题目内容
Professional women who put careers on hold for family or other reasonsearn is percent less once they return to the workforce, a new survey reports.The salary penalty for hopping off the career track is even high in the business (41) ______.world, where earnings drop an average of 28 percent, according tothe survey of the New York-based Center for Work-Life Policy. (42) ______.The drop in pay partly reflects many women’s decisionsto return to work in jobs with more responsibility, or to part-time (43) ______.jobs. But it may also reflect what women are exiting the (44) ______.workforce during the years when many men make the largest leapsup the corporate ladder, the survey’s authors conclude. The pricefor exiting work steepens the longer woman wait before returning. (45) ______.Women who take less than a year off from their careers,returns to the labor force at an average of 11 percent less pay. (46) ______.But those who take off for three years or more. return to pay averaging37 percent less than what they originally earned, according to the survey.The research is detailed in the March issue of the Harvard Business Review,a copy of that was delivered Wednesday to The Associated Press. (47) ______.The survey tapped more than 2,400 women nationwide, focusingon those of a graduate degree, professional degree or (48) ______.undergraduate degree with high honors. The group also surveyed663 similarly qualified men as a means of drawing comparisons.The notion which more executive women are (49) ______.choosing to exit the workforce has generatedconsiderable attention over the past year in businesscircles. The survey, did this past summer, is one of the (50) ______.first efforts to try to verify and explain women’s choices.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
货币计量是会计核算中最主要、最基本并且是唯一的计量单位。 ( )
In English, vis bears the meaning of "to look at something" and can be combined with affixes to form new words, as in supervise, revise, etc. In this sense, vis is a () morpheme.
1 I take it that the purpose of any language course is to develop in learners the ability to engage in communicative behaviour and this, I have argued, must mean that there has to be a concern for capacity, for the procedural activation of competence. To coin a slogan: no course without discourse. But language courses have generally concentrated on competence and left capacity out of account. The structurally ordered course concentrates attention on linguistic competence as such but does not effectively indicate how this competence can be drawn upon as a communicative resource. It is true that words and sentence patterns will often be associated with situations, but these situations are designed simply to reveal the symbolic signification of linguistic forms. The direction of fit, as it were, is situation to language.2 In courses which have a notional/functional orientation, the focus of attention is on the schematic level and the direction of fit is reversed. That is to say, the starting point is a particular notional frame of reference or, more usually, a particular functional routine: asking the way, asking and granting permission, apologizing and so on. The language is then brought in to service the presentation of these schemata. In both cases the whole business of language behaviour is presented as a straightforward matter of projecting knowledge. One gets the image of the language user as somebody going around with bits of language in his head aiming for the appropriate occasion to insert them into the right situational slots.3 But actual language use is not like this at all. It is rather a series of problems that have to be solved on the spot by reference to a knowledge of linguistic systems and communicative schemata. This knowledge does not provide ready-made solutions which are simply selected from storage and fitted in. But language courses have generally been based on the assumption that it does. Whether they are structurally or functionally oriented, what they have tended to do is to present and practise solutions. What they need to do, I suggest, is to create problems which require interpretative procedures to discover solutions by drawing on the knowledge available as a resource. In other words, they need to encourage the exercise of the capacity for negotiating meaning and working out the indexical value of language elements in context. In a structurally-oriented language course, ().
1 I take it that the purpose of any language course is to develop in learners the ability to engage in communicative behaviour and this, I have argued, must mean that there has to be a concern for capacity, for the procedural activation of competence. To coin a slogan: no course without discourse. But language courses have generally concentrated on competence and left capacity out of account. The structurally ordered course concentrates attention on linguistic competence as such but does not effectively indicate how this competence can be drawn upon as a communicative resource. It is true that words and sentence patterns will often be associated with situations, but these situations are designed simply to reveal the symbolic signification of linguistic forms. The direction of fit, as it were, is situation to language.2 In courses which have a notional/functional orientation, the focus of attention is on the schematic level and the direction of fit is reversed. That is to say, the starting point is a particular notional frame of reference or, more usually, a particular functional routine: asking the way, asking and granting permission, apologizing and so on. The language is then brought in to service the presentation of these schemata. In both cases the whole business of language behaviour is presented as a straightforward matter of projecting knowledge. One gets the image of the language user as somebody going around with bits of language in his head aiming for the appropriate occasion to insert them into the right situational slots.3 But actual language use is not like this at all. It is rather a series of problems that have to be solved on the spot by reference to a knowledge of linguistic systems and communicative schemata. This knowledge does not provide ready-made solutions which are simply selected from storage and fitted in. But language courses have generally been based on the assumption that it does. Whether they are structurally or functionally oriented, what they have tended to do is to present and practise solutions. What they need to do, I suggest, is to create problems which require interpretative procedures to discover solutions by drawing on the knowledge available as a resource. In other words, they need to encourage the exercise of the capacity for negotiating meaning and working out the indexical value of language elements in context. The writer thinks that ().
微信支付 
支付宝支付