泰祺教育

Directions:

Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)

How many different kinds of emotions do you feel? You may be   1   to find that it is very hard to specify all of them. Not only   2   hard to describe in words, they are difficult to  3  . As a result, two people rarely   4   all of them. However, there are a number of   5  emotions that most people experience.

When we receive something that we want, or something happens   6   we like, we usually feel joy or happiness. Joy is a positive and powerful emotion,   7   for which we all strive. It is natural to want to be happy, and all of us   8   happiness. As a general   9  , joy occurs when we reach a   10   goal or obtain a desired object.

 11 people often desire different goals and objects, it is  12 that one person may find joy in repairing an automobile, 13 another may find joy in solving a math problem. Of course, we often share  14 goals or interests, and therefore we can experience joy together. This may be in sports, in the arts, in learning, in raising a family, or in  15 being together.

When we have difficulty   16   desired objects or reaching desired goals, we experience  17   emotions such as anger and grief. When little things get in our way, we experience  18   frustrations or tensions. For example, if you are dressing to go out   19   a date, you may feel frustration when a zipper breaks or a button falls off. The more difficulty you have in reaching a goal, the more frustrated you may feel and the angrier you may become. If you really want something to happen, and you feel it   20   happen, but someone or something stops it, you may become quite angry.

Part A

Directions:

Read the following four texts. Answer the questions after each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)

Text 1

In an ideal world, the nation’s elite schools would enroll the most qualified students. But that’s not how it works. Applicants whose parents are alums get special treatment, as do athletes and rich kids. Underrepresented minorities are also given preference. Thirty years of affirmative action have changed the complexion of mostly white universities; now about 13 percent of all undergraduates are black or Latino. But most come from middle and upper-middle-class families. Poor kids of all ethnicities remain scarce. A recent study by the Century Foundation found that at the nation’s 146 most competitive schools, 74 percent of students came from upper-middle-class and wealthy families, while only about 5 percent came from families with an annual income of roughly $35,000 or less.

Many schools say diversity --- racial, economic and geographic --- is key to maintaining intellectually vital campuses. But Richard Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation says that even though colleges claim they want poor kids, “they don’t try very hard to find them.” As for rural students, many colleges don’t try at all. “Unfortunately, we go where we can generate a sizable number of potential applicants,” says Tulane admissions chief Richard Whiteside, who recruits aggressively --- and in person --- from metropolitan areas. Kids in rural areas get a glossy brochure in the mail.

Even when poor rural students have the grades for top colleges, their high schools often don’t know how to get them there. Admissions officers rely on guidance counselors to direct them to promising prospects. In affluent high schools, guidance counselors often have personal relationships with both kids and admissions officers. In rural areas, a teacher, a counselor or even an alumnus “can help put rural students on our radar screen,” says Wesleyan admissions dean Nancy Meislah. But poor rural schools rarely have college advisers with those connections; without them, admission “can be a crapshoot,” says Carnegie Mellon’ Steidel.

In the past few years some schools have begun to open that door a little wider. At MIT it’s something of a mission for Marilee Jones, the dean of admissions. Twenty years ago, 25 percent of each MIT class were first-generation college goers from poor backgrounds who used the celebrated engineering school as a ticket out of the blue-collar world. Five years ago, when that number dipped below 10 percent, Jones began scouring the country for bright kids, and then paired the potential applicants with MIT faculty and students who could answer questions about college life. In four years, Jones has doubled the number of poor first-generation students at MIT.

Text 2

In most people’s mind, growth is associated with prosperity. And, conversely in the minds of most, no growth means stagnation, recession, a decline in the standard of living. Equally axiomatic(显而易见), however, is the notion that increased pressure on dwindling（decreasing） natural resources will inevitably lead to a decline in prosperity, especially when accompanied by a growth in population.

So, which is correct: growth means prosperity and no growth means adversity, or growth means adversity and no growth means..... what?

