题目内容
If you apply for a job position with a foreign company, chances are you will be asked to provide an English cover letter along with your resume. But what (31) is a cover letter How long (32) it be (33) most importantly, what should you write about In (34) , it is a letter introducing yourself as a person and explaining why you are applying for the position. But there is more to (35) a good cover letter.Usually a cover letter should be one page (36) , including the sender’s and the (37) address, (38) should be placed at the top of the page. Under this, write a short header in (39) print to (40) the reader what the letter is about. Next, (41) the employer by name if you know the (42) person. (43) it is acceptable to use "Dear Hiring Manager". In the first paragraph you should then say what position you are applying for and (44) you found out about it. In the next few paragraphs explain (45) why you believe yourself to be a suitable (46) for the position. (47) the job description carefully and explain why you meet its (48) . In the final paragraph, express your enthusiasm for the position and say that you look forward to a (49) . Also offer to provide further information on (50) . （38）（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Shopping has become a cloak-and-dagger (隐秘) affair. Conspicuous consumption does not look good during a recession, which explains why so many of us are embracing e-commerce. Online shopping on these shores is projected to grow from sales of ￡8.9 bn to around ￡21.3 bn by the end of 2011.Often people proclaim they’ve embraced e-commerce because it’s "green". This is understandable. If many shopping bags in a recession look bad, bricks and mortar retail—huge out-of-town shopping centres, retail emporia that insist on leaving their doors open even in winter and grocery stores full of the most inefficient freezers-look terrible during an ecological emergency. Should we buy the idea that e-commerce is any better Several studies have tried to answer this with cold, hard data.A 2000 study on Webvan, a now defunct (解散) U. S. online grocer, concluded that a wider adoption of e-commerce would not give us environmental gains, while a 2002 study of U. S. book retailing found no greater energy savings selling online. But the study that all e-tailers are talking about is a new one from Carnegie Mellon University, which has found that shopping online via Buy.com’s e-commerce model for electronic products uses 35 per cent less energy consumption and CO2 emissions than a traditional bricks-and- mortar model. This is largely because it avoids the usual retail distribution model and, of course, the impact of consumers driving to a store. And, from the shopper’s perspective, online buying often allows you to avoid the desire for retail.But both models are flawed, because online or on the high street, retailers are dependent on a hydrocarbon-fuelled delivery system. Trucks deliver 4.8 m tonnes of freight each day in the U. K, which works out at about 80 kg per person. To make matters worse, after a truck drops off the goods it often returns empty to the depot. A 2002 study of 20,000 haulage trips found that only 2.4% of return journey legs found suitable backloads. This journey represents a large part of the impact of what we buy.Online shopping may prove marginally more green in terms of energy saving (often a strategy that favours homogenised, multinational retail), but we shouldn’t forget progressive bricks-and-mortar retail. Places such as Ludlow in Shropshire, a fairtrade town based on ethical trading ideas, where the independent high street has been hard won. It brings consumers face to face with products with an equitable backstory, shortened supply chain and with values. This is a wiser and wider retail experience; anything else could leave you feeling short changed. We learn from the first paragraph that（）
Robert vainly endeavored to（）the exhausted spirits of Lawrence.
