题目内容
PART C
Directions: You will hear three dialogues or monologues. Before listening to each one, you will have 5 seconds to read each of the questions which accompany it. While listening, answer each question by choosing A, B, C or D. After listening, you will have 10 seconds to check your answer to each question. You will hear each piece ONLY ONCE.
听力原文： People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the animal welfare group, begins a global boycott of KFC to seek an improvement in the lives and deaths of 700 million chickens who become the chain's fried meals every year. The group plans to start a campaign pressing the chain to change how chickens are raised in large farms in the United States and around the world. Among the suggestions are to improve the diets of hens and to gas chickens to sleep before they are slaughtered.
This is not the group's first campaign to improve chickens' lives—it has won concessions from McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's. But it is the, group's first effort to focus on restaurants worldwide.
With fat people trying to sue fast-food restaurants for helping to cause their obesity, the group hopes to tap into the growing public criticism of a fast-food diet as well as the concern over farm animal welfare. Instead of following the slow path of pushing for changes in regulations, the group wants restaurants to enforce immediate changes by telling farmers they will not Buy chickens raised and killed under current conditions.
"If people knew what happened to those chickens, raising them in their own filth and then dumping them on an assembly line to have their throats cut when they're still alive, they wouldn't go to Kentucky Fried Chicken," a spokesman for the group, Bruce Friedrich, said.
Officials of the KFC Corporation declined a request for an interview and would not respond to the accusations from the group. Instead they issued a statement. "KFC is committed to the well being and humane treatment of chickens and we require all of our suppliers to follow welfare guidelines developed by us with leading experts on our Animal Welfare Advisory Council," the statement said. "Our suppliers ensure strict compliance with our guidelines."
Ian Duncan, a member of the advisory council and chairman of animal welfare in the department of animal and poultry sciences at the University of Guelph in Canada, said the animal welfare group may have a point. "I've been doing research into chicken welfare since 1965 and change has been slow, very slow," Mr. Duncan said in a telephone interview. "PETA is very extreme and they exaggerate, but maybe that's what it takes," he said. "I used to be very much against them, but I can see they are getting things done."
How many chickens become the KFC chain's fried meals every year？
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
About 120 wealthy Americans had signed or supported a petition to oppose phasing out the tax. President Bush has included the repeal of the tax in his $1.6 trillion tax cut proposal. Normally when "dozens" of Americans join in a political cause, it is not particularly noteworthy, but in this case the dozens include: George Soros, a billionaire financier; Warren Buffett, an investor listed as America’s fourth-richest person; the philanthropist David Rockefeller Jr.; and William Gates Sr., a Seattle lawyer and father of America’s richest man, Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates.
It was refreshing to see Buffer and George Soros and a number of other extremely wealthy luminaries stand up in opposition to President Bush’s proposed repeal of the estate tax. While the policy has some emotional attractions--it would protect the inheritors of some small businesses from having to sell the companies to pay taxes, and it is true that most people have been taxed on their savings once already—in practice the tax repeal would mainly be a windfall for a very small number of very, very rich people.
Buffer and company cite these factors in their petition calling for opposition to the estate-tax repeal. They also discuss something that’s equally emotional and far more complex: the principle of meritocracy. The idea that everyone in America has an equal chance, that our fates are not determined by accidents of birth, is one of our core values. And nowhere is this principle more revered than in the technology economy; entrepreneurship is almost by definition an expression of meritocracy.
The petitioners argue that repealing the tax will cost the Treasury billions of dollars in lost revenues and will result in either increased taxes in the long run or cuts to Medicate, Social Security, environmental protection and other government programs.
Repealing the levy "would enrich the heirs of America’s millionaires and billionaires, while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet," the petition says.
Buffer told the Times that repealing the estate tax would be a "terrible mistake" and the equivalent of "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."
An old brokerage commercial says: "He made his money the old-fashioned way: He earned it." There was a perfect parody of the ad in which the line read: "He made his money the old-fashioned way: He inherited it." In 20 or 50 or 100 years, which of these lines will be right？ Buffer and Soros and friends, to their credit, want to help make the first one real. Let’s hope this is only one step in that process.
Who will benefit most from the estate-tax repeal in practice？
Reading ______ the lines, I would say that the Government are more worried than they will
Women’s fashion is now, some believe, at the turning point of similar magnitude, coinciding with the equally dramatic social transformation of the past several decades. The change has been slow: a century long move away from the padding, corseting, and decoration that made a woman into a kind of ornate bauble(小摆设) and displayed her family’s wealth, and toward the clean, sleek modern lines first introduced with the suffrage movement.
But the shift has accelerated in recent years, thanks to changes in the technology and business of fashion. The use by top designers of "weird, fabulous, unrecognizable synthetics," says Hollander "has ruined the status of certain fabrics, like linen, which has had a leveling effect for the sexes and for' the classes." And the emergence of chains like Club Monaco means that "forward looking style. is disseminated very fast and very cheaply," according to Valerie Steele, a historian and curator of "Shoes: A Lexicon of Style," an exhibition now on view at New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology. Such stores have succeeded, she believes, because "there’s substantial group of people with a sophisticated eye for design" who are eager for an affordable version of what was once thought to be "dog-whistle fashion," pitched so high that only a few would get it. Against that back-ground, the shoes at FIT look like fashion’s last gasp. The exhibit begins with the most symbolically loaded of women’s shoes: high heels, which Steele calls "a prime symbol of women’s sexual power over men."
That same defiance of feminine expectations is visible throughout the FIT show: in the boot, for instance, with its connotations of machismo and. military power, or the androgynous oxford, made girlisl with a big chunky heel. The show ends, fittingly, with the sneaker. No longer simply a downscale kid wear item, the big, brilliantly colored, high-tech sneaker has become one of the today’s most dramatic fashion statements, asserting street hip and futuristic velocity. Maybe shoes aren’t so indifferent to the changes in modem lives, after all.
The end of men’s lavish attention to fashion marks
The author is grateful to the World Wide Web program just because of the following EXCEPT
微信支付 
支付宝支付