【简答题】Translate the sentence: A management consultant, Bill Meyer, decided to find out.

Passage 3 Questions 11 to 15 are based onthe following passage:

According to a recent surv, ey, employees in many companies today work longer hours than employees did in 1979. They also take shorter vacations than employees in 1979. It seems that Americans are working harder today than ever before. Or are they? A management consultant, Bill Meyer, decided to find out. For three days, he observed an investment banker hard at work. Meyer wrote down everything the banker did during his long workday. At the end of the three-day period, Meyer reviewed the banker's activities with him. What did they find out? They discovered that the man spent 80 percent of his time doing unnecessary work. For example, he attended unnecessary meetings, made redundant (多余的) telephone calls, and spent time packing and unpacking his two big briefcases.

(79) Apparently many people believe that the more time a person spends at work, the more he or she accomplishes. When employers evaluate employees, they often consider the amount of time on the job in addition to job performance. Employees know this. Although many working people can do their job effectively during a regular 40-hour work week, they feel they have to spend more time on the job after normal working hours so that the people who can promote them see them.

A group of headhunters (猎头) were asked their opinion about a situation. They had a choice of two candidates for an executive position with an important company. The candidates had similar qualifications for the job. For example, they were both reliable. One could do the job well in a 40-hour work week. The other would do the same job in an 80-hour work week just as well. According to a headhunting expert, the 80-hour-a-week candidate would get the job. The time this candidate spends on the job may encourage other employees to spend more time at work, too. Employers believe that if the employees stay at work later, they may actually do more work.

However, the connection between time and productivity (生产率) is not always positive. (80) In fact. many studies indicate that after a certain point, anyone's productivity and creativity begin to decrease. Some employees are not willing to spend so much extra, unproductive time at the office. Once they finish their work satisfactorily, they want to relax and enjoy themselves. For these people, the solution is to find a company that encourages people to do both.

第11题：What is the main idea of this passage?

A. Many people work long hours but do not always do a lot of work.

B. Most people can get more work done by working longer hours.

C. Most Americans work 80 hours a week, and some work even longer.

D. People can make more money by working longer hours.

According to a recent survey, employees in many companies today work longer hours than employees did in 1979．They also take shorter vacations than employees in 1979．It seems that Americans are working harder today than ever before. Or are they? A management consultant, Bill Meyer, decided to find out. For three days, he observed an investment banker hard at work. Meyer wrote down everything the banker did during his long workday, At the end of the three-day period, Meyer reviewed the banker’s activities with him. What did they find out? They discovered that the man spent 80 percent of his time doing unnecessary work. For example, he attended unnecessary meetings, made redundant (多余的) telephone calls, and spent time packing and unpacking his two big briefcases.

(76)Apparently, many people believe that the more time a person spends at work, the more he or she accomplishes. When employers evaluate employees, they often consider the amount of time on the job in addition to job performance. Employees know this. Although many working people can do their job effectively during a regular 40-hour work week, they feel they have to spend more time on the job after normal working hours so that the people who can promote them see them.

A group of headhunters (猎头) were asked their opinion about a situation. They had a choice of two candidates for an executive position with an important company. The candidates had similar qualifications for the job．For example, they were both reliable. One could do the job well in a 40-hour work week. The other would do the Same job in an 80-hour work week just as well. According to a headhunting expert, the 80-hour-a-week candidate would get the job．The time this candidate spends on the job may encourage other employees to spend mote time at work, too. Employers believe that if the employees stay at work later, they may actually do more work.

However, the connection between time and productivity (生产率) is not always positive. (77) In fact, many studies indicate that after a certain point, anyone’s productivity and creativity begin to decrease. Some employees are not willing to spend so much extra, unproductive time at the office once they finish their work satisfactorily, they want to relax and enjoy themselves. For these people, the Solution is to find a company that encourages people to do both.

What is the main idea of this passage?

A．Many people work long hours but do not always do a lot of work.

B．Most people can get more work done by working longer hours.

C．Most Americans work 80 hours a week and some work even longer.

D．People can make more money by working longer hours.

According to a recent survey, employees in many companies today work longer hours than employees did in 1979．They also take shorter vacations than employees in 1979．It seems that Americans are working harder today than ever before. Or are they? A management consultant, Bill Meyer, decided to find out. For three days, he observed an investment banker hard at work. Meyer wrote down everything the banker did during his long workday, At the end of the three-day period, Meyer reviewed the banker’s activities with him. What did they find out? They discovered that the man spent 80 percent of his time doing unnecessary work. For example, he attended unnecessary meetings, made redundant (多余的) telephone calls, and spent time packing and unpacking his two big briefcases.

