Pollution is a "dirty" word. To pollute means to contaminate--to spoil something by introducing impurities which make 1 unfit or unclean to use. Pollution comes in many forms. We see it, smell it, 2 it, drink it, and stumble through it. We literally lived in and breathe pollution, and 3 surprisingly, it is beginning to 4 our health, our happiness, and our very civilization.
Once we thought of pollution 5 meaning simply smog--the choking, stinging, dirty 6 that hovers over cities. But air pollution, while it is 7 the most dangerous, is only one type of contamination among several 8 attack the most basic life functions.
Through the uncontrolled use of insecticides, man has polluted the land, 9 the wildlife. By 10 sewage and chemicals into river and lakes, we have contaminated our 11 water. We are polluting the oceans, too, killing the fish and 12 depriving ourselves 13 an invaluable food supply.
Part of the problem is our exploding 14 . More and more people produce more wastes. But this problem is intensified by our "throw-away" technology. Each year Americans 15 of 7 million autos, 20 million tons of waste paper, 25 million pounds of toothpaste tubes and 48 million cans. We throw away gum wrappers, newspapers, and paper plates. It is no longer fashionable to 16 anything. Today almost everything is disposable. 17 of repairing a toaster or a radio, it is easier and cheaper to buy a new one and discard the old, even 18 95 percent of its parts may still be functioning. Baby diapers, which used to be made of reusable cloth, are now paper throw-aways. Soon we will wear clothing made of 19 :"Wear it once and throw it away, "will be the slogan of the fashion.
Where is this all to end? Are we turning the world into a gigantic dump, or is there hope that we can solve the pollution problem? 20 solutions are in sight. A few of them are positively ingenious.

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

From China to America, political leaders are wondering how to handle with the newly-elected Russian President Vladimir V. Putin. The 47-year-old leader has not yet to reveal details of his foreign-policy vision, but this is much clear. He wants Russia to stand tall-or at least, taller-in the world. "It would be unreasonable to be afraid of a strong Russia, but one should reckon with it,"he declared in an "open letter" to voters shortly after they elected him on March 26. "One can insult us only at one"s own peril."
The important point is whether Putin"s efforts to build new respect for Russia will lead to confrontation with the West. For now, Putin seems hopeful of putting Russian-Western relations on a better standing-despite U. S. and European criticism of the Chechen War. Putin is the one taking the initiative, media say, for a tete-a-tete with U. S. President Bill Clinton. The pair discussed a possible meeting when Clinton called Putin on March 27 to congratulate him. They hope to meet before the July Group of Eight meeting in Okinawa. "Putin wants it to be constructive," says Robert Legvold, a Russia watcher at Columbia University.
The new president, Putin seems willing to negotiate arms control and security issues with Washington. Clinton wants Russia"s agreement to revise the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty so that the U. S. can build a limited national missile defense. Putin would want something in return-perhaps the right to sell its missile-defense technology to potential customers such as South Korea. Putin is also looking for a deal from the Paris Club of creditor governments on reducing ＄40 billion in Soviet debt. Encouraged by Putin"s promises to enforce the rule of law, the creditors are likely to give him a break.
Any sober calculation of Russia"s global status suggests that Russia needs the West more than the West needs Russia. And whatever is generally thought, Russia has more to gain from America and Europe than it does from China. That"s why the West should be unafraid of laying down rules for Putin-and brace for a time of testing. Putin is often described as both an opportunist and a cynic, but there is no doubt one attribute that he respects: power.

1. 
What does the sentence "One can insult us only at one"s own peril." mean in the first paragraph?

A One can insult us only when one is in peril.

B Anyone who offends us will be in danger.

C Anyone who is in peril can insult us.

D We"ll never offend those who are in danger.

2. 
According to the passage, which of the statements is NOT true?

A Putin was elected on March 26.

B Clinton called Putin on March 27 to congratulate him.

C Clinton wants Putin to maintain the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty.

D Putin wants the right to sell its missile-defence technology to will-be customers.

3. 
Which of the following statements about Putin is true?

A He was born in 1950.

B He is often considered as the one who takes advantage of any opportunity to gain power i or money.

C He has shown details of his foreign-policy attitude.

D He is very powerful.

4. 
What does the last paragraph imply?

A China is vital to Russia.

B Russia is a threat to China.

C Russia needs the West in some aspects.

D Russia is a threat to the West.

5. 
In the last sentence of the last paragraph the word "cynic"is closest in meaning to

A "a fault-finding critic".

B "a peace-loving man".

C "an outgoing man".

D "a favorite companion".

The molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth"s atmosphere affect the heat balance of the Earth by acting as a one-way screen. Although these molecules allow radiation at visible wavelengths, where most of the energy of sunlight is concentrated, to pass through, they absorb some of the longer-wavelength, infrared emissions radiated from the Earth"s surface, radiation that would otherwise be transmitted back into space. For the Earth to maintain a constant average temperature, such emissions from the planet must balance incoming solar radiation. If there were no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, heat would escape from the Earth much more easily. The surface temperature would be so much lower that the oceans might be a solid mass of ice.
Today, however, the potential problem is too much carbon dioxide. The burning of fossil fuels and the cleaning of forests have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 15 percent in the last hundred years and we continue to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Could the increase in carbon dioxide cause a global rise in average temperature, and could such a rise have serious consequences for human society? Mathematical models that allow us to calculate the rise in temperature as a function of the increase indicate that the answer is probably "yes".
Under present conditions a temperature of -8℃ can be observed at an altitude of 5 to 6 kilometers above the Earth. Below this altitude (called the radiating level), the temperature increases by about 6℃ per kilometer approaching the Earth"s surface, where the average temperature is about 15℃. An increase in the amount of carbon dioxide means that there are more molecules of carbon dioxide to absorb infrared radiation. As the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb infrared radiation increase, the radiating level and the temperature of the surface must rise.
One mathematical model predicts that doubling the atmosphere carbon dioxide would raise the global mean surface temperature by 2.5℃. This model assumes that the atmosphere"s relative humidity remains constant and the temperature decreases with altitude at a rate of 6.5℃ per kilometer. The assumption of constant relative humidity is important, because water vapor in the atmosphere is another efficient absorber of radiation at infrared wavelengths. Because warm air can hold more moisture than cool air, the relative humidity will be constant only if the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases as the temperature rises. Therefore, more infrared radiation would be absorbed and reradiated back to the Earth"s surface. The resultant warming at the surface could be expected to melt snow and ice, reducing the Earth"s reflectivity. More solar radiation would then be absorbed, leading to a further increase in temperature.

1. 
According to the passage, the greatest part of the solar energy that reaches the Earth is ______.

A concentrated at visible wavelengths

B absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules

C absorbed by atmospheric water vapor

D reflected back to space by snow and ice

2. 
According to the passage, atmospheric carbon dioxide performs all of the following functions EXCEPT ______.

A absorbing radiation at visible wavelengths

B absorbing infrared radiation

C absorbing outgoing radiation from the Earth

D helping to retain heat near the Earth"s surface

3. 
Which of the following best describes the author"s attitude toward the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its consequences?

A Incredulous.

B Interested but skeptical.

C Angry yet resigned.

D Objective yet concerned

4. 
It can be concluded from information contained in the passage that the average temperature at an altitude of 1 kilometer above the Earth is about ______.

A 15℃

B 9℃

C 25℃

D -18℃

5. 
According to the passage, which of the following is true of the last hundred years?

A Fossil fuels were burned for the first time.

B The average temperature at the Earth"s surface has become 2℃ cooler.

C The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased measurably.

D The amount of farmland worldwide has doubled.

Gone are the days when women"s philanthropy referred only to sweet dears who ran the school auction or gussied up for the charity gala.
This decade, women have emerged as a financially high-powered cadre, poised to give generously of their business skills and their money.
By 1992, women-owned businesses employed more people than did Fortune 500 companies. In 1997, women held half of the chief executive officer positions at foundations across the United States.
This year, women—including some who are beneficiaries of large inheritances-control slightly more than half the personal wealth in the nation, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Board.
They also donate twice as much as men, according to a study by the National Science Foundation.
"These days, charitable fund-raisers are learning that nobody can afford to overlook the rising influence of women", says Sharon Hadary, executive director of the National Foundation for Women Business Owners.
The NFWBO revealed new research at a day-long conference at Simmons College in Boston last month that focused on women and philanthropy.
More than 200 women attended, ranging from powerful corporate executives to entrepreneurs, fund-raisers, and financial advisers. Many belonged to The Committee of 200(C200), a group that requires its members to own companies with revenues in excess of $ 15 million, or manage divisions of US corporations that generate at least $100 million a year.
The conference kicked off with the NFWBO"s survey of C200 members, revealing that 74 percent of the women polled created their wealth on their own.
Also, 84 percent make philanthropic decisions on their own, even if they are married. But regardless of whether women in the major leagues of philanthropy inherit their fortunes or earn them, these women aren"t just writing checks. They are also demanding, more influence over exactly how their donations are spent.
"These savvy women, who have demonstrated business acumen, are motivated to give to organizations that support issues that they are passionate about," says Linda Paresky, chair emerita of the C200 Foundation.
Indeed, 86 percent of the women polled said their philanthropic decisions are influenced not only by their passion for the cause but also by whether or not the organization is managed well.
The survey also found that women are more interested in promoting causes, like education or women"s health, than in having their names on buildings. Women also prefer collaborative rather than competitive fund-raising approaches.
Despite playing a bigger role in philanthropy. One in 4 women surveyed believes women are still not taken as seriously as men by those seeking donations.

