题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A．changed
B．altered
C．transformed
D．modified
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“In countries where a solar cal…”相关的问题
Where have the profits of globalization gone？
A．In rich countries with strict tariff barriers.
B．China and Vietnam.
C．In the hands of smart women.
D．In the hands of richer members of the society.
According to Jim Puckett, you cannot give your electronics to recyclers because ______.
A．recyelers don't tell you where the electronics will go
B．you may be cheated by recyclers for not knowing the electronics' value
C．recyclers may export the electronics to poor countries
D．you can store your electronics for a better price
1. From the first sentence of the passage we can know that there are ()kinds of exports.
A. two
B. three
C. four
2. Raw materials are often exported by the countries that produce them to other countries where ().
A. they are consumed
B. they are made into finished products
C. they are wasted
3. The countries which produce food for export, for example, meat, sugar, or cereals such as wheat and maize are ()countries.
A. developed
B. industrial
C. agricultural
4. An industrialized country usually has to import foodstuffs because ().
A. it cannot always produce enough food for its own needs
B. it doesn’t has fertile land and a good climate
C. it relies on exports of manufactured products
5. The best title of this passage is ().
A. Agriculture and Industry
B. Export
C. Production
The situation in Asia shows how power has shifted from individual governments to the markets. In theory, governments are free to set their own economic policies; in practice, they must conform. to a global economic model or risk being penalized by the markets.
Adjusting to this new "economic order" is proving difficult, in the developed world, and in particular the European Union, globalization is facing widespread public resistance. Critics complain that, without the protection of trade barriers, jobs are being lost to workers in poorer countries, and wages for employees in rich countries are falling. Opponents in the European Union point to the effects that globalization has had in the U.S. and Britain. In those countries, wages are stagnant--except for a few privileged--and taxes and welfare benefits have been reduced to help companies compete with industries in the developing world.
Those in favor of globalization accuse their critics of being shortsighted protectionists. They claim that a more integrated global economy will ultimately benefit everyone because it will enable countries to specialize in those areas where they perform. best. Developing countries, with their higher populations and lower wages, will concentrate on labor-intensive industries. The richer countries, on the other hand, will diversify into high-tech industries, where high productivity and specialist knowledge are paramount. The effect of this will be to improve productivity in all countries, leading to higher living standards. The free movement of capital will also help poorer countries develop so that they can play a full and active role in the world economy. But how close are we to a truly global economy？ For those in favor of globalization, probably too close. But in terms of real economic integration, there are still many problems to be solved. A global economy would mean complete freedom of movement of goods and services, capital, and labor. Yet, even ignoring the tariffs and other restrictions still in place, cross-border trade remains tiny as compared with the volume of goods and services traded within countries; foreign investment is also extremely small, amounting to little more than five percent of the developed world's domestic investments.
But what is really holding globalization back is the lack of labor mobility. Labor markets remain overwhelmingly national, even in areas like the European Union, where citizens can live and work in any EU country. The main reasons for this are language and cultural barriers; the lack of internationally recognized qualifications; and, in some cases, strict immigration controls.
The main reason why some Asian countries are suffering from economic depression is that they ______.
A．doubt that global financial markets will control national economies
B．fail to follow a global economic model adequately
C．have set their own free economic policies
D．have their power interfere with the markets
根据以下材料回答第 1～5 题：
A．Where have you been
B．What do you do
C．An interesting place
D．a part time job
E．And what do you do
F．been there
G．That sounds interesting
H．Which restaurant
第 56 题 Jason：Where do you work，Andrea？
Andrea：1 work for Thomas Cook Travel．
Jason：Oh，really？ 1 there？
Andrea：I'm a guide．I take people on tours to countries in South America，like Peru．
Jason： 2 !
Andrea：Yes，it’S a great job．I love it．3 ？
Jason：I’m a student，and I have 4 ，too．
Andrea：Oh？Where do you work？
Jason：In a fast-food restaurant．
Andrea： 5 ？
Jason．Hamburger Heaven．
The chief reason for the population of television among United States advertisers is that it it reaches a vast number of people at the same time. While it can cost well over 100,000 dollars, a 30- second commercial on network television can be seen and heard by as many as 25 million viewers. For manufacturers who must make prospects aware of their products and convince them of its benefits immediately, there is nothing as efficient as television advertising.
Because it employs motion as well as words, graphics, sound, and music, television is a valuable medium for products that lend themselves to demonstration. No other medium is effective in showing how quickly an automobile can accelerate or how well a brand of wristwatch will stand up under abuse and continue to run. Similarly, it is an ideal medium such as long-distance telephone calls.
Which medium carries most national advertising in Spain？
A．Radio.
B．Newspaper.
