题目内容
公民宣告死亡的，下落不明满2年的起算时间为公民音信消失之日。( )
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
TEXT C The English language exists in a condition of everlasting danger, its American branch most particularly, assaulted as it is from all sides by those who would reduce it to puzzling and obscure jargon, pop-psychological nonsense and vague beautified words, but it is not without its defenders. Ken Smith, author of Junk English, is the leading figure. He begins with a brief and clear declaration: "Junk English is much more than loose and casual grammar. It is a signal of human weaknesses and cultural license: abandoning the language of the educated yet giving birth to its own serf-glorifying words and phrases, favoring appearance over substance, broadness over precision, and loudness above all. It is sometimes innocent, sometimes lazy, sometimes well intended, but most often it is a trick we play on ourselves to make the unremarkable seem important. Its scope has been widened by politicians, business executives, and the PR and advertising industries in their employ, who use it to spread fog before facts they would rather keep hidden. The result is…a world of humbug in which the more we read and hear, the less we know." Smith is, of course, saying something not true—it is difficult to imagine that Junk English will be noticed, much less read, by those who most could profit from it—but it is an instructive and entertaining instructions and explanation all the same. He tries his hands at all the right places—jargon, clichés, euphemisms and exaggeration—but he doesn’t swing blindly. "Although jargon often sounds ugly to outsiders, it speeds communication within the community that uses it" —and that "clichés, though popular objects of scorn, are useful when they most compactly express an idea; deliberate avoidance of an appropriate cliché sometimes produces even worse writing." In other words, Smith may be passionate but he’s also sensible. In a section about "free-for-all verbs," for example, he acknowledges that "There is no law against inventing one’s own verbs" before citing a few funny instances of what happens when "Things get a little out of hand," i.e. "We’re efforting to work this out" or "She tried to guilt him into returning the money." In the end, though, being sensible about language is in essence trying to insist that words mean what they properly mean and are used accordingly. Thus, for example, Smith insists that "dialogue" and "discussion" are not synonyms and should not be used interchangeably; that "complimentary" does not mean "free"; that "experience" does not mean "feel"; that "facilitate" does not mean "ease"; that "generate" does not mean "produce"; that "lifestyle" does not mean "life". Smith obviously has spent a lot of time making notes about the ways in which we ruin and abuse our language, with results that are impressive in their thoroughness and depressing in their going to far. Occasionally he overlooks the obvious—among euphemisms he mentions "customer care representative" but not "courtesy call," and among the previously mentioned palsy-walsy language he inexplicably overlooks "Your call is important to us" —but then, as he says at the outset, he intended to write a short book and as a result had to leave out many misdeeds. The ones he includes more than do the job. The word "humbug" in the last sentence of Para. 2 can be replaced by
TEXT B Until recently, women in advertisements were one of three things—an apron, a glamorous dress or a frown. Although that is now changing, many women still feel angry enough to deface offending advertisements with stickers protesting, "This ad degrades women." Why does this sort of advertising exist How can advertisers and ad agencies produce, sometimes, after months of research, advertising that offends the consumer The Advertising Standards Authority (the body which deals with complaints about print media) is carrying out a research into how women feel about the way they are portrayed in advertisements. Its conclusions are likely to be what the advertising industry already knows: although women are often irritated by the way they are seen in ads, few feel strongly enough to complain. Women are not the only victims of poor and boring stereotypes—in many TV commercials men are seen either as useless, childish oafs who are unable to perform the simplest household tasks, or as inconsiderate boors, permanently on the lookout for an escape to the pub. But it is women who seem to bear the brunt of the industry’s apparent inability to put people into an authentic present-day context Yet according to Emma Bennett, executive creative director of a London advertising agency, women are not infuriated by stereotypes and sexist advertising. It tends to wash over them, they are not militant or angry—they just find it annoying or tiresome. They reluctantly accept outdated stereotypes, but have a sigh of relief when an advertisement really gets it right. She says that it is not advertising’s use of the housewife role that bothers women, but the way in which it is handled. "Researchers have often asked the wrong questions. The most important thing is the advertisement’s tone of voice. Women hate being patronized, flattered or given desperately down-to-earth commonsense advice." In the end, the responsibility for good advertising must be shared between the advertiser, the advertising agency and the consumer. Advertising does not set trends but it reflects them. It is up to the consumer to tell advertisers where they fail, and until people on the receiving end take the business seriously and make their feelings known, the process of change will remain laboriously slow. Ultimately the advertising industry should
