题目内容
Questions 8 to 10 are based on the following conversation. At the end of the conversation, you will be given 15 seconds to answer the questions. Now, listen to the conversation. What suggestion does Nancy’s friend make
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
数学推理每题给你一个数列，但其中缺少一项，要求你仔细观察数列的排列规律综合判断，然后从四个供选择的选项中选出最恰当的一项，来填补空缺项。 5，8，12，18，( )。
When people care enough about something to do it well, those who do it best tend to be far better than everyone else. There’’s a huge gap between Leonardo and second-rate contemporaries. A top-ranked professional chess player could play ten thousand games against an ordinary club player without losing once. Like chess or painting or writing novels, making money is a very specialized skill. But for some reason we treat this skill differently. No one complains when a few people surpass all the rest at playing chess or writing novels, but when a few people make more money than the rest, we get editorials saying this is wrong. Why The pattern of variation seems no different than for any other skill. What causes people to react so strongly when the skill is making money I think there are three reasons we treat making money as different: the misleading model of wealth we learn as children; the disreputable way in which, till recently, most fortunes were accumulated; and the worry that great variations in income are somehow bad for society. As far as I can tell, the first is mistaken, the second outdated, and the third empirically false. Could it be that, in a modern democracy, variation in income is actually a sign of health When I was five I thought electricity was created by electric sockets. I didn’’t realize there were power plants out there generating it. Likewise, it doesn’’t occur to most kids that wealth is something that has to be generated. It seems to be something that flows from parents. Because of the circumstances in which they encounter it, children tend to misunderstand wealth. They confuse it with money. They think that there is a fixed amount of it. And they think of it as something that’’s distributed by authorities (and so should be distributed equally), rather than something that has to be created (and might be created unequally). In fact, wealth is not money. Money is just a convenient way of trading one form of wealth for another. Wealth is the underlying stuff—the goods and services we buy. When you travel to a rich or poor country, you don’’t have to look at people’’s bank accounts to tell which kind you’’ re in. You can see wealth — in buildings and streets, in the clothes and the health of the people. Where does wealth come from People make it. This was easier to grasp when most people lived on farms, and made many of the things they wanted with their own hands. Then you could see in the house, the herds, and the granary the wealth that each family created. It was obvious then too that the wealth of the world was not a fixed quantity that had to be shared out, like slices of a pie. If you wanted more wealth, you could make it. This is just as true today, though few of us create wealth directly for ourselves. Mostly we create wealth for other people in exchange for money, which we then trade for the forms of wealth we want. Because kids are unable to create wealth, whatever they have has to be given to them. And when wealth is something you’’ re given, then of course it seems that it should be distributed equally. As in most families it is. The kids see to that. "Unfair," they cry, when one sibling (兄弟姐妹) gets more than another. In the real world, you can’’t keep living off your parents. If you want something, you either have to make it, or do something of equivalent value for someone else, in order to get them to give you enough money to buy it. In the real world, wealth is (except for a few specialists like thieves and speculators) something you have to create, not something that’’s distributed by Daddy. And since the ability and desire to create it vary from person to person, it’’s not made equally. You get paid by doing or making something people want, and those who make more money are often simply better at doing what people want. Top actors make a lot more money than B-list actors. The B-list actors might be almost as charismatic, but when people go to the theater and look at the list of movies playing, they want that extra oomph (吸引力) that the big stars have. Doing what people want is not the only way to get money, of course. You could also rob banks, or solicit bribes, or establish a monopoly. Such tricks account for some