A divorcee is the sole provider in a typical “single parent” family.
A.religious B.spiritual C.exclusive D.chief
相关问题推荐
A. Contradictory B. Appreciative C. Disapproving. D. Detestful.'>
President Clinton’s decision on Apr. 8 to send Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji packing without an agreement on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization seemed to be a massive miscalculation. The President took a drubbing from much of the press, which had breathlessly reported that a deal was in the bag. The Cabinet and White House still appeared divided, and business leaders were characterized as furious over the lost opportunity. Zhu charged that Clinton lacked ‘the courage” to reach an accord. And when Clinton later telephoned the angry Zhu to pledge a renewed effort at negotiations, the gesture was widely portrayed as a flip-flop.In fact, Clinton made the right decision in holding out for a better WTO deal. A lot more horse trading is needed before a final agreement can be reached. And without the Administration’s goal of a “bullet-proof agreement” that business lobbyists can enthusiastically sell to a Republican Congress, the whole process will end up in partisan acrimony that could harm relations with China for years.THE HARD PART. Many business lobbyists, while disappointed that the deal was not closed, agree that better terms can still be had. And Treasury, Secretary Robert E. Rubin, National Economic Council Director Gene B. Spelling, Commerce Secretary William M. Daley, and top trade negotiator Charlene Barshefsky all advised Clinton that while the Chinese had made a remarkable number of concessions, “we’re not there yet，’’ according to senior officials.Negotiating with Zhu over the remaining issues may be the easy part. Although Clinton can signal U.S. approval for China’s entry into the WTO himself, he needs Congress to grant Beijing permanent most-favored-nation status as part of a broad trade accord. And the temptation for meddling on Capital Hill may prove over-whelming. Zhu had barely landed before Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss) declared himself skeptical that China deserved entry into the WTO. And Senator Jesse
A. Helms (R-N C) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S. C ) promised to introduce a bill requiring congressional approval of any deal.The hidden message from these three textile-state Southerners: Get more protection for the U S. c
The difference in tone and language must strike us, as soon as it is philosophy that speaks: that change should remind us that even if the function of religion and that of reason coincide. This function is performed in the two cases by very different organs. Religions are many, reason one. Religion consists of conscious ideas, hopes, enthusiasms, and objects of worship; it operates by grace and flourishes by prayer. Reason, on the other hand, is a mere principle or potential order, on which indeed we may come to reflect but which exists in us ideally only, without variation or stress of any kind. We conform or do not conform to it; it does not urge or chide us, not call for any emotions on our part other than those naturally aroused by the various objects which it unfolds in their true nature and proportion. Religion brings some order into life by weighting it with new materials. Reason adds to the natural materials only the perfect order which it introduces into them. Rationality is nothing but a form, an ideal .constitution which experience may more or less embody. Religion is a part of experience itself, a mass of sentiments and ideas. The one is an inviolate principle, the other a changing and struggling force. And yet this struggling and changing force of religion seems to direct man toward something eternal. It seems to make for an ultimate harmony within the soul and for an ultimate harmony between the soul and all that the soul depends upon. Religion, in its intent is a more conscious and direct pursuit of the Life of Reason than is society. Science, or art, for these approach and fill out the ideal life tentatively and piecemeal, hardly regarding the foal or caring for the ultimate justification of the instinctive aims. Religion also has an instinctive and blind side and bubbles up in all manner of chance practices and intuitions; soon, however, it feels its way toward the heart or things, and from whatever quarter it may come, veers in the direction of the ultimate.
Nevertheless, we must confess that this religious pursuit of the Life of Reason has been singularly abortive. Those within the pale of each religion may prevail upon themselves, to express satisfaction with its results, thanks to a fond partiality in reading the past and generous draughts of hope for the future; but any one regarding the various religions at once and comparing their achievements with what reason requires, must feel how terrible is the disappointment which they have one and all prepared for mankind. Their chief anxiety has been to offer imaginary remedies for mortal ills, some of which are incurable essentially, while others might have been really cured by well-directed effort. The Greed oracles, for instance, pretended to heal out natural ignorance, which has its appropriate though difficult cure, while the Christian vision of heaven pretended to be an antidote to our natural death—the inevitable correlate of birth and of a changing and conditioned existence. By methods of this sort little can be done for the real betterment of life. To confuse intelligence and dislocate sentiment by gratuitous fictions is a short-sighted way of pursuing happiness. Nature is soon avenged. An unhealthy exaltation and a one-sided morality have to be followed by regrettable reactions. When these come. The real rewards of life may seem vain to a relaxed vitality, and the very name of virtue may irritate young spirits untrained in natural excellence. Thus religion too often debauches the morality it comes to sanction and impedes the science it ought to fulfill.What is the secret of this ineptitude? Why does religion, so near to rationality in its purpose, fall so short of it in results? The answer is easy; religion pursues rationality through the imagination. When it explains events or assigns causes, it is an imaginative substitute for science. When it gives precepts, insinuates ideals, or remolds aspiration, it is an imaginative substitute for wisdom—I mean for the deliberate and impartial pursuit of all food. The condition and the aims of lif
The heat in summer is no less（ ） here in this mountain region.
A.concentrated B.extensive C.intense D.intensive
In the case of mobile phones, change is everything. Recent research indicates that the mobile phone is changing not only our culture, but our very bodies as well.
