argue that severe droughts caused agriculture to fail and that .societies inexorably fell apart as a result. The question remained what caused the climate change or the earthquakes. By the late 1970’s British astronomers Clube and Napier of Oxford University had begun to investigate cometary impact as the ultimate cause. In 1980, the Nobel prize-winning chemist Luis Alvarez and his colleagues published their paper arguing that a cosmic impact had caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. He showed that large amounts of iridium found in geological layers from the time of the dinosaurs had a cosmic origin. Alvarez’s paper stimulated further research by Clube and Napier, Professor Mark Bailey, Duncan Steel and Sir Fred Hoyle. All now support the theory of cometary impact and what is now known as the British School of Coherent Catastrophism. The statement in parenthesis in paragraph 3 means Baillle and Mackie ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付