variation in wealth, and indeed for some of the biggest individual fortunes, but they are not the root cause of variation in income. The root cause of variation in income is the same as the root cause of variation in every other human skill. The second reason we tend to find great disparities of wealth alarming is that for most of human history the usual way to accumulate a fortune was to steal it: in pastoral societies by cattle raiding; in agricultural societies by appropriating others’’ estates in times of war, and taxing them in times of peace. In conflicts, those on the winning side would receive the estates confiscated from the losers. In more organized societies, the ruler and his officials used taxation instead of confiscation. But here too we see the same principle: the way to get rich was not to create wealth, but to serve a ruler powerful enough to appropriate it. But it was not till the Industrial Revolution that wealth creation definitively replaced corruption as the best way to get rich. In England, at least, corruption only became unfashionable when there started to be other faster ways to get rich. Thirdly, one often hears a policy criticized on the grounds that it would increase the income gap between rich and poor. As if it were an axiom (公理) that this would be bad. It might be true that increased variation in income would be bad, but I don’’t see how we can say it’’s axiomatic. Indeed, it may even be false, in industrial democracies. In a society of serfs (农奴) and warlords, certainly, variation in income is a sign of an underlying problem. But serfdom is not the only cause of variation in income. A 747 pilot doesn’’t make 40 times as much as a checkout clerk because he is a warlord. His skills are simply much more valuable. I’’d like to propose an alternative idea: that in a modern society, increasing variation in income is a sign of health. Technology seems to increase the variation in productivity at faster than linear rates. If we don’’t see corresponding variation in income, there are three possible explanations: (a) that technical innovation has stopped, (b) that the people who would create the most wealth aren’’t doing it, or (c) that they aren’’t getting paid for it. If you suppress variations in income, whether by stealing private fortunes, as feudal rulers used to do, or by taxing them away, as some modern governments have done, the result always seems to be the same. Society as a whole ends up poorer. If I had a choice of living in a society where I was materially much better off than I am now, but was among the poorest, or in one where I was the richest, but much worse off than I am now, I’d take the first option. If I had children, it would arguably be immoral not to. It’’s absolute poverty you want to avoid, not relative poverty. If, as the evidence so far implies, you have to have one or the other in your society, take relative poverty. You need rich people in your society not so much because in spending their money or they create jobs, but because of what they have to do to get rich. I’m not talking about the trickle-down effect here. I’m not saying that if you let Henry Ford get rich, he’’ll hire you as a waiter at his next party. I’m saying that he’’ll make you a tractor to replace your horse. Many parents tell their children that wealth is something that hasn’’t to be generated. It is something that can flow from parents.
Questions 21 and 22 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the questions. Now, listen to the news. Minutes after the first blast, a roadside bomb______.
阅读下文，回答106—110题。 你能想象一只绿色老鼠的样子吗科学家最近通过基因变化技术使老鼠长出了绿色的毛，试验的成功让科学家们相信，将相关基因移植入毛囊可以改变毛发的颜色，这意味着对毛囊进行基因变体疗法可能大有作为。 抗癌公司是美国加州圣迭戈的一家生物技术公司，这里的科学家将一种水母基因移植到老鼠的毛囊中，使老鼠长出了在蓝光下呈现荧光绿的毛发。该公司总裁罗伯特·霍夫曼说：“这些毛发之所以是绿色的，是因为其中有荧光绿色的蛋白质。”这种荧光绿蛋白质就是使水母在暗处发绿光的那种基因。霍夫曼将这种水母的基因移入一块剪下的老鼠皮上，他用一种名叫胶原酶的物质将老鼠皮组织软化，胶原酶可使毛囊更容易接受水母的基因。然后将老鼠皮放入培养液中。培养液含有一种腺病毒，这种病毒与平常引起感冒的腺病毒相似。该病毒很快进入老鼠皮上的水母基因细胞中。霍夫曼采取措施使病毒迅速复制，这样病毒细胞就可以将自己携带的基因成分载入老鼠的细胞中。霍夫曼在显微镜下观察细胞的变化过程，他发现，老鼠皮的毛囊中明显出现了绿色蛋白质的斑点，这是每根毛发生长的基础，此后，这块老鼠皮上80%的地方长出了绿色的毛。然后，霍夫曼将这块长有绿毛的老鼠皮移植到活老鼠缺少毛发的皮肤上，移植的毛发在老鼠身上不断生长，逐渐遍布全身。 目前，该研究最乐观的前景可能就是让灰白头发恢复成黑发。研究人员已通过基因疗法使白老鼠长出了黑色的毛，这对于治疗灰白头发是重大进步。但这种基因变体技术还要在老鼠身上再做几年试验才能用于人类。科学家认为，一旦人类掌握了关于头发颜色的基因，基因疗法就可以用于美发。黑头发是因为真黑素在发挥作用，红头发和褐色头发也都有其生成色素，但目前还没破解金发的分子构造。一旦科学家们发现了所有决定头发颜色的基因，那么人们就可以[ ]地改变头发的颜色，只需激活或减少相关基因，而不是通过染色物质。 霍夫曼同时指出：“毛囊是个了不起的工具。”他相信基因工程能使毛囊产生任何形式的蛋白质，比如胰岛素和干扰素(一种免疫系统蛋白质)。小小的毛囊其实是个巨大的工厂。通过基因疗法，毛囊里不仅能长出健康的头发，还有可能承载某些基因来治疗白化病、糖尿病、癌症等。实际上，把基因疗法用于美发要比治病困难得多。美发需要把头上所有的毛囊都进行处理，而治病只在几个毛囊上进行处理就可以了。 根据原文所提供的信息，以下推断正确的一项是( )。
微信支付 
支付宝支付