What growth advocates mean, primarily, when they say growth is necessary for prosperity， is that growth is necessary for the smooth functioning of the economic system. Capitalism, both its proponents and its critics have argued, is dependent on growth. But to say a particular economic system requires growth is not the same as saying that growth is necessary for prosperity.

In one arena the argument in favor of growth is particularly compelling and that is with regard to the Third World. To argue against growth, in light of Third World poverty and degradation，seems callous（铁石心肠的）. But is it? Could it be that growth, especially the growth of the wealthier countries, has contributed to the impoverishment, not the advancement, of Third World countries? If not, how do we account for the desperate straits（困境） these countries find themselves in today after a century of dedication to growth?   

To see how this might be the case we must look at the impact of growth on Third World countries — the reality, not the abstract theory advocated through rose-colored glasses by academicians of the developed world. What good is growth to the people of the Third World if it means the stripping of their land of its mineral and other natural treasures to the benefit of foreign investors and a handful of their local collaborators, if it means the assumption of a crushing foreign indebtedness, the proceeds of which goes not into the development of the country but into the purchase of expensive cars and the buying of luxurious residence in Miami?

Admittedly, this is an oversimplification. But the point, I believe, remains valid: that growth in underdeveloped countries cannot simply be judged in the abstract; it must be judged based on the true nature of growth in these societies, on who benefits and who is harmed, on where growth is leading these people. When considered in this way, it just might be that in the present context, growth is more detrimental to the well-being of the wretched of the earth than beneficial.

Text 3

Past immigration good, present immigration bad. Each new wave of immigration has been greeted by wide-spread suspicion or outright hostility. “Ignorant, unskilled, inert, accustomed to the beastliest conditions,” thundered an article about East Europeans in 1892. “The arrival on our shores of such masses of degraded peasantry brings the greatest danger that American labor has ever known.”

It was opinions such as this that eventually led, from the 1920s, to America’s doors being virtually closed to immigrants. The doors opened again in the mid 1960s, and widened admirably with the 1990 immigration act. The essence of today’s anti-immigration case is that this latest wave of newcomers is likely to be difficult, if not impossible, to absorb. The pro-immigration riposte is that most such arguments have been heard before and proved false.

Both sides in the debate can twist the numbers. The antis point out that the number of people entering America legally or illegally (about in a year) is higher than at any time since the early years of the century. The pros reply that, as a proportion of the population, immigration is still relatively low by 20th-century standards.

More controversial is the origin of the new immigrants. Between 1810 and 1900, more than 80% of immigrants came from Europe. By the 1980s, the European share had dropped to 9%. The vast majority of America’s immigrants today come from Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Does this matter? The antis think the mix is a danger to the fabric of American society. The pros think that view differs little from that of those who wrote darkly about the “alien hordes” from southern and Eastern Europe who would “steadily reduce the average intelligence of the country”.

Many of the other objections to immigration also have a familiar ring. In the past, too, Americans worried (though perhaps not quite as much as they do now) about the effects of the arrival of these people on their environment, about the newcomers’ commitment to America and its values. But in a few respects the worries about the current influx are genuinely new.

One concerns the skills of the new arrivals: they are declining compared with those of the native-born population. Lower skills mean more poverty and ---- because of the second new factor, the growth of the welfare state ---- greater cost to the taxpayer. In 1970 the typical immigrant had a lower participation in welfare than the American average; by 1990 the participation rate was higher than average (immigrants were 9% of households but took 13% of welfare money). If these statistics are true of legal immigrants, they are likely to be even more true of illegal ones. A third worry is that assimilation has become harder with the rise of “multiculturalism” and the new emphasis on group rights.

Some of these worries might be dealt with by adjusting immigration policy. For example, the United States could follow Canada in placing greater emphasis on skills as a criterion for entry. But often immigration is merely a symptom of a wider problem, not the cause. Blame the rising cost to taxpayers on welfare policy and federal mandates, not on immigrants. The strongest advocates of multiculturalism are to be found among university teachers and blacks whose ancestors came to America hundreds of years ago. There is little reason to believe that today’s immigrants want anything other than the millions who have come before them —— that is, to be part of the American (and not least the Californian).

