题目内容
In Cambodia, the choice of a spouse is a complex one for the young male. It may involve not only his parents and his friends, 1 those of the young woman, but also a matchmaker. A young man can 2 a likely spouse on his own and then ask his parents to 3 the marriage negotiations, or the young man"s parents may make the choice of a spouse, giving the child little to say in the selection. 4 , a girl may veto the spouse her parents have chosen. 5 a spouse has been selected, each family investigates the other to make sure its child is marrying 6 a good family.The traditional wedding is a long and colorful affair. Formerly it lasted three days, 7 by the 1980s it more commonly lasted a day and a half. Buddhist priests offer a short sermon and 8 prayers of blessing. Parts of the ceremony involve ritual hair cutting, 9 cotton threads soaked in holy water around the bride"s and groom"s wrists, and 10 a candle around a circle of happily married and respected couples to bless the 11 . Newlyweds traditionally move in with the wife"s parents and may 12 with them up to a year, 13 they can build a new house nearby.Divorce is legal and easy to 14 , but not common. Divorced persons are 15 with some disapproval. Each spouse retains 16 property he or she 17 into the marriage, and jointly-acquired property is 18 equally. Divorced persons may remarry, but a gender prejudice 19 up: The divorced male doesn"t have a waiting period before he can remarry 20 the woman must wait ten months.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
There will eventually come a day whenThe New York Timesceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. "Sometime in the future," the paper"s publisher said back in 2010.Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there"s plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper—printing presses, delivery trucks—isn"t just expen sive; it"s excessive at a time when online-only competitors don"t have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print anyway. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining.Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mis take, says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.Peretti says the Times shouldn"t waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way. "Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them," he said, "but if you discontinue it, you"re going to have your most loyal customers really upset with you."Sometimes that"s worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. "It was seen as a blunder," he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the Times "I wouldn"t pick a year to end print," he said. "I would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product."The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they"d feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. "So if you"re overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping," Peretti said. "Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue." In other words, if you"re going to print product, make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what theTimesis doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year—more than twice as much as a digital-only subscription."It"s a really hard thing to do and it"s a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn"t have a legacy business," Peretti remarked. "But we"re going to have questions like that where we have things we"re doing that don"t make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it"s better to be more aggressive than less aggressive." Which of the following would be the best title of the text
For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate "the countryside" alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Service (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support.A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save "the beauty of natural places for everyone forever." It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience "a refreshing air." Hill"s pressure later led to the creation of national parks and green belts. They don"t make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it. It needs constant guardianship.At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment. The Conservatives" planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorising "off-plan" building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable. Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Conservative parties.The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London area alone, with no intrusion on green belt. what is true of London is even truer of the provinces.The idea that "housing crisis" equals "concreted meadows" is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always, where to put them. Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets. This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin ur ban conservation areas. Why ruin rural onesDevelopment should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe"s most crowded country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternative—the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum. The author holds that George Osborne"s preference ______.
For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate "the countryside" alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Service (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support.A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save "the beauty of natural places for everyone forever." It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience "a refreshing air." Hill"s pressure later led to the creation of national parks and green belts. They don"t make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it. It needs constant guardianship.At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment. The Conservatives" planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorising "off-plan" building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable. Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Conservative parties.The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London area alone, with no intrusion on green belt. what is true of London is even truer of the provinces.The idea that "housing crisis" equals "concreted meadows" is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always, where to put them. Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets. This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin ur ban conservation areas. Why ruin rural onesDevelopment should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe"s most crowded country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternative—the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum. In the last paragraph, the author shows his appreciation of ______.
For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate "the countryside" alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Service (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support.A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save "the beauty of natural places for everyone forever." It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience "a refreshing air." Hill"s pressure later led to the creation of national parks and green belts. They don"t make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it. It needs constant guardianship.At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment. The Conservatives" planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorising "off-plan" building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable. Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Conservative parties.The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London area alone, with no intrusion on green belt. what is true of London is even truer of the provinces.The idea that "housing crisis" equals "concreted meadows" is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always, where to put them. Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets. This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin ur ban conservation areas. Why ruin rural onesDevelopment should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe"s most crowded country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternative—the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum. According to Paragraph 2, the achievements of the National Trust are now being ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付