考博英语-216
| The study of social science is more than the study
of the individual social sciences. Although it is tree that to be a good social
scientist you must know each of those components, you must also know how they
interrelate. By specializing too early, many social scientists can lose sight of
the interrelationships that are so essential to understanding modem problems.
That's why it is necessary to have a course covering all the social sciences. In
fact, it would not surprise me if one day a news story, such as the one above
should appear. The preceding passage placed you in the future. To understand how and when social science broke up, you must go into the past. Imagine for a moment that you're a student in 1062, in the Italian city of Bologna, site of one of the first major universities in the western world. The university has no buildings. It consists merely of a few professors and students. There is no tuition fee. At the end of a professor's lecture, if you like it, you pay. And if you don't like it, the professor finds himself without students and without money. If we go back still earlier, say to Greece in the sixth century B. C. , we can see the philosopher Socrates walking around the streets of Athens, arguing with his companions. He asks them questions, and then other questions, leading these people to reason the way he wants them to reason (this became known as the Socratic method). Times have changed since then; universities sprang up throughout the world and created colleges within the universities. Oxford, one of the first universities, now has thirty colleges associated with it, and the development and formalization of educational institutions has changed the roles of both students and faeuhy. As knowledge accumulated, it became more and more difficult for one person to learn, let alone retain it all. In the sixteenth century one could still aspire to know all there was to know, and the definition of the Renaissance man (people were even more sexist then than they are now) was of one who was expected to know about everything. Unfortunately, at least for someone who wants to know everything, the amount of information continues to grow exponentially while the size of the brain has grown only slightly. The way to deal with the problem is not to try to know everything about everything. Today we must specialize. That is why social science separated from the natural sciences and why it, in turn, has been broken down into various subfields, such as anthropology and sociology. |
1.What is the main idea of this text?
A Social science is unified.
B Social science is a newborn science.
C What is social science.
D Specialization in social science is not good.
2.What can we learn from the second paragraph?
A Socrates can be regarded as the first social scientist in the western world.
B The universities in Italy have no buildings.
C Socrates created the "Socratic method".
D Greece is not as civilized as Italy.
3.Why does the author say "people were even more sexist then than they are now"?
A Because they are so covetous that they want to know all there was to know.
B Because it is the Renaissance "Man", not Renaissance "Woman" or "human".
C Because no woman was formally educated at that time.
D Because all Renaissance men were men.
4.What does the underlined word "exponentially" mean in the first sentence of the last paragraph ?
A Promisingly.
B Continuously.
C Drastically.
D Rapidly.
5.We can infer from the text that ______.
A social science is a united science, and cannot be divided into subfields
B social science may be further divided into smaller parts as the amount of knowledge and information expanding
C there may be a Renaissance Man in the future
D the best way to deal with the expansion of information is to know everything
| To what extent are the unemployed failing in their
duty to society to work, and how far has the State an obligation to ensure that
they have work to do? It is by now increasingly recognized that workers may be thrown out of work by industrial forces beyond their control, and that the unemployed are in some sense paying the price of the economic progress of the rest of the community. But concern with unemployment and the unemployed varies sharply. The issues of duty and responsibility were reopened and revitalized by the unemployment scare of 1971-1972. Rising unemployment and increased sums paid out in benefits to the workless had reawakened controversies which had been inactive during most of the period of fuller employment since the war ended the Depression. It looked as though in future there would again be too little work to go round, so there were arguments about how to produce more work, how the available work should be shared out, and who was responsible for unemployment and the unemployed. In 1972 there were critics who said that the State's action in allowing unemployment to rise was a faithless act, a breaking of the social contract between society and the worker. Yet in the main any contribution by employers to unemployment such as lying off workers in order to introduce technological changes and maximize profits tended to be ignored. And it was the unemployed who were accused of failing to honor the social contract, by not fulfilling their duty to society to work. In spite of general concern at the scale to the unemployment statistics, when the unemployed were considered as individuals, they tended to attract scorn and threats of punishment. Their capacities and motivation as workers and their value as members of society became suspect. Of all the myths of the Welfare State, stories of the work shy and borrowers have been the least well founded on evidence, yet they have proved the most persistent. The unemployed were accused of being responsible for their own workless condition, and doubts were expressed about the State's obligation either to provide them with the security of work or to support them through Social Security. Underlying the arguments about unemployment and the unemployed is a basic disagreement about the nature and meaning of work in society. To what extent can or should work be regarded as a service, not only performed by the worker for society but also made secure for the worker by the State. and supported if necessary? And apart from cash are there social pressures and satisfactions which cause individuals to seek and keep work, so that the workless need work rather than just cash? |
6.It is the author's belief that ______.
