题目内容
3. A country’s economic prosperity can be reflected in people’s daily life. Do you agree or disagree7 Give your reasons in detail.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Passage ADirections: For Questions 11—15, you will hear a radio program. While you listen, fill out the table with the information you’ve heard. Some of the information has been given to you in the table. Write only 1 word or number in each numbered box. You will hear the recording only once.Name of Program______ for Today11TopicExperimenting on AnimalsGuestJeff SachsPercentage of doctors supporting experiments on animals______12Jeff’s ideaWhether we experiment on animals or not is a ______ question.13We experiment on animals because they are ______ to stop us.It’s dangerous to say that we use animals in experiments because they lack our intelligence.Animals have ______.15
Text 4 Humour, which ought to give rise to only the most light-hearted and gay feelings, can often stir up vehemence and animosity. Evidently it is dearer to us than we realize. Men will take almost any kind of criticism except the observation that they have no sense of humour. A man will admit to being a coward or a liar or a thief or a poor mechanic or a bad swimmer, but tell him he has a dreadful sense of humour and you might as well have slandered his mother. Even if he is civilized enough to pretend to make light of your statement, he will still secretly believe that he has not only a good sense of humour but one superior to most. He has, in other words, a completely blind spot on the subject. This is all the more surprising when you consider that not one man in ten million can give you any kind of intelligent answer as to what humour is or why he laughs. One day when I was about twelve years old, it occurred to me to wonder about the phenomenon of laughter. At first I thought it is easy enough to see what I laugh at and why I am amused, but why at such times do I open my mouth and exhale in jerking gasps and wrinkle up my eyes and throw back my head and halloo like an animal Why do I not instead rap four times on the top of my head or whistle or whirl about That was over twenty years ago and I am still wondering, except that I now no longer even take my first assumption for granted, I no longer clearly understand why I laugh at what amuses me nor why things are amusing. I have illustrious company in my confusion, of course. Many of the great minds of history have brought their power of concentration to bear on the mystery of humour, and, to date, their conclusions are so contradictory and ephemeral that they cannot possibly be classified as scientific. Many definitions of the comical are incomplete and many are simply rewordings of things we already know. Aristotle, for example, defined the ridiculous as that which is incongruous but represents neither danger nor pain. But that seems to me to be a most inadequate sort of observation, for if at this minute I insert here the word rutabagas, I have introduced something in congruous, something not funny. Of course, it must be admitted that Aristotle did not claim that every painless incongruity is ridiculous, but as soon as we have gone as far as this admission, we begin to see that we have come to grips with a ghost: when we think we have it pinned, it suddenly appears behind us, mocking us. An all-embracing definition of humour has been attempted by many philosophers, but no definition, no formula has ever been devised that is entirely satisfactory. Aristotle’s definition has come to be known loosely as the "disappointment" theory, or the "frustrated expectation". But he also discussed another theory borrowed in part from Plato which states that the pleasure we derive in laughing is an enjoyment of the misfortune of others, due to a momentary feeling of superiority or gratified vanity in appreciation of the fact that we ourselves are not in the observed predicament. The writer feels that the answer to the mystery of humour given by the great minds of history is ______.
Text 2 Imagine a world in which there was suddenly no emotion—a world in which human beings could feel no love or happiness, no terror or hate. Try to imagine the consequences of such a transformation. People might not be able to stay alive: knowing neither joy nor pleasure, neither anxiety nor fear, they would be as likely to repeat acts that hurt them as acts that were beneficial. They could not learn: they could not benefit from experience because this emotionless world would lack rewards and punishments. Society would soon disappear: people would be as likely to harm one another as to provide help and support. Human relationships would not exist: in a world without friends or enemies, there could be no marriage, affection among companions, or bonds among members of groups. Society’s economic underpinnings would be destroyed: since earning $10 million would be no more pleasant than earning $10, there would be no incentive to work. In fact, there would be no incentives of any kind. For as we will see, incentives imply a capacity to enjoy them. In such a world, the chances that the human species would survive are next to zero, because emotions are the basic instrument of our survival and adaptation. Emotions strcture the world for us in important ways. As individuals, we categorize objects on the basis of our emotions. True we consider the length, shape, size, or texture, but an object’s physical aspects are less important than what it has done or can do to us—hurt us, surprise us, anger us or make us joyful. We also use categorizations coloured by emotions in our families, communities, and overall society. Out of our emotional experiences with objects and events comes a social feeling of agreement that certain things and actions are "good" and others are "bad", and we apply these categories to every aspect of our social life—from what foods we eat and what clothes we wear m how we keep promises and which people our group will accept. In fact, society exploits our emotional reactions and attitudes, such as loyalty, morality, pride, shame, guilt, fear and greed, in order to maintain itself. It gives high rewards to individuals who perform important tasks such as surgery, makes heroes out of individuals for unusual or dangerous achievements such flying fighter planes in a war, and uses the legal and penal system to make people afraid to engage in antisocial acts. Emotions are significant for man’s survival and adaptation because ______.
Text 4 Humour, which ought to give rise to only the most light-hearted and gay feelings, can often stir up vehemence and animosity. Evidently it is dearer to us than we realize. Men will take almost any kind of criticism except the observation that they have no sense of humour. A man will admit to being a coward or a liar or a thief or a poor mechanic or a bad swimmer, but tell him he has a dreadful sense of humour and you might as well have slandered his mother. Even if he is civilized enough to pretend to make light of your statement, he will still secretly believe that he has not only a good sense of humour but one superior to most. He has, in other words, a completely blind spot on the subject. This is all the more surprising when you consider that not one man in ten million can give you any kind of intelligent answer as to what humour is or why he laughs. One day when I was about twelve years old, it occurred to me to wonder about the phenomenon of laughter. At first I thought it is easy enough to see what I laugh at and why I am amused, but why at such times do I open my mouth and exhale in jerking gasps and wrinkle up my eyes and throw back my head and halloo like an animal Why do I not instead rap four times on the top of my head or whistle or whirl about That was over twenty years ago and I am still wondering, except that I now no longer even take my first assumption for granted, I no longer clearly understand why I laugh at what amuses me nor why things are amusing. I have illustrious company in my confusion, of course. Many of the great minds of history have brought their power of concentration to bear on the mystery of humour, and, to date, their conclusions are so contradictory and ephemeral that they cannot possibly be classified as scientific. Many definitions of the comical are incomplete and many are simply rewordings of things we already know. Aristotle, for example, defined the ridiculous as that which is incongruous but represents neither danger nor pain. But that seems to me to be a most inadequate sort of observation, for if at this minute I insert here the word rutabagas, I have introduced something in congruous, something not funny. Of course, it must be admitted that Aristotle did not claim that every painless incongruity is ridiculous, but as soon as we have gone as far as this admission, we begin to see that we have come to grips with a ghost: when we think we have it pinned, it suddenly appears behind us, mocking us. An all-embracing definition of humour has been attempted by many philosophers, but no definition, no formula has ever been devised that is entirely satisfactory. Aristotle’s definition has come to be known loosely as the "disappointment" theory, or the "frustrated expectation". But he also discussed another theory borrowed in part from Plato which states that the pleasure we derive in laughing is an enjoyment of the misfortune of others, due to a momentary feeling of superiority or gratified vanity in appreciation of the fact that we ourselves are not in the observed predicament. Which of the following can be inferred from the first paragraph
微信支付 
支付宝支付