William Wrigley Jr.,the American chewing gum tycoon,once noted that business is built by men who disagree,and that"When two men always agree,one of them is unnecessary."1,notjust in business but also in politics,sports,and the arts,there is no 2 0f real-world examples of successful partnerships that were fueled as much by the 3 0f ideas as by creative tension or discord.Scientific research shows that creativity and innovation can be 4 by reducing team harmony.For instance,a recent study of 100 product development teams found that two common 5 0f team harmony,namely diversity and task uncertainty,were positively 6 with creative performance.7,a review of theoretical and quantitative studies showed that teams are often more creative 8 they have f ewer rather than more resources.Furthermore,teams that are able t0 9 productive task conflict-expressing disagreements,negotiating between different views,and working under a certain amount of tension 10 to be more innovative,11,when teams and organizations enjoy too much harmony,they will gravitate 12 inaction and complacency,13,as Clayton Christensen noted,will 14 decline and extinction.From Kodak to Blackberry to Blockbuster,business schools are spoiled for choice when it comes to examples of dominant market players that were discarded from the top 15 their complacency.Success and happiness pose a bigger threat to businesses than a moderate 16 0f dissatisfaction.Being happy with the status quo is a 17 way to escape creativity.Any significant innovation in the history of civilization was the 18 of dissatis fied minds:people who were unhappy with the current order of things and 19 to destroy the 20 harmony.
1选？
A.Therefore
B.Indeed
C.Furthermore
D.Otherwise

As I write these words,a triumphant horn is erupting in my ear over the thythmic bowing of violins.In fact,as you read,I would l you to listen along-just search"Battlefield One."1 2 you'll focus jusL a bii better with it playing in the background.3,as a video game soundtrack it's designed to have exacdy that 4.This is,by far,the best Life Pro Tip I've ever gotten or given:Listen to music from video games when you need to 5.It's a whole genre designed to simultaneously 6 your senses and blend into the background of your brain,7 that's the point.of the soundtrack.It has to 8 you,the player,in a task without distracting from iL.In fact,the best music would actually 9 the listener to che task.Plenty of studies 10 that having some sound around you can help you focus,11 because it gives your subconscious something to 12.It doesn't have to focus on Lhat coughing coworker or the occasional sound of doors closing,13 you aren't distracted by intermittent interruptions.Music seems to focus us the best,14 not just any music.The latest#1 single is more 15 to make you sing along and tap your toes than.16 into your work day.Silence,on the other hand,seems to make office workers 17 and less proficient than their music-listening compatriots.18 some surgeons use music to get in the groove,and research 19 those who do this perform operations more efficiently and with higher 20.
12选？
A.turn out
B.tune out
C.burst out
D.figure out

Americans are highly（ ）,and therefore may find it difficult to become deeply involved with others.
A.movable
B.moving
C.mobile
D.motional

CCTV programs are（ ）by satellite to the remotest areas in the country.
A.transferred
B.transported
C.transformed
D.transmitted

Lawyers protesting about cuts don't attract the same level of public support as doctors and nurses.What goes on in the courts is not widely understood,and most people do not expect to neecl a publicly funded lawyer in the way that they rely on hospitals.Nevertheless,access to justice is a fundamental democratic right,and the chaos and failure unfolding across the legal system as the result of cuts should concern everyone who cares about justice.Research carried out by civil servants and published in May after it was leaked shows that the disruptive effect of legal aid cuts in England and Wales has spread from the civil courts to the criminal courts:where increasing numbers of clefendants are appearing without legal advice or representation,as a consequence of changes including new means tests.More than half of juclges questioned for the study voiced concerns about defendants not understanding that a guilty plea could lead to a reducecl sentence.The government knows there is a problem.not least because the王950m reduction in the legal aid bill in 2016,compared with 2010,was more than twice as much as it expected.But ministers have already clelayed far too long in the face of clear evidence that cuts in the family courts have been harmful.Official figures show that the proportion of plaintif{s and defendants with legal representation fell from 60%in 2012 t0 33%in the first quarter of last year,and it is not uncommon for one party in a civil case to be represented by a lawyer while the other is not.Some sensible changes have already been suggested in a review commissioned by the Labour party last year.These include a loosening of the criteria for legal aid eligibility to include all cases involving children,and representation for families in inquests where the state is already funding one party such as the police-which represents an essential rebalancing of justice's scales.The report also made the not unreasonable suggestion that law should be taught in schools.Avoiding costly lawsuits by encouraging people to treat court as a last resort sounds reasonable,and some of the consequences of the cuts were no doubt unintended.But the"simpler"and"more responsive"system promised by the Conservative justice secretary Ken Clarke when embarking on these cost-saving measures in 2010 now looks like wishful thinking at best.The current justice secretary,David Gauke,must act to restore confidence in a damaged system.Legal aid began in the UK in the 1940s with the rest of the welfare state.In the US,a defendant's entittement to a lawyer in a criminal case is enshrined in an amendment to the constitution.While the rules in the UK may lack this constitutional underpinning,people are still entitled to access to justice-including lawyers paid for with legal aid.
In the last paragraph,the author calls on the UK government to
A.improve access to justice.
B.reorganize welfare department.
C.promote lawyers'status.
D.amend the constitution.

Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish.
The author suggests in the last paragraph that preprints
A.are incompatible with good journalism.
B.should be forbidden for quality concerns.
C.are usually misinterpreted by journalists.
D.could promote confusion and distortion.