A unemployment must lead to inevitable depression of national economy
B the unemployed are the victims of economical and social development
C unemployment should be kept under the control of industrial forces
D the unemployed are not entitled to share the benefits from technological progress
7.What the author proposes to examine is ______.
A how far the unemployed are to blame for their failure in working and how far it is the State's fault
B to what extent the State should insist on the unemployed working if they fail to do so
C whether being at work is a social duty which the State should ensure everybody carries out
D whether work should be obligatory, and if so, whether the State or the individual is responsible for enforced obligation
8.The effect of the 1971-1972 unemployment scare was to ______.
A make people think for the first time about the problem of the availability of work
B make concern for unemployment and the unemployed vary
C make the subject of unemployment controversial again
D show that there would in future be too little work to go round
9.According to the author, in the 1971-1972 crisis ______.
A the State and the employers were equally to blame for allowing unemployment to rise
B the unemployed did not fulfill their social duty to find jobs
C the role played by the employers in creating unemployment was not recognized
D the state was guilty of breaking the social contract by letting unemployment increase
10.The basic disagreement about the nature and meaning of work in society rests on the problem of whether or not ______.
A the unemployed ought to be supported by society as a whole
B the state should recognize that people work for more than just money
C it is a service to provide people with work rather than cash
D the state's duty to provide work is as great as the individual's duty to work
| Successful business tends to continue implementing
the ideas that made them successful. But in a rapidly changing world, ideas
often become obsolete overnight. What worked in the past won't necessarily work
in the future. In order to thrive in the future, you must constantly create new
ideas for every aspect of your business. In fact, you must continually generate
new ideas just to keep your head above water. Businesses that aren't creative
about their future may not survive. Although Bill Gates is the richest, most successful man on the planet, he did not anticipate the Internet. Now he's scrambling to catch up. If Bill Gates can miss a major aspect of his industry, it can happen to you in your industry. Your business needs to continually innovate and create its future. Gates is now constantly worried about the future of Microsoft. Here's what he said in a recent interview in U.S. News World Report: "Will we be replaced tomorrow? No. In a very short time frame, Microsoft is an incredibly strong company. But when you look to the two to three-year time frame, I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that any technology company has a guaranteed position. Not Intel, not Microsoft, not Compaq, not Dell, take any of your favorites. And that's totally honest. " You may remember that in 1985 the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls were the best-selling toy on the market. But after Coleco Industries introduced their sensational line of dolls they became complacent and didn't create any new toys worth mentioning. As a result, Coleco went bankrupt in 1988. The most successful businesses survive in the long term because they constantly reassess their situations and reinvest themselves accordingly. The 3M Company has a 15% rule: Employees are encouraged to spend 15% of their time developing new ideas on any project they desire. It's no surprise, then, that 3M has been around since 1902. Most businesses are not willing to tear apart last year's model of success and build a new one. Here's a familiar analogy to explain why they are lulled into complacency; imagine that your business is like a pot of lobsters. To cook lobsters, you put them into a pot of warm water and gradually turn up the heat. The lobsters don't realize they're being cooked because the process is so gradual. As a result, they become complacent and die without a struggle. However, if you throw a lobster into the pot when the water is boiling, it will desperately try to escape. This lobster is not lulled by a slowly changing environment. It realizes instantly that it's in a bad environment and takes immediate action to change its status. |
11.Judging from the context, "to keep your head above water" (Para. 1) probably means ______.
A to be drown
B to keep out of financial difficulty
C to keep away from danger
D to protect you h-ore water
12.Why is Gates now constantly worried about the future of Microsoft?