First, let’s talk about culture. The difference between the mobile phone and its parent, the fixed-line phone is, you get whoever answers it.This has several implications. The most common one, however, and perhaps the thing that has changed our culture forever, is the “meeting” influence. People no longer need to make firm plans about when and where to meet. Twenty years ago, a Friday night would need to be arranged in advance.You needed enough time to allow everyone to get from their place of work to the first meeting place. Now, however, a night out can be arranged on the run. It is no longer "see you there at 8", but "text me around 8 and we’ll see where we all are".Texting changes people as well. In their paper, “Insight into the Social and Psychological Effects of SMS Text Messaging”，two British researchers distinguished between two types of mobile phone users: the “talkers” and the lexters”一those who prefer voice to text message and those who prefer text to voice.They found that the mobile phone’s individuality and privacy gave texters the ability to express a whole new outer personality. Texters were likely to report that their family would be surprised if they were to read their texts. This suggests that texting allowed texters to present a self-image that differed from the one familiar to those who knew them well.Another scientist wrote of the changes that mobiles have brought to body language.There are two kinds that people use while speaking on the phone. There is the “speakeasy”： the head is held high, in a self-confident way, chatting away. And there is the “spacemaker”： these people focus on themselves and keep out other people.Who can blame them? Phone meetings get cancelled or reformed and camera-phones intrude on people’s privacy. So, it is understandable if your mobile makes you nervous. But perhaps you needn't worry so much. After all, it is good to talk.1.When people plan to meet nowadays, they （ ）.2.According to the two British researchers, the social and psychological effects are mostly likely to be seen on（ ） .3.We can infer from the passage that the texts sent by texters are（ ） .4.According to the passage, is afraid of being heard while talking on the mobile（ ）.5.An appropriate title for the passage might be（ ） .
A.arrange the meeting place beforehand B.postpone fixing the place till last minute C.seldom care about when and where to meet D.still love to work out detailed meeting plans问题2： A.TALKERS B.the "speakeasy" C.the "spacemaker*' D.texters问题3： A.quite revealing B.well written C.unacceptable D.shocking to others问题4： A.talkers B.the speakeasy C.the ‘ spacemaker, D.texters问题5： A.The SMS effect B.Cultural implication of mobile use C.Change in the use of the mobile D.Body language and the mobile phonePerhaps all criminals should be required to carry cards which read: Fragile: Handle with Care. It will never do, these days, to go around referring to criminals as violent thugs. You must refer to them politely as “social misfits”. The professional killer who wouldn’t think twice about using his club or knife to batter some harmless old lady to death in order to rob her of her meager life-savings must never be given a dose of his own medicine. He is in need of “hospital treatment”. According to his misguided defenders, society is to blame. A wicked society breeds evil - or so the argument goes. When you listen to this kind of talk, it makes you wonder why aren’t all criminals. We have done away with the absurdly harsh laws of the nineteenth century and this is only right. But surely enough is enough. The most senseless piece of criminal legislation in Britain and a number of other countries has been the suspension of capital punishment.The violent criminal has become a kind of hero-figure in our time. He is glorified on the screen; he is pursued by the press and paid vast sums of money for his “memoirs”. Newspapers which specialize in crime reporting enjoy enormous circulations and the publishers of trashy cops and robbers stories or “murder mysteries” have never had it so good. When you read about the achievements of the great train robbery, it makes you wonder whether you are reading about some glorious resistance movement. The hardened criminal is cuddled and cosseted by the sociologists on the one hand and adored as a hero by the masses on the other. It’s no wonder he is a privileged person who expects and receives VIP treatment wherever he goes.Capital punishment used to be a major deterrent. It made the violent robber think twice before pulling the trigger. It gave the cold-blooded prisoner something to ponder about while he was shaking up or serving his arsenic cocktail. It prevented unarmed policemen from being killed while pursuing their duty by killers armed with automatic weapons. Above all, it protected the most vulnerable members of society, young children, from brutal violence. It is horrifying to think that the criminal can literally get away with murder. We all know that “life sentence” does not mean what it says. After ten years or so of good conduct, the most desperate villain is free to return to society where he will live very comfortably, thank you, on the proceeds of his crime, or he will go on committing offences until he is caught again.People are always willing to hold liberal views at the expense of others. It’s always fashionable to pose as the defender of the under-dog, so long as you, personally, remain unaffected. Did the defenders of crime, one wonders, in their desire for fair-play, consult the victims before they suspended capital punishment? Hardly, you see they couldn’t, because all the victims were dead.1.According to the passage, which of the following is the author’s opinion?2.The tone taken by the author towards these defenders of crime in the passage is （ ）.3.“Capital punishment” most probably means（ ） .4.Which of the following is true according to the passage?5.What conclusion can be drawn from the passage?
A.All criminals should be required to carry cards which read: Fragile: Handle with Care. B.Capital punishment is the only way to deter criminals. C.Society is to blame. D.All criminals need hospital treatment.
问题2：
A.ironical. B.critical. C.agitated. D.controversial.
问题3：
A.life sentence. B.severe punishment C.fine. D.sentence of death
问题4：
A.There has been a marked trend in society towards the humane treatment of less fortunate members. B.Everybody in society thinks it reasonable that all criminals should be punished. C.The author sympathizes with all criminals. D.Robbers usually think twice before shooting.
问题5：
A.Professional killers should not be treated with humane treatment. B.The violent robbers should think twice before pulling the trigger. C.We should give the prisoner time to ponder about while he is shaking up or serving his arsenic cocktail. D.Severe pun