(76)Apparently, many people believe that the more time a person spends at work, the more he or she accomplishes. When employers evaluate employees, they often consider the amount of time on the job in addition to job performance. Employees know this. Although many working people can do their job effectively during a regular 40-hour work week, they feel they have to spend more time on the job after normal working hours so that the people who can promote them see them.

A group of headhunters (猎头) were asked their opinion about a situation. They had a choice of two candidates for an executive position with an important company. The candidates had similar qualifications for the job．For example, they were both reliable. One could do the job well in a 40-hour work week. The other would do the Same job in an 80-hour work week just as well. According to a headhunting expert, the 80-hour-a-week candidate would get the job．The time this candidate spends on the job may encourage other employees to spend mote time at work, too. Employers believe that if the employees stay at work later, they may actually do more work.

However, the connection between time and productivity (生产率) is not always positive. (77) In fact, many studies indicate that after a certain point, anyone’s productivity and creativity begin to decrease. Some employees are not willing to spend so much extra, unproductive time at the office once they finish their work satisfactorily, they want to relax and enjoy themselves. For these people, the Solution is to find a company that encourages people to do both.

What is the main idea of this passage?

A．Many people work long hours but do not always do a lot of work.

B．Most people can get more work done by working longer hours.

C．Most Americans work 80 hours a week and some work even longer.

D．People can make more money by working longer hours.

Directions: There are three passages in this part. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. You should decide on the best choice and blacken the corresponding letter on the Answer Sheet.

Passage 1

Question 1 to 5 are based on the following passage:

According to a recent survey, employees in many companies today work longer hours than employee did in 1979. It seems that Americans are working harder today than ever before. Or are they? A management consultant, Bill Meyer, decided to find out. For three days, he observed an investment banker hard at work. Meyer wrote down everything the banker did during his long workday. At the end of the three-day period, Meyer reviewed the banker’s activities with him. What did they find out? They discover that the man spent 80 percent of his time doing unnecessary work. For example, he attended unnecessary meetings, made redundant （多余的）telephone calls, and spent time packing and unpacking his two big briefcases.

(76) Apparently, many people believe that the more time a person spends at work, the more he or she accomplishes. When employers evaluate employees, they often consider the amount of time on the job in addition to job performance. Employees know this. Although many working people can do their job effectively during a regular 40-hour work week, they feel they have to spend more time on the job after normal working hours so that the people who can promote them see them.

A group of headhunters （猎头）were asked their opinion about a situation. They had a choice of two candidates for an executive position with an important company. The candidates had similar qualifications for the job. For example, they were both reliable. One could do the job well in a 40-hour work week. The other would do the same job in an 80-hour work week just as well. According to a headhunting expert, the 80-hour-a-week candidate would get the job. The time this candidate spends on the job may encourage other employees to spend more time at work, too. Employers believe that if the employees stay at work later, they may actually do more work.

However, the connection between time and productivity （生产率） is not always positive. (77) In fact, many studies indicate that after a certain point, anyone’s productivity and creativity begin to decrease. Some employees are nor willing to spend so much extra, unproductively time at the office. Once they finish their work satisfactory, they want to relax and enjoy themselves. For these people, the solution is find a company that encourages people to do both.

1. What is the main idea of this passage?

A Many people work long hours but do not always do a lot of work.

B Most people can get more work done by working longer hours.

C Most Americans work 80 hours a week, and some work even longer.

D People can make more money by working longer hours.

A man shot Martin Luther King in Atlanta on 4th April, 1968. He drove a white Ford car. Who was he.'? The police found "Harvey Lowmeyer's" gun and "John Willard' s" shirt, and then the white car. It was "Eric Starvo Galt's' '' car. So what was this man's real name? Marks on the car were sent to Los Angeles. 300 detectives questioned people. At last one found a photograph of "Galt". Then detectives in Atlanta found a fingerprint. It was on a map in "Galt's" room in a small hotel. One fingerprint was enough. James Earl Ray's fingerprints were already on the F.B.I. (联邦调查局) cards. The police watched railway stations, hotels and airport. 3,000 detectives were trying to find Ray, yet things went unsuccessfully. The Canadian police were helping too. They looked at 24,000 photographs in their Passport Office. Then they found one of "Ramon George Sneyd ", "We gave this man a passport last month," they said, "He went to London on 2nd May." The man was wearing thick glasses but the London Airport saw Sneyd's name on a passenger list. It was the end of the biggest man-hunt in history. The F.B.I. spent 1.4 million dollars, but they got their man.

The man called Ray was believed to be the real murderer of Martin Luther King because _________.