TEXT C The English language exists in a condition of everlasting danger, its American branch most particularly, assaulted as it is from all sides by those who would reduce it to puzzling and obscure jargon, pop-psychological nonsense and vague beautified words, but it is not without its defenders. Ken Smith, author of Junk English, is the leading figure. He begins with a brief and clear declaration: "Junk English is much more than loose and casual grammar. It is a signal of human weaknesses and cultural license: abandoning the language of the educated yet giving birth to its own serf-glorifying words and phrases, favoring appearance over substance, broadness over precision, and loudness above all. It is sometimes innocent, sometimes lazy, sometimes well intended, but most often it is a trick we play on ourselves to make the unremarkable seem important. Its scope has been widened by politicians, business executives, and the PR and advertising industries in their employ, who use it to spread fog before facts they would rather keep hidden. The result is…a world of humbug in which the more we read and hear, the less we know." Smith is, of course, saying something not true—it is difficult to imagine that Junk English will be noticed, much less read, by those who most could profit from it—but it is an instructive and entertaining instructions and explanation all the same. He tries his hands at all the right places—jargon, clichés, euphemisms and exaggeration—but he doesn’t swing blindly. "Although jargon often sounds ugly to outsiders, it speeds communication within the community that uses it" —and that "clichés, though popular objects of scorn, are useful when they most compactly express an idea; deliberate avoidance of an appropriate cliché sometimes produces even worse writing." In other words, Smith may be passionate but he’s also sensible. In a section about "free-for-all verbs," for example, he acknowledges that "There is no law against inventing one’s own verbs" before citing a few funny instances of what happens when "Things get a little out of hand," i.e. "We’re efforting to work this out" or "She tried to guilt him into returning the money." In the end, though, being sensible about language is in essence trying to insist that words mean what they properly mean and are used accordingly. Thus, for example, Smith insists that "dialogue" and "discussion" are not synonyms and should not be used interchangeably; that "complimentary" does not mean "free"; that "experience" does not mean "feel"; that "facilitate" does not mean "ease"; that "generate" does not mean "produce"; that "lifestyle" does not mean "life". Smith obviously has spent a lot of time making notes about the ways in which we ruin and abuse our language, with results that are impressive in their thoroughness and depressing in their going to far. Occasionally he overlooks the obvious—among euphemisms he mentions "customer care representative" but not "courtesy call," and among the previously mentioned palsy-walsy language he inexplicably overlooks "Your call is important to us" —but then, as he says at the outset, he intended to write a short book and as a result had to leave out many misdeeds. The ones he includes more than do the job. What is meant by "he doesn’t swing blindly" (Line 4, Para. 3)
Decide which of the choices given below would best complete the passage if inserted in the corresponding blanks. Mark the best choice for each blank on your ANSWER SHEET. A scientist who wants to predict the way in which consumers will spend their money must study consumer behavior. He must obtain (31) both on resources of consumers and on the motives that (32) to encourage or discourage money spending. If an (33) were asked which of three groups borrow most—people with rising incomes, (34) incomes, or declining incomes—he would (35) answer: those with declining incomes. Actually, in the past, the answer was: people with rising incomes. People with declining incomes were next and people with stable incomes borrowed the (36) . This shows us that traditional (37) about earning and spending are not always (38) . Another traditional assumption is that if people who have money expect prices to go up, they will (39) to buy. If they expect prices to go down, they will postpone buying. (40) research surveys have shown that this is not always (41) The expectations of price increases may not stimulate buying. One (42) attitude was expressed by the wife of a mechanic at a time of rising prices. Her family had been planning to buy a new car but they postponed this purchase. (43) , the rise in prices that has already taken place may be resented and buyer’s resistance may be evoked. The (44) mentioned above was carried out in America. Investigations (45) at the same time in Great Britain, however, yielded results that were more (46) traditional assumptions about saving and spending patterns. The condition most contributive to spending (47) to be price stability. If prices have been stable and people consider that they are (48) , they are likely to buy. Thus, it appears that the common (49) policy of maintaining stable prices is based on a correct understanding of (50) psychology.
微信支付 
支付宝支付