题目内容
Section A Directions: This section is to test your ability to understand short dialogues. There are 5 recorded dialogues in it. After each dialogue, there is a recorded question. Both the dialogues and questions will be spoken only once. When you hear a question, you should decide on the correct answer from the 4 choices marked A), B), C) and D) given in your test paper Then you should mark the corresponding letter on the Answer Sheet with a single line through the center. What does the woman mean？（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
注册会计师张敏负责对海洋公司2007年度财务报表进行审计，在完成审计工作时，张敏需要考虑以下事项，请代为做出正确判断。 注册会计师对财务报表进行审计时，一般无须专门对期初余额发表审计意见。在以下对其含义进行的各种表述中，不正确的表述是( )。
(每小题均有多个正确答案，请从每小题的备选答案中选出你认为正确的答案。)申花会计师事务所的注册会计师王刚为戊公司2007年度财务报表审计的项目负责人，对于戊公司审计过程中助理人员提出的问题，请代为做出正确的判断； 鉴证业务分为基于责任方认定的业务和直接报告业务，鉴证业务涉及的三方关系中，不同情况下的责任方是指( )。
Do animals have fights This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground-clearing way to start. Actually,it isn’t, because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human fights, which is something the world does not have. On one view of rights, to be sure, it necessarily follows that animals have none. Some philosophers argue that fights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements. Therefore animals cannot have fights. The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd; for exactly the same reason, so is the idea that tigers have rights. However, this is only one account, and by no means an uncontested one. It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people for instance, to infants, the mentally incapable and future generations. In addition, it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it: how do you reply to somebody who says I don’t like this contractThe point is this: without agreement on the fights of people, arguing about the fights of animals is fruitless. It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans ,or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Better to start with another, more fundamental, question: is the way we treat animals a moral issue at allMany deny it. Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice. Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.This view, which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood, may seem bravely logical. In fact it is simply shallow: the confused center is fight to reject it. The most elementary form of moral reasoning the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl is to weigh others’ interests against one’s own. This in turn requires sympathy and imagination: without which there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be enco Some philosophers argue that rights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements.
某地调查中小学生贫血患病情况，抽查小学生410名，有贫血患者120名；抽查中学生320名，有贫血患者58名。 欲知中、小学生贫血患病率有无差别，可选用
微信支付 
支付宝支付