A．some people described his looking to the police

B．he had been to Canada and got a Canadian passport in the name of Ramon George Sneyd

C．one of his fingerprints was the same as the one found in "Gaits" room

D．he had a white Ford car, which the police found in Atlanta

Glotzer and Meyer decided not to move to New England because they want their children to live in ______areas.

"A good newspaper is a nation talking to itself," mused Arthur Miller in 1961. A decade later, two reporters from the Washington Post wrote a series of articles that brought down President Nixon and the status of print journalism soared. At their best, newspapers hold governments and companies to account. They usually set the news agenda for the rest of the media. But in the rich world newspapers are now an endangered species.

Of all the old media, newspapers have the most to lose from the Internet. Circulation has been falling in the U. S., Western Europe and Latin America for decades. But in the past few years the web has hastened the decline. In his book The Vanishing Newspaper, Philip Meyer calculates that the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint dies in the U. S. as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition.

Newspapers have not yet started to shut down in large numbers, but it is only a matter of time. Over the next few decades half the rich world's general papers may fold. Jobs are already disappearing. According to the Newspaper Association of America, the number of people employed in the industry fell by 18% between 1990 and 2004.

Having ignored reality for years, newspapers are at last doing something. In order to cut costs, they are already spending less on journalism. Many are also trying to attract younger readers by shifting the mix of their stories towards entertainment, lifestyle. and subjects that may seem more relevant to people's daily lives than international affairs and politics are. They are trying to create new businesses on-and offline. And they are investing in free dally papers. So far, this fit of activity looks unlikely to save many of them. Even if it doest, it bodes ill for the public role of the Fourth Estate.

Nobody should relish the demise of once-great titles. But the decline of newspapers will not be as harmful to society as some fear. Democracy, remember, has already survived the huge television-led decline in circulation since the 1950s. It has survived as readers have shunned papers and papers have shunned what was in stuffier times thought of as serious news. And it will surely survive the decline to come.

The usefulness of the press goes much wider than investigating abuses or even spreading general news; it lies in holding governments to account -- trying them in the court of public opinion. The Internet has expanded this court. Anyone looking for information has never been better equipped. People no longer have to trust a handful of national papers or, worse, their local city paper.

In future, some high-quality journalism will be backed by non-profit organizations. Already, a few respected news organizations sustain themselves that way. An elite group of serious newspapers available everywhere online, independent journalism backed by charities, thousands of fired-up bloggers and well-informed citizen journalists: there is every sign that Arthur Miller's national conversation will be louder than ever.

At the beginning of the passage, which use of newspapers did the author NOT mention?

A．A good newspaper is like a national conversation.

B．They do the business of selling words to readers and selling readers to advertisers.

C．They hold governments and companies responsible for what they have done.

D．They usually set the news agenda for the rest of the media.

Back in Seattle,around the corner from the Discovery Institute,Stephen Meyer offers some peer-reviewed evidence that there truly is a controversy that must be taught. "The Darwinists are bluffing, "he says over a plate of oysters at a downtown seafood restaurant. "They have the science of the steam engine era,and its not keeping up with the biology of the information age. " Meyer hands me a recent issue of Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews with an article by Carl Woese.an eminent microbiologist at the University of Illinois. In it. Woese decries the failure of reductionist biology—the tendency to Jook at systems as merely the sum of their parts—to keep up with the developments of molecular biology. Meyer says the conclusion of Woeses argument is that the Darwinian emperor has no clothes. Its a page out of the antievolution playbook: using evolutionary biologys own literature against it, selectively quoting from the likes of Stephen Jay Gould to illustrate natural selections downfalls. The institute marshals Journal articles discussing evolution to provide policymakers with evidence of the raging controversy surrounding the issue. Woese scoffs at Meyers claim when I call to ask him about the paper. "To say that my criticism of Darwinists says that evolutionists have no clothes,"Woese says, "is like saying that Einstein is criticizing Newton,therefore Newtonian physics is wrong". Debates about evolutions mechanisms,he continues. dont amount to challenges to the theory. And intelligent design "is not science. It makes no predictions and doesnt offer any explanation whatsoever, except forGod did it. " Of course Meyer happily acknowledges that Woese is an ardent evolutionist. The institute doesnt need to impress Woese or his peersjit can simply co-opt the vocabulary of science—"academic freedom. " "scientific objectivity,""teach the controversy"—and redirect it to a public trying to reconcile what ap-pear to be two contradictory scientific views. By appealing to a sense of fairness. ID finds a place at the political table,and by merely entering the debate it can claim victory. "We dont need to win every argu-ment to be a success,"Meyer says,"Were trying to validate a discussion thats been long suppressed. " This is precisely what happened in Ohio. "Im not a PhD in biology, "says board member Michael Cochran. "But when I have X number of PhD experts telling me this, and X number telling me the opposite, the answer is probably somewhere between the two." An exasperated Krauss claims that a truly representative debate would have had 10000 pro-evolution Scientists against two Discovery executives. "What these people want is for there to be a debate,"says Krauss. "People in the audience say,Hey,these people sound reasonable. They argue, people have different opinions, we should present those opinions in school.That is nonsense. Some people have opinions that the Holocaust never happened, but we dont teach that in history. " Eventually, the Ohio board approved a standard mandating that students learn to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. "Proclaiming victory, Johnson barnstormed Ohio churches soon after notifying congregations of a new, ID-friendly standard. In response, anxious board members added a clause stating that the standard "does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design."Both sides claimed victory. A press release from IDNet trumpeted the mere inclusion of the phrase intelligent design,saying that "the implication of the statement is that the teaching or testing of intelligent designis permitted. "Some pro-evolution scientists, meanwhile,say theres nothing wrong with teaching students how to scrutinize theory. "I dont have a problem with that," says Patricia Princehouse.a professor at Case Western Reserve and an outspoken opponent of ID."Critical analysis is exactly what scientists do."