1. 
From this report we can infer that ______.

A women have higher social status

B Women have higher economic status

C Women"s influence is rising

D Women have got more chances to work

2. 
What is the percentage of women who said that their philanthropic decisions were made by themselves?

A 74%.

B 84%.

C 86%.

D 1/4.

3. 
What is the committee of 2007 ______.

A It refers to 200 women who attended a day-long conference.

B It is a group which requires its members to possess companies with revenues in excess of 15 million.

C It is a group which requires its members to manage divisions of US Corporations that produce at least $100 million per year.

D Both B and C.

4. 
The survey made indicated that ______.

A women lose their control over the personal wealth in the United States

B women like to work in the companies

C women-own companies took on more people than Fortune 500 companies did by 1992

D women inherit more fortunes than men

5. 
The surveys also found that women ______.

A Want to know work influence over exactly how their donations are spent

B Believe that they are still not paid as much attention to as men by those seeking donations

C Decide to give donations influenced both by their passion and by their rationality

D Will do all those above

With 500 days left until the year 2,000, experts said last week, that it may already be too late for many companies to defuse the millennium computer time bomb.
According to the Gartner Group, A US high-technology consultant agency, nearly a quarter of all worldwide companies have not yet started work on plans to to solve the year 2,000 programme problems.
1
The Gartner Group, which said last year the millennium bomb rehabilitation would cost between US $300 billion and US $ 600 billion worldwide, also said in the report published this month when only 50 per cent of companies that had projects to eliminate the bug planned to test their corrected systems.
Dangerous policy
Experts said this was a dangerous policy, because correcting computer programmes often introduced new flaws. Testing was essential.
The millennium computer bomb is a legacy from shortcuts by software writers, who in the name of economy expressed years with just the final two digits rather than four.
When clocks tick past midnight on December 31,1999, many unrectified computers and chips will interpret the double zero as 1900.
2
Some experts say the problem has been "grossly exaggerated by software companies seeking to scare customers into buying the latest, bug-free products.
3
"The situation is pretty tatal. Most companies are doing something, but are they doing enough?" He said in an interview.
Titterington also said that for the vast majority of businesses there was no external check on the effectiveness of their making-up work.
Running out of time
4
Companies now could only pinpoint vital computer systems for fixing. Less crucial systems would just have to run the risk of crashing and be fixed later, Mehta said.
"Some crucial areas apart from computers are not getting enough attention. I don"t think networking companies have their act together--meaning manufacturers of routers, switches and network equipment like Bay ( Networks Inc) and Cisco ( Systms Inc), these kinds of companies. "Mehta said.
He said, "Anybody looking at their systems now is probably too late anyway."
Critical situation
In his report,Gartner Group millennium research director, Lou marcoccio, said that of the 15, 000 companies and government agencies surveyed 23 percent had not started millennium bomb projects. Of these ,86 per cent were small companies which would not have a chance to remedy their systems unless they began immediately, Marcoccio said.
5
"Eastern Europe, Russia, India, Pakistan, Southeast Asia, Japan, most of South America, most of the Middle East and Central Africa all lag the United States by more than 12 months."
"Most of Western Europe is six months behind the United States, except for Germany which is 12 months behind, and France, which is eight to 10 months behind."
"The US Government has the lead on all other national governments by an even wider margin than the companies in those countries. Most government agencies are significantly behind the United States, "the report said.
A. This will turn many computer programmes to mush. Unchecked, many public utilities, assembly lines, bank teller machines, traffic lights and lifts may shut down.
B. But Graham Titterington, consultant at London consultancy Ovum, does not enjoy this optimistic view.
C. This means most of these organizations will effectively be unable to fix their systems in time.
D. The Gartner report said most western European companies and the United States had made good progress. Germany was a notable laggard.
E. Mitul Mehta, senior European research manager at Frost & Sullivan in London, said time was insutticient out for many companies.
F. Computers are being used in aviation. They are used in the training of airline pilots. Computers also direct the flight of planes from one city to another, control their air speeds and altitudes, and even land them.

