优优班--学霸训练营 > 知识点挑题
全部资源
          排序:
          最新 浏览

          共50条信息

            • 1．
              Suppose you're in a rush，felling tired，not paying attention to your screen，and you send an email that could get you in trouble．
              Realisation will probably set in seconds after you've clicked"send"．You freeze in horrors and burn with shame．
              What to do？Here are four common email accidents，and how to recover．
              Clicking"send"too soon
              Don't waste your time trying to find out if the receivers has read it yet．Write another email as swiftly as you can and send it with a brief explaining that this is the correct version and the previous version should be ignored．
              Writing the wrong time
              The sooner you notice，the better．Respond quickly and briefly，apologizing for your mistake．Keep the tone measured：don't handle it too lightly，as people can be offended，especially if your error suggests a misunderstanding of their culture（i．e．incorrect ordering of Chinese names）．
              Clicking"reply all"unintentionally
              You accidentally reveal（透露）to entire company what menu choices you would prefer at the staff Christmas dinner，or what holiday you'd like to take．In this instance，the best solution is to send a quick，light-hearted apology to explain your awkwardness．But it can quickly rise to something worse，when everyone starts hitting"reply all"to join in a long and unpleasant conversation．In this instance，step away from your keyboard to allow everyone to calm down．
              Sending an offensive message to it's subject
              The most awkward email mistake is usually committed in anger．You write an unkind message about someone，intending to send it to a friend，but accidentally send it to the person you're discussing．In that case，ask to speak in person as soon as possible and say sorry．Explain your frustrations calmly and sensibly-see it as an opportunity tic hear up any difficulties you may have with this person．

              (1) After realizing an email accident，you are likely to feel ______ ．
              A. curious B. tired C. awful D. funny
              (2) If you have written the wrong name in an email，it is best to ______ ．
              A. apologise in a serious manner
              B. tell the receiver to ignore the error
              C. learn to write the name correctly
              D. send a short notice to everyone
              (3) What should you do when an unpleasant conversation is started by your"reply all"email？ ______
              A. Try offering other choices．
              B. Avoid further involvement．
              C. Meet other staff members．
              D. Make a light-hearted apology．
              (4) How should you deal with the problem caused by an offensive email？ ______
              A. By promising not to offend the receiver again．
              B. By seeking support from the receiver's friends．
              C. By asking the receiver to control his anger．
              D. By talking to the receiver face to face．
              (5) What is the passage mainly about？ ______
              A. Defining email errors．
              B. Reducing email mistakes．
              C. Handling email accidents．
              D. Improving email writing．
              难度：难
              解析 收藏 试题篮
            • 2．
              A new commodity brings about a highly profitable,fast-growing industry,urgingantitrust（反垄断）regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago ,the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns ares being raised by the giants（巨头）that deal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google,Amazon, Facebook andMicrosoft. All look unstoppable.
              Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime,The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery, Far from charging consumers high prices, many of these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data).And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves,too.


              But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users totarget advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can beturned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold to other companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power.So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.


              This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts to become apparent, two ideas stand out.


              The first is thatantitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger(兼并),for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms'data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals.The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buyinga new-borm threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born companyhas no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.


              The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them.Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make form it.Govemments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data,with users' consent.


              Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if govemments don't wants a data oconomy by a few giants,they must act soon.
              A new commodity brings about a highly profitable,fast-growing industry,urgingantitrust（反垄断）regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago ,the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns ares being raised by the giants（巨头）that deal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google,Amazon, Facebook andMicrosoft. All look unstoppable.


              Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime,The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery, Far from charging consumers high prices, many of these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data).And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves,too.


              But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users totarget advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can beturned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold to other companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power.So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.


              This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts to become apparent, two ideas stand out.


              The first is thatantitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger(兼并),for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms'data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals.The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buyinga new-borm threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born companyhas no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.


              The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them.Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make form it.Govemments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data,with users' consent.


              Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if govemments don't wants a data oconomy by a few giants,they must act soon.


              Google initially used the data collected from users totarget advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can beturned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold toother companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power.So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.


              This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts tobecome apparent, two ideas stand out.


              The first is that antitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21stcentury. When considering a merger(兼并),for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms'data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals.The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-borm threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.


                    The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them.Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make form it.Govemments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data,with users' consent.


              Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if govemments don't wants a data oconomy by a few giants,they must act soon. 


              A new commodity brings about a highly profitable,fast-growing industry,urgingantitrust（反垄断）regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago ,the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns ares being raised by the giants（巨头）that deal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google,Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft. All look unstoppable.

              Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime,The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery, Far from charging consumers high prices, many of  these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data).And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves,too.
              But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changing the natureof data and competition.Google initially used the data collected from users totarget advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can beturned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold toother companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power.So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.

              This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts tobecome apparent, two ideas stand out.

              The first is that antitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21stcentury. When considering a merger(兼并),for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms'data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals.The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-borm threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.

                    The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them.Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make form it.Govemments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data,with users' consent.

              Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if govemments don't wants a data oconomy by a few giants,they must act soon. 

