Stephen Meyer seems to be criticizing Darwinists because_____.

A．the evidence for their theories is peer-reviewed

B．they were bom in the age of steam engine

C．their theories are already out of date

D．they can not catch up with the information technology

Back in Seattle, around the comer from the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer offers some peer-reviewed evidence that there truly is a controversy that must be taught. "The Darwinists are bluffing," he says over a plate of oysters at a downtown seafood restaurant. "They have the science of the steam engine era, and it's not keeping up with the biology of the information age."

Meyer hands me a recent issue of Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews with an article by Carl Woese, an eminent microbiologist at the University of Illinois. In it, Woese decries the failure of reductionist biology—the tendency to look at systems as merely the stun of their parts—to keep up with the developments of molecular biology. Meyer says the conclusion of Woese's argument is that the Darwinian emperor has no clothes.

It's a page out of the antievolution playbook: using evolutionary biology's own literature against it, selectively quoting from the likes of Stephen Jay Gould to illustrate natural selection's downfalls. The institute marshals journal articles discussing evolution to provide policymakers with evidence of the raging controversy surrounding the issue.

Woese scoffs at Meyer's claim when I call to ask him about the paper. "To say that my criticism of Darwinists says that evolutionists have no clothes," Woese says, "is like saying that Einstein is criticizing Newton, therefore Newtonian physics is wrong." Debates about evolution's mechanisms, he continues, don't amount to challenges to the theory. And intelligent design "is not science. It makes no predictions and doesn't offer any explanation whatsoever, except for God did it."

Of course Meyer happily acknowledges that Woese is an ardent evolutionist. The institute doesn't need to impress Woese or his peers; it can simply co-ocpt the vocabulary of science— "academic freedom," "scientific objectivity," "teach the controversy"—and redirect it to a public trying to reconcile what appear to be two contradictory scientific views. By appealing to a sense of fairness, ID finds a place at the political table, and by merely entering the debate it can claim victory. "We don't need to win every argument to be a success," Meyer says. "We're trying to validate a discussion that's been long suppressed."

This is precisely what happened in Ohio. "I'm not a PhD in biology," says board member Michael Cochran. "But when I have X number of PhD experts telling me this, and X number telling me the opposite, the answer is probably somewhere between the two."

An exasperated Krauss claims that a truly representative debate would have had 10,000 pro-evolution scientists against two Discovery executives. "What these people want is for there to be a debate," says Krauss. "People in the audience say, Hey, these people sound reasonable. They argue, 'People have different opinions, we should present those opinions in school.' That is nonsense. Some people have opinions that the Holocaust never happened, but we don't teach that in history."

Eventually, the Ohio board approved a standard mandation that students learn to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Proclaiming victory, Johnson barnstormed Ohio churches soon after notifying congregations of a new, ID-friendly standard. In response, anxious board members added a clause stating that the standard "does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design." Both sides claimed victory. A press release from IDNet trumpeted the mere inclusion of the phrase intelligent design, saying that "the implication of the statement is that the 'teaching of testing of intelligent design' is permitted." Some pro-evolution scientists, meanwhile, say there's nothing wrong with teaching students how to scrutinize theory. "I don't have a problem with that," says Patricia Princehouse, a professor at Case Western Reserve and an outspoken oppnen

A．the evidence for their theories is peer-reviewed

B．they were born in the age of steam engine

C．their theories are already out of date

D．they can not catch up with the information tecbnology