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

A = BOOK REVIEW 1 B = BOOK REVIEW 2
C = BOOK REVIEW 3 D = BOOK REVIEW 4
Which book review(s) contain(s) the following information?
· Comparison of the significance of two economic books. 1
· Stiglitz"s prestige in the field of economics. 2
· Stiglitz"s criticism of those who exaggerated the power of markets in developing countries. 3
· Policy making should consider local conditions. 4
· The intervention of government is the way to assist globalization. 5
· Stiglitz"s dedication to the development of poor countries. 6
· Stiglitz"s preference of one type of economic policy over another one. 7
· More people joined Stiglitz in criticizing free trade and globalization. 8
· Stiglitz"s points have been supported by what actually happened in the country. 9
· Mainly gives positive comments on Stiglitz and his new book. 10
A The main point of the book is simple: globalization is not helping many poor countries. Incomes are not rising in much of the world, and adoption of market-based policies such as open capital markets, free trade, and privatization are making developing economies less stable, not more. Instead of a bigger dose of free markets, Stiglitz argues, what"s needed to make globalization work better is more and smarter government intervention. While this has been said before, the ideas carry more weight coming from someone with Stiglitz"s credentials. In some ways, this book has the potential to be the liberal equivalent of Milton Friedman"s 1962 classic Capitalism and Freedom , which helped provide the intellectual foundation for a generation of conservatives. But Globalization and Its Discontents does not rise to the level of capitalism and freedom. While Stiglitz makes a strong case for government-oriented development policy, he ignores some key arguments in favor of the market. "The book"s main villain is the International Monetary Fund, the Washington organization that lends to troubled countries", Stiglitz" contempt for the IMF is boundless, "It is clear that the IMF has failed in its mission," he declares. "Many of the policies that the IMF pushed have contributed to global instability."
B While parts of this book are disappointingly shallow, Stiglitz"s critique of the market-driven 90"s still resonates, especially when the business page is full of stories about white-collar crime and the stock market seems stuck in a perpetual rut. Even the United States cannot blithely assume that financial markets will work on autopilot. It is testament to the salience of Stiglitz"s arguments that many economists—even some Bush Administration officials—now embrace his view that economic change in the developing world must evolve more with local conditions, not on Washington"s calendar. Without a thorough makeover, globalization could easily become a quagmire. Stiglitz shared a Nobel Prize last year for his work analyzing the imperfections of markets. His main complaint against Rubin and Summers, who served as Treasury Secretaries, and against Fischer, the NO. 2 official and de facto chief executive of the international Monetary Fund, is that they had too much faith that markets could transform poor countries overnight. He labels these three men market fundamentalists, who fought to maintain financial stability with the same urgency that an earlier generation struggled to contain communism. Worse, he suggests, they shilled for Wall Street, conflating the interests of the big banks with the financial health of the world.
C "Stiglitz, 58, is hardly the first person to accuse the IMF of operating undemocratically and exacerbating Third World poverty. But he is by far the most prominent and his emergence as a critic marks an important shift in the intellectual landscape. Only a few years ago, it was possible for pundits to claim that no mainstream economist, certainly nobody of Stiglitz"s stature, took the criticism of free trade and globalization seriously. Such claims are no longer credible, for Stiglitz is part of a small but growing group of economists, sociologists and political scientists, among them Dani Rodrik of Harvard and Robert Wade of the London School of Economics, who not only take the critics seriously but warn that ignoring their concerns could have dire consequences." Over the past several years, Stiglitz, a celebrated theorist who was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics for his work on asymmetric information, has grown accustomed to being at the center of controversy. From 1997 to 2000, he served as senior vice president and chief economist at the World Bank—a title that did not stop him from publicly criticizing the bank"s sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, Stiglitz"s outspokenness, unprecedented for a high-ranking insider, infuriated top officials at the IMF and US Treasury Department, and eventually led James Wolfensohn, the World Bank"s president, to inform him that he would have to mute his criticism or resign, Stiglitz chose to leave.
D "Stiglitz" book makes a compelling case that simple-minded economic doctrine, inadequately tailored to the realities of developing countries, can do more harm than good, and that the subtleties of economic theory are actually quite important for sound policy advice. But simplistic political advice—give developing countries more voice and the institutions of global governance will be rendered more legitimate and efficient—is equally problematic. Political reform is as subtle and complex as economic reform. Evidently, the best minds among us have only begun to think about it." Joseph Stiglitz"s memoirs of his years in Washington, D. C. —first as chair of President Bill Clinton"s Council of Economic Advisers and then as chief economist at the World Bank—have the flavor of a morality play. Our goodhearted but slightly native hero, on leave from Stanford University, sets out for the nation"s capital to serve his country and improve the lot of the developing world. Once there he finds a morass of political opportunism, ideologically motivated decision-making and bureaucratic inertia. Undeterred, he battles valiantly on behalf of impoverished nations against the unrelenting globalisers of the International Monetary Fund.

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

You have read an article in a magazine which states, "TV commercials for luxury products such as posh cars and expensive jewelry make people more aware of the widening gap between the poor and the rich, and therefore should be banned, as such awareness does no good to the construction of a harmonious society in China."
Write an article for the same magazine to clarify your own points of ivew towards this issue. You should use your own ideas, knowledge or experience to generate support for your argument and include an example.
You should write about 250 words.To what extent do you agree with the statement?