Text 4

Violent words in songs increase aggression-related thoughts and emotions and could indirectly create a more hostile or hatred social environment, a study released on Sunday by a U.S. psychology association found. The Washington D.C.-based American Psychological Association (APA) released the study, resulting from five experiments involving over 500 college students, in the May issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The violent songs increased feelings of hatred without provocation or threat, according to the study. It said the effect was not the result of differences in musical style, specific performing artist or aggressive nature of the songs. Even the humorous violent songs increased aggressive thoughts, the study said.

The group said the study contradicts a popular notion that listening to angry, violent music actually serves as a positive catharsis for people.

The music industry came under criticism from lawmakers in October for failing to use more descriptive parental advisory labels that specify whether the music contains sex, violence or strong language. But the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has said that current CD labels give parents enough information without violating the right to free expression. The RIAA is the trade group for the world's five big labels, including AOL Time Warner Inc., EMI Group Plc, Bertelsmann AG, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music and Sony Corp. 

Results of the APA’s experiments showed that violent songs led to more aggressive interpretations of aggressive words and increased the relative speed with which people read aggressive words compared to non-aggressive words. "Such aggression-biased interpretations can, in turn, generate a more aggressive response, verbal or physical, than would have been emitted in a nonbiased state, thus provoking an aggressively climbing increase of antisocial exchanges," said researcher Craig Anderson, in a statement.

While researchers said repeated exposure to violent lyrics could indirectly create a more hostile social environment, they said it was possible the effects of violent songs may last only a fairly short time. Definitely，although the fight against it is a long-standing and tremendous one，our efforts will eventually pay off.

Part B

Directions:

Read the following text and choose the right answer for the incomplete sentence.

There are two extra choices in the right column. Mark your answer on the ANSWER SHEET.

(10 points)

[A] the American interstate Highway System

[B] the rapid military transportation is possible

[C] the sudden surge in the number of cars

[D] different cities in America

[E] the fifty states in America

[F] a new tax on gasoline

[G] the Great Depression

The United States Interstate Highway System is an infrastructure feat of unprecedented proportions. Not only does it join all fifty states in the union together allowing for rapid transport of goods and people, but it also has legitimate claim to the title of the largest public works program in history. The project was motivated by both military and economic goals. Interest in the project existed since the early 1940's, but was delayed by the outbreak of World War II, followed by the postwar recovery. Although approved by Congress in 1944, the building did not actually begin until 1956.

The postwar prosperity in America accentuated the need for such a massive infrastructure project. After America's success in World War II and recovery of its economy from the Great Depression, the population's disposable income soared, allowing most families to purchase automobiles, previously thought of as luxury items. With the sudden boom of cars, a more efficient road on which to travel was desperately needed, allowing travelers to safely and reliably visit other states or destinations closer to home.

The same surge in car ownership that created the need for the interstate highway system also provided the means by which to pay for the project. A new tax on gasoline provided 90 percent of the funding for the project, and state taxes covered the remaining 10 percent. With the new highway system in place, not only could travelers visit previously unfeasible destinations on their holidays and vacations, but businesses could transport their products to markets in other states, increasing competition across the country, to the benefit of consumers and product quality alike.

The military had a keen eye on the system as well. Troop transport was now possible to all corners of America in a rapid and efficient manner, and the long stretches of straight highways instantly provided runways for military aircraft in times of emergency. The country, linked together by a network of roads that greatly reduced travel time, could now more efficiently be defended.

In the last forty years alone, 17 trillion miles have been traveled on the US Interstate Highway System. Those miles can be equated to three trips around the world for every American, a trip to the moon for 75 million people, or three light years in space. No matter what figure is used, the numbers are stunning. The interstate highway has gotten and continues to get people where they need to go in America.