题目内容
Questions 14 to 17 are based on the following passage. At the end of the passage, you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions. Which of the following information is CORRECT according to the passage
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Games originally are entertainment. Contemporary games are very realistic and for this reason they are a (31) of great experience for the player and develop the imagination. Games are entertainment and even more than that. In addition, the statistics of the New York University (32) by Green and Bavelier claim that the player (33) active games get an improvement of some types of brain activity, related to (34) of visual information. In particular, game players cope with problems of (35) tracking several moving objects at the average level of 30% better than people who do not play (36) computer video games. The "gaming" violent experience may not be the cause of violent (37) in reality. (38) of the playing experience will become the priority in making important decisions (39) problems in real life. A game is an abstraction. A player gets abstract tasks and acts according to abstract rules. Games are also the possibility to be (40) a person wants to be and to rest from the outside world for some time. But what if a person gets (41) much excited with the game scenes that he becomes violent in reality Then, it proves that the games cause people to become violent. Let us stop for a moment right at this point. Those who do not (42) in this type of activity usually make the conclusion of presence of violence in the game-world. Nobody will (43) hear this kind of statement from those who play, from those who know the rules of the game and understand that it is just a (44) world. A psychologically (45) person will never confuse or connect these two different worlds. A game is a virtual world with visual images very similar to human. These images (46) by themselves nothing but simple playing obstacles. A game may potentially give the (47) to "destroy the obstacles" that may not be destroyed according to the rules but it is more about personal choice (48) to do it or not. This leads us to the conclusion that violence is not a consequence but the cause. People who are originally (49) to violence may get irritated by games and perform violence in the "real world". But in this case violence in games is a simple (50) of the violent nature of the player.
Games originally are entertainment. Contemporary games are very realistic and for this reason they are a (31) of great experience for the player and develop the imagination. Games are entertainment and even more than that. In addition, the statistics of the New York University (32) by Green and Bavelier claim that the player (33) active games get an improvement of some types of brain activity, related to (34) of visual information. In particular, game players cope with problems of (35) tracking several moving objects at the average level of 30% better than people who do not play (36) computer video games. The "gaming" violent experience may not be the cause of violent (37) in reality. (38) of the playing experience will become the priority in making important decisions (39) problems in real life. A game is an abstraction. A player gets abstract tasks and acts according to abstract rules. Games are also the possibility to be (40) a person wants to be and to rest from the outside world for some time. But what if a person gets (41) much excited with the game scenes that he becomes violent in reality Then, it proves that the games cause people to become violent. Let us stop for a moment right at this point. Those who do not (42) in this type of activity usually make the conclusion of presence of violence in the game-world. Nobody will (43) hear this kind of statement from those who play, from those who know the rules of the game and understand that it is just a (44) world. A psychologically (45) person will never confuse or connect these two different worlds. A game is a virtual world with visual images very similar to human. These images (46) by themselves nothing but simple playing obstacles. A game may potentially give the (47) to "destroy the obstacles" that may not be destroyed according to the rules but it is more about personal choice (48) to do it or not. This leads us to the conclusion that violence is not a consequence but the cause. People who are originally (49) to violence may get irritated by games and perform violence in the "real world". But in this case violence in games is a simple (50) of the violent nature of the player.
