题目内容

案主王女士，45岁，初中文化程度，有一个孩子正在读高中。五年前王女士和丈夫双双下岗，全家人靠政府发放的低保金生活，家庭生活一下子变得窘迫起来。尽管王女士在生活上精打细算，节衣缩食，但也只能勉强维持生计。在生活的巨大压力下，王女士失去了笑容，整日愁眉不展。她也曾经尝试着去人才市场寻找工作，可是年龄和学历却使她一次又一次地碰壁。居委会也曾经为王女士介绍过家政服务员、小区保洁工等工作，可是王女士认为这些工作都是外地人干的活，作为一个土生土长的上海人，总得找一些稍微体面些而且报酬比较高的工作才行，因此她婉言拒绝了居委会的热心相助。可她一下子又找不到合适的工作，只好一直呆在家中，间或做些零工。几年来，贫困和生活的压力使她越来越自卑，同时也越来越绝望，看不到未来生活的希望，不知道往后的日子该怎么过。问题： 1．在上述案例中，王女士目前面临的主要困境有哪些 2．针对王女士目前的困境，社会工作者应采取什么样的介入策略

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

Questions 1 to 5 are based on an interview. At the end of the interview you will be given]0 seconds to answer each of the following five questions. Now listen to the interview. What did Mrs. Bruce think of the suffragettes’ efforts

A. They were useless.
B. They were ridiculous.
C. They were good in a lot of ways.
D. They were somewhat limited.

查看答案

2004年4月1日，美国的甲公司和境内的乙公司达成股权转让协议，乙公司将自己60%的胶权转让给甲公司，并依法变更为中外投资经营企业丙公司(以下简称“丙公司”)。甲、乙公司签订的合营合同、章程、协议的部分内容如下， (1) 乙公司的债权债务由丙公司继承。 (2) 甲公司收购乙公司60%股权的价款为1200万美元。甲公司应当自丙公司营业执照颁发之日起3个月内支付600万美元，其余价款在2年内付清。 (3) 丙公司成立后，注册资本由原来的2000万美元增加至3000万美元，增资部分双方分期缴付，甲公司应当自丙公司营业执照颁发之日起3个月内缴付第一期出资80万美元。 (4) 丙公司的投资总额拟定为10000万美元。 (5) 丙公司采用有限责任公司的组织形式，拟建立股东会、董事会、监事会等组织机构；股东会为合营企业的最高权力机构、董事会为合营企业的执行机构、监事会为合营企业的监督机构。其中，董事会由5名董事组成，其中甲公司委派3名，乙公司委派2名。合资企业的董事长由甲公司委派，副董事长由乙公司委派。 (6) 丙公司的主营业务为彩扩、洗像。根据行业主管部门测算：甲公司在中国彩扩、洗像行业的市场占有率已经达到21%，本次并购完成后，甲公司在中国的市场占有率将达到30%。要求：根据《外国投资者并购境内企业暂行规定》和外商投资企业法律制度规定，分别回答以下问题： (1) 根据本题要点(1) 所提示的内容，指出乙公司的债权债务由丙公司继承是否符合规定并说明理由 (2) 根据本题要点(2) 所提示的内容，指出甲公司股权并购价款的支付期限是否符合规定并说明理由。 (3) 根据本题要点(3) 所提示的内容，指出甲公司缴付第一期出资的数额是否符合规定珐说明理由。 (4) 根据本题要点(4) 所提示的内容，指出丙公司的投资总额是否符合规定并说明理由。 (5) 根据本题要点(5) 所提示的内容，指出丙公司的组织机构设置是否符合规定并说明理由。 (6) 根据本题要点(6) 所提示的内容，指出丙公司在合营合同中是否应约定合营期限并说明理由。 (7) 根据甲公司的市场占有率数据，甲公司在并购中应履行何种义务并说明理由。

查看答案

Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only fuur years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers—one every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers—which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature—the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk—the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells—it is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely. Science is built on the honor system; the method of peer-review, in which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the field, is not meant to catch cheats. In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success. The questions raised anew by Hwang’s fall are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers. Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters; cell biologists have Cell; neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the accolades of academics and satisfy the publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications. Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature, not just the public. Scientists tend to pay more attention to the Big Two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they’re more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being oft-cited will increase a scientist’s "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the Impact Factor as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they’re considering supporting. Whether the clamor to appear in these journals has any bearing on their ability to catch fraud is another matter. The fact is that fraud is terrifically hard to spot. Consider the process Science used to evaluate Hwang’s 2005 article. Science editors recognized the manuscript’s import almost as soon as it arrived. As part of the standard procedure, they sent it to two members of its Board of Reviewing Editors, who recommended that it go out for peer review (about 30 percent of manuscripts pass this test). This recommendation was made not on the scientific validity of the paper, but on its "novelty, originality, and trendiness," says Denis Duboule, a geneticist at the University of Geneva and a member of Science’s Board of Reviewing Editors, in the January 6 issue of Science. After this, Science sent the paper to three stem-cell experts, who had a week to look it over. Their comments were favorable. How were they to know that the data was fraudulent "You look at the data and do not assume it’s fraud," says one reviewer, anonymously, in Science. In the end, a big scandal now and then isn’t likely to do much damage to the big scientific journals. What editors and scientists worry about more are the myriad smaller infractions that occur all the time, and which are almost impossible to detect. A Nature survey of scientists published last June found that one-third of all respondents had committed some forms of misconduct. These included falsifying research data and having "questionable relationships" with students and subjects—both charges leveled against Hwang. Nobody really knows if this kind of fraud is on the rise, but it is worrying. Science editors don’t have any plans to change the basic editorial peer: review process as a result of the Hwang scandal. They do have plans to scrutinize photographs more closely in an effort to spot instances of fraud, but that policy change had already been decided when the scandal struck. And even if it had been in place, it would not have revealed that Hwang had misrepresented photographs from two stem cell colonies as coming from 11 colonies. With the financial and deadline pressures of the publishing industry, it’s unlikely that the journals are going to take markedly stronger measures to vet manuscripts. Beyond replicating the experiments themselves, which would be impractical, it’s difficult to see what they could do to make science beyond the honor system. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage

A. Key scientific journals are authoritative in evaluating scientific papers.
B. Peer-review is the most effective method in evaluating and selecting scientific papers.
C. Scientists are less likely to achieve career success without publications in top papers.
D. Fabricating evidence in scientific researches can be discovered by enough strict evaluation.

查看答案

Questions 1 to 5 are based on an interview. At the end of the interview you will be given]0 seconds to answer each of the following five questions. Now listen to the interview. What does Mrs. Bruce think about politics

A. She thinks women shouldn’t enter politics.
B. She thinks beating men at politics is great.
C. She thinks women sometimes can be better at politics than men.
D. She thinks politics is men’s job.

查看答案