C．Television.
D．Internet.
The truly reasonable men who know where the solutions lie are finding it harder and harder to get a hearing. They are despised, mistrusted and even persecuted by their own kind because they advocate such apparently outrageous things as law enforcement. If half the energy that goes into violent acts were put to good use, if our efforts were directed at cleaning up the slums and ghettos, at improving living-standards and providing education and employment for all, we would have gone a long way to arriving at a solution. Our strength is sapped by having to mop up the mess that violence leaves in its wake. In a well-directed effort, it would not be impossible to fulfill the ideals of a stable social programmed. The benefits that can be derived from constructive solutions are everywhere apparent in the world around us. Genuine and lasting solutions are always possible, providing we work within the framework of the law.
Before we can even begin to contemplate peaceful co-existence between the races, we must appreciate each other's problems. And to do this, we must learn about them: it is a simple, exercise in communication, in exchanging information. "Talk, talk, talk," the advocates of violence say, "all you ever do is talk, and we are none the wiser." It's rather like the story of the famous barrister who painstakingly explained his case to the judge. After listening to a lengthy argument the judge complained that after all this talk, he was none the wiser. "Possible, my lord," the barrister replied, "none the wiser, but surely far better informed." Knowledge is the necessary prerequisite to wisdom: the knowledge that violence creates the evils it pretends to solve.
What is the best title for this passage？
A．Advocating Violence.
B．Violence Can Do Nothing to Diminish Race Prejudice.
C．Important People on Both Sides See Violence As a Legitimate Solution.
D．The Instincts of Human Race Are Thirsty for Violence.
Part A
Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. (40 points)
She was French; he was English; they had just moved to London from Paris. When he found out about her affair, she begged for a reconciliation. He was more ruthless: the same afternoon, he filed for divorce in France, one of the stingiest jurisdictions in Europe for the non-earning spouse and where adultery affects the court's ruling. Had she filed first in England her conduct would have been irrelevant, and she would have had a good chance of a large share of the marital assets, and even maintenance for life.
International divorce is full of such dramas and anomalies, so the natural response of policymakers is to try to make things simpler and more predictable. But the biggest attempt in recent years to do just that, in a European agreement called Rome Ⅲ, has just been shelved. Instead, several EU countries are now pressing ahead with their own harmonisation deal. Many wonder if it will work any better.
At issue is the vexed question of which country's law applies to the break-up of a mixed marriage. The spouses may live long-term in a third country and be temporarily working in a fourth. The worst way to sort that out is with expensive legal battles in multiple jurisdictions.
The main principle at present is that the first court to be approached hears the case. Introduced in 2001, this practice has worked well in preventing international legal battles, but has made couples much more trigger-happy, because the spouse who hesitates in order to save a troubled marriage may lose a huge amount of money. Rome III aimed to remove the incentive to go to court quickly. Instead, courts in any EU country would automatically apply the local law that had chiefly governed the marriage. This approach is already in force in countries such as the Netherlands. A couple that moved there and sought divorce having spent most of the marriage in France, say, would find a Dutch court dividing assets and handling child custody according to French law.
That works fine among continental European countries where legal systems, based on Roman law, leave little role for precedent or the judge's discretion. You can look up the rules on a website and apply them. But it is anathema in places such as England, where the system favours a thorough (and often expensive) investigation of the details of each case, and then lets judges decide according to previous cases and English law.
Another snag is that what may suit middle-class expatriates in Brussels (who just happened to be the people drafting Rome Ⅲ) may not suit, for example, a mixed marriage that has mainly been based in a country, perhaps not even an EU member, with" a sharply different divorce law. Swedish politicians don't like the idea that their courts would be asked to enforce marriage laws based on, say, Islamic sharia.
The threat of vetoes from Sweden and like-minded countries has blocked Rome Ⅲ. But a group of nine countries, led by Spain and France, is going ahead. They are resorting to a provision in EU rules-never before invoked-called " enhanced co-operation" This sets a precedent for a "multi-speed'" Europe in which like-minded countries are allowed to move towards greater integration, rather than seeking a "big-bang" binding treaty that scoops up the willing and unwilling alike. Some countries worry that using enhanced co-operation will create unmanageable layers of complexity, with EU law replaced by multiple adhoc agreements.
The real lesson may be that Rome III was just too ambitious. A more modest but useful goal would be simply to clarify the factors that determine which court hears a divorce, and then let that court apply its own law. David Hodson, a British expert, proposes an international deal that
A．Divorce filed in England will be advantageous.
B．France stipulates rigid laws towards divorce.
C．In Europe international divorce cases always encounter the problem that which country's law is applicable.
D．International marriages shall be discouraged due to the complexity in divorce affairs.