It’s nice that Lord Davies is thinking of us ladies; just a shame he isn’t thinking more clearly. The former trade minister this week handed in his report on why so few British women are making it to the top in business. There are currently only five female bosses of FTSE 100 companies—and three of them are American. Across the top 350 companies here, women make up just 12.5 percent of board members, and hold a measly 5.5 percent of executive directorships. Lord Davies seems to believe this is a symptom of deep-rooted misogyny in the business world. He has warmed British companies that they are in the "last-chance saloon", and set them a target: they must ensure that a quarter of their directors are women by 2015, or the Government will step in—perhaps by imposing quotas. All of which completely misses the point. It isn’t sexism that is holding women back: it’s babies. Consider the bigger picture. It starts so promisingly: girls outperform boys at school and university, get good jobs, start shinning up the greasy pole—and then, suddenly, they fall away. Across all professions, women’s careers take a nose dive the moment they reproduce. The full-time pay gap more than trebles for women in their thirties (from 3 percent to 11 percent), while the part- time pay gap increases from 23 percent to 32 percent. For a certain kind of reactionary, this just proves that women aren’t cut out for the top jobs. Pop a baby in her arms and even the most ball-breaking career woman will suddenly find she longs to be at home all day, making organic finger food and mopping up organic vomit. It’s biology, innit Well, not exactly. What happens is this. From the moment you deliver your first child, and your husband is booted out of the hospital while you get on with the business of bonding, it is made very clear that child-rearing is women’s work. Even if your husband takes his full two weeks of statutory paternity leave, you will soon be left alone to negotiate this strange new world. Because you are at home, it makes sense for you to take on the endless admin: health checks, vaccinations, nursery registrations, interviewing nannies or childminders. It is up to you, too, to keep the little critter fed, clothed and entertained—and while you’re at it, you might as well do the shopping, cooking and tidying-up. By the time your maternity leave is up, you’ll find you have been zapped back to the 1950s. You are something perilously close to a housewife, while your man has become an old-fashioned, long-hours breadwinner. Splendid, if that’s how you like it but not so good if you need, or want, to work. The division of duties, once established, is extremely hard to alter, so it is almost invariably the woman who scales back her career. 41 percent of mothers in couples work part-time, compared to just 4 percent of men. This has an obvious effect on their long-term prospects: mothers who work part time are four times less likely to hold a senior post. The working woman’s enemy is not some pinstriped, misogynistic boss, cackling evilly as he slams the boardroom door. Nor, in fact, is it men in general. There is plenty of evidence that British men want to be more involved in rearing their children. But our system of parental leave is so heavily skewed that both sexes have little choice but to succumb to an outdated status quo. In a brilliant new book, Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Myth of Equality, Rebecca Asher shows the harm this does, not only to women’s aspirations, but to family life and the economy. Spending thousands to train and educate women, only for them to fail out of the labour market at the peak of their expertise, is a very profligate way to run a country. Asher’s solutions— which include six or seven months’ paid leave for each parent, funded by the government and taken consecutively—are affordable, if eye-wateringly radical. And unlike Lord Davies’s "targets’’, they at least address the problem, rather than the symptoms. The pram in the hall is the real enemy of female promise. And until men are able to take on as much of the work—and the pleasure—of child-rearing, that’s the way it will remain. According to the author, Lord Davies isn’t thinking more clearly of ladies because ______.
Games originally are entertainment. Contemporary games are very realistic and for this reason they are a (31) of great experience for the player and develop the imagination. Games are entertainment and even more than that. In addition, the statistics of the New York University (32) by Green and Bavelier claim that the player (33) active games get an improvement of some types of brain activity, related to (34) of visual information. In particular, game players cope with problems of (35) tracking several moving objects at the average level of 30% better than people who do not play (36) computer video games. The "gaming" violent experience may not be the cause of violent (37) in reality. (38) of the playing experience will become the priority in making important decisions (39) problems in real life. A game is an abstraction. A player gets abstract tasks and acts according to abstract rules. Games are also the possibility to be (40) a person wants to be and to rest from the outside world for some time. But what if a person gets (41) much excited with the game scenes that he becomes violent in reality Then, it proves that the games cause people to become violent. Let us stop for a moment right at this point. Those who do not (42) in this type of activity usually make the conclusion of presence of violence in the game-world. Nobody will (43) hear this kind of statement from those who play, from those who know the rules of the game and understand that it is just a (44) world. A psychologically (45) person will never confuse or connect these two different worlds. A game is a virtual world with visual images very similar to human. These images (46) by themselves nothing but simple playing obstacles. A game may potentially give the (47) to "destroy the obstacles" that may not be destroyed according to the rules but it is more about personal choice (48) to do it or not. This leads us to the conclusion that violence is not a consequence but the cause. People who are originally (49) to violence may get irritated by games and perform violence in the "real world". But in this case violence in games is a simple (50) of the violent nature of the player.
微信支付 
支付宝支付