A Because he is the richest, most successful man on the planet.
B Because his company will be replaced tomorrow.
C Because in a very short time frame, Microsoft is an incredibly strong company.
D Because he doesn't think that any technology company has a guaranteed position.
13.Coleco Industries' case suggests that ______.
A the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls were the best selling toy on the market
B the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls are sensational line of dolls
C complacency and lack of creation will ultimately ruin a business
D the most successful businesses survive in the long term
14.According to this passage, the 3M Company's success lies in its ______.
A constant reassessment of their situations
B reinvention
C 15% rule
D being around since 1902
15.By using the analogy of "throwing a lobster into a pot", the author tries to imply that ______.
A some managers are really foolish people
B it's cruel to cook lobsters
C people are tend to become complacent
D bad environment calls for immediate action
| The study of philosophies should make our own ideas
flexible. We are all of us apt to take certain general ideas for granted, and
call them common sense. We should learn that other people have held quite
different ideas, and that our own have started as very original guesses of
philosophers. A scientist is apt to think that all the problems of philosophy will ultimately be solved by science. I think this is true for a great many of the questions on which philosophers still argue. For example, Plato thought that when we saw something, one ray of light came to it from the sun, and another from our eyes and that seeing was something like feeling with a stick. We now know that the light comes from the sun, and is reflected into our eyes. We don't know in much detail how the changes in our eyes give rise to sensation. But there is every reason to think that as we learn more about the physiology of the brain, we shall do so, and that the great philosophical problems about knowledge are going to be pretty fully cleared up. But if our descendants know the answers to these questions and others that perplex us today, there will still be one field of which they do not know, namely the future. However exact our science; we cannot know it as we know the past. Philosophy may be described as argument about things of which we are ignorant. And where science gives us a hope of knowledge it is often reasonable to suspend judgment. That is one reason why Marx and Engels quite rightly wrote to many philosophical problems that interested their contemporaries. But we have got to prepare for the future, and we cannot do so rationally without some philosophy. Some people say we have only got to do the duties revealed in the past and laid down by religion, and god will look after the future. Others say that the world is a machine and the course of future events is certain, whatever efforts we may make. Marxists say that the future depends on ourselves, even though we are part of the historical process. This philosophical view certainly does inspire people to wry great achievements. Whether it is true or not, it is powerful guide to action. We need a philosophy, then, to help us to tackle the future. Agnosticism easily becomes an excuse for laziness and conservatism. Whether we adopt Marxism or any other philosophy, we cannot understand it without knowing something of how it developed. That is why knowledge of the history of philosophy is important to Marxists, even during the present critical days. |
16.What is the main idea of this passage?
A The argument whether philosophy will ultimately be solved by science or not
B The importance of learning philosophies, especially the history of philosophy.
C The difference between philosophy and science.
D A discuss about how to set a proper attitude towards future.
17.The example of what Plato thought in the passage shows that ______.
A the development of science really can solve a great many of the problems on which philosophers still argue.
B Plato knew nothing about physics.
C the scientists have achieved a lot in terms of light theory.
D different people have different ways of perception.
18.What field can our descendants know?
A The origin of human beings.
B Some questions that perplex us today.
C Many philosophical problems which Marx and Engels wrote rather little.
D The future.
19.How many kinds of ideas are there about the future?
A Two.
B Three.
C Four.
D Five.
20.What are the functions of studying philosophies mentioned in the passage?
A The study of philosophies would make our own idea flexible.
B The study of philosophies would help prepare us for the future and guide our actions.
C The study of philosophies would enable us to understand how things develop as to better tackle the future.
D All of the above.
21.Another test was done with slightly older infants at bedtime. In some groups the room was silent; in others recorded lullabies were played. In others a ticking metro home was operating at the heart-beat speed of 72 beats per minute. In still others the heart-beat recording itself was played. It was then checked to see which groups fell asleep more quickly. The heart-beat group dropped off in half the time it took for any of the other groups. This not only clinches the idea that the sound of the heart beating is a powerfully calming stimulus, but it also shows that the response is a highly specific