One of the few calamities that have not befallen the world economy during the past two years is a dollar crash. During the bubble era that preceded it, many fretted that foreigners, tiring of America’s gaping external deficits, would send the greenback slumping and interest rates soaring. In fact, the opposite occurred. The crisis began within America, and the deeper it became, the more the dollar strengthened as fearful investors sought safety in Treasury bills.That history is worth bearing in mind when assessing the latest bout of fretfulness about the dollar’s future. For the past six months the greenback has been sinking steadily, hitting a 14-month low against a basket of leading currencies and $1.50 to the euro this week. Coupled with the extraordinary looseness of American policy, the weak dollar has also revived fears of a currency crash. With the budget deficit in double digits and the Federal Reserve’s balance-sheet swollen, dollar bears are once again forecasting that the slide could become a rout and spell the end of America’s status as the world’s reserve currency.This dollar declinism is overblown. It exaggerates the scale of the slide and misunderstands its cause. Much of the recent weakness simply reverses the earlier safe-haven flight to dollars, a sign of investors’ optimism about riskier assets rather than their fears about America’s currency. On a trade-weighted basis the dollar today is close to where it was before Lehman failed. Yields on Treasuries have not risen and spreads on riskier dollar assets continue to shrink. If investors were growing leerier of dollars, the opposite should have occurred. Furthermore, America’s recovery will be slower than that of other economies, especially emerging ones. That suggests America’s monetary policy will stay looser for longer, pushing the dollar down. A weaker dollar should also assist global economic rebalancing by helping to reorient America’s economy towards exports. So in general, it should help rather than hinder the global recovery.That does not mean the worriers’ fears are baseless. Three dangers remain. First, the dollar’s decline is distorted. The world’s most buoyant big economy, China, has kept its currency tied firmly to the greenback. This is stymieing the adjustment of China’s economy, fuelling dangerous domestic asset bubbles and placing an unnecessary burden on other, more flexible currencies. Second, America’s fiscal and monetary policies are unsustainable. The public-debt burden is set to double and, on today’s policies, will still be rising in a decade’s time. Third, the financial crisis has accelerated the relative shift of economic heft away from America—which will hasten the eventual erosion of the dollar’s dominance. Even so, this is unlikely to provoke a sudden crisis. Although America’s fiscal mess will last for years, it is not acute. Inflation will not soar suddenly. The dollar will not quickly lose its reserve-currency status and a dangerous collapse in the greenback is unlikely. The author holds the view that（）
Maintaining internal e-mail systems has long been the bane of the university information-technology director. Servers are unwieldy and unreliable, and in the past several years, the number of student complaints has grown exponentially as forward-moving providers like YahooMail, Hotmail, and Gmail have increased expectations of what E-mail should offer. The solution for a number of colleges has been to wave the white flag and outsource E-mail hosting to the experts.Microsoft, which owns Hotmail, and Google (Gmail) are the biggest players in the educational E-mail hosting market. Along with the neat-o peripheral gizmos like messaging, calendars, and collaboration tools, the outsourced systems are more stable, have better spam filters, and provide much more storage space than the typical university’s in-house system. At the University of Pennsylvania, its old E-mail service gave students 60 megabytes of storage, just 3 percent of the 2 gigabytes Windows Live now provides. In return, Google and Microsoft get almost nothing, at least monetarily and in the short term. Microsoft’s Windows Live @ edu and the Google Apps Education Edition are free of charge for schools. Eliminating another source of revenue, the two tech giants stripped their respective services of advertising in an effort to accommodate educators’ concerns. Microsoft breaks even on the venture (it does run ads on non-E-mail services like instant messaging), while Google, which makes almost all its money through advertising, runs at a loss.But what money they don’t make at the moment will-the companies hope-pay great dividends in the form of lifelong users in the future, says Google’s Jeff Kelter. As quickly as they shuffle out of commencement, graduates see their E-mail transition to the traditional ad-based formats of Gmail and Hotmail. And unlike before, when universities couldn’t afford to host thousands of alumni, Google and Microsoft can maintain every account indefinitely, retaining customers as long as customers still want them.Not all schools are ready to outsource their tech dirty work, with privacy and security topping the list of concerns. Critics worry that by handing over the responsibility of E-mail hosting, colleges also relinquish the freedom to keep the information safe in the best way they see fit. Even in the corporate world, there is great skepticism of consumer technologies like Google Apps. Yet most university IT managers agree that outsiders would do a better job protecting individual E-mail from viruses and spam than their own small operations, and strong word-of-mouth praise has done wonders to supplement the almost nonexistent marketing budgets for these Microsoft and Google projects. Which of the following statements is CORRECT（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付