              (1) Why is there a call to break up giants?
              A. They have controlled the data market
              B. They collect enormous private data
              C. They no longer provide free services
              D. They dismissed some new-born giants
              (2) What does the technological innovation inParagraph 3 indicate?
              A. Data giants’ technology is very expensive
              B. Google’s idea is popular among data firms
              C. Data can strengthen giants’ controlling position
              D. Data can be turned into new services or products
              (3) By paying attention to firms’ data assets,antitrust regulators could .
              A. kill a new threat B. avoid the size trap
              C. favour bigger firms D. charge higher prices
              (4) What is the purpose of loosening the giants’control of data?
              A. Big companies could relieve data security pressure.
              B. Governments could relieve their financial pressure.
              C. Consumers could better protect their privacy.
              D. Small companies could get more opportunities.
              难度：难
              解析 收藏 试题篮
            • 3．

              Why College Is Not Home

              The college years are supposed to be a time for important growth in autonomy（自主性） and the development of adult identity．However，now they are becoming an extended period of adolescence，during which many of today’s students and are not shouldered with adult responsibilities．

              For previous generations，college was decisive break from parental control； guidance and support needed help from people of the same age and from within．In the past two decades，however，continued connection with and dependence on family，thanks to cellphones，email and social media，have increased significantly．Some parents go so far as to help with coursework．Instead of promoting the idea of college as a passage from the shelter of the family to autonomy and adult responsibility，universities have given in to the idea that they should provide the same environment as that of the home．

              To prepare for increased autonomy and responsibility，college needs to be a time of exploration and experimentation．This process involves “trying on” new ways of thinking about oneself both e intellectually（在思维方面） and personally．While we should provide “safe spaces” within colleges，we must also make it safe to express opinions and challenge majority views．Intellectual growth and flexibility are fostered on debate and questioning．

              Learning to deal with the social world is equally important．Because a college community（群体） differs from the family，many students will struggle to find a sense of belonging．If students rely on administrators to regulate their social behavior and thinking pattern，they are not facing the challenge of finding an identity within a larger and complex community．

              Moreover，the tendency for universities to monitor and shape student behavior runs up against another characteristic of young adults：the response to being controlled by their elders．If acceptable social behavior is too strictly defined（规定） and controlled，the insensitive or aggressive behavior that administrators are seeking to minimize may actually be encouraged．

              It is not surprising that young people are likely to burst out，particularly when there are reasons to do so．Our generation once joined hands and stood firm at times of national emergency．What is lacking today is the conflict between adolescent’s desire for autonomy and their understanding of an unsafe world．Therefore，there is the desire for their dorms to be replacement homes and not places to experience intellectual growth．

              Every college discussion about community values，social climate and behavior should include recognition of the developmental importance of student autonomy and self﹣regulation，of the necessary tension between safety and self﹣discovery．

              (1) 

              What’s the author’s attitude toward continued parental guidance to college students？

              A. Sympathetic                        
              B. Disapproving
              C. Supportive                          
              D. Neutral
              (2) 

              The underlined word “passage” in Paragraph 2 means 　　．

              A. change                              
              B. choice
              C. text                                
              D. extension
              (3) 

              According to the author，what role should college play？

              A. to develop a shared identity among students
              B. to define and regulate students’ social behavior
              C. To provide a safe world without tension for students
              D. To foster students’ intellectual and personal development
              (4) 

              Which of the following shows the development of ideas in the passage？

              A.      B.    C.     D. 
              难度：难
              解析 收藏 试题篮
            • 4．
              Chimps（黑猩猩） will cooperate in certain ways，like gathering in war parties to protect their territory．But beyond the minimum requirements as social beings，they have little instinct （本能） to help one another．Chimps in the wild seek food for themselves．Even chimp mothers regularly decline to share food with their children．Who are able from a young age to gather their own food．

              In the laboratory，chimps don’t naturally share food either．If a chimp is put in a cage where he can pull in one plate of food for himself or，with no great effort，a plate that also provides food for a neighbor to the next cage，he will pull at random﹣he just doesn’t care whether his neighbor gets fed or not．Chimps are truly selfish．

              Human children，on the other hand are extremely corporative．From the earliest ages，they decide to help others，to share information and to participate a achieving common goals．The psychologist Michael Tomasello has studied this cooperativeness in a series of expensive with very young children．He finds that if babies aged 18months see an worried adult with hands full trying to open a door，almost all will immediately try to help．

              There are several reasons to believe that the urges to help，inform and share are not taught．but naturally possessed in young children．One is that these instincts appear at a very young age before most parents have started to train children to behave socially．Another is that the helping behaviors are not improved if the children are remanded．A third reason is that social intelligence．Develops in children before their general cognitive（认知的）skills，at least when compared with chimps. In tests conducted by Tomasello，the children did no better than the chimps on the physical world tests，but were considerably better at understanding the social world

              The cure of what children’s minds have and chimps’ don’t in what Tomasello calls what．Part of this ability is that they can infer what others know or are thinking．But that，even very young children want to be part of a shared purpose．They actively seek to be part of a “we”，a group that intends to work toward a shared goal．


              (1) what can we learn from the experiment with chimps？
              A. Chimps seldom care about others’ interests.
              B. Chimps tend to provide food for their children.
              C. Chimps like to take in their neighbors’ food.
              D. Chimps naturally share food with each other.
              (2) Micheal Tomasello’s tests on young children indicate that they 　　．
              A. have the instinct to help others.
              B. know how to offer help to adults.
              C. know the world better than chimps.
              D. trust adults with their hands full​.
              (3) The passage is mainly about 　　．
              A. the helping behaviors of young children.
              B. ways to train children’s shared intentionality.
              C. cooperation as a distinctive human nature.
              D. the development of intelligence in children.
              难度：难
              解析 收藏 试题篮
            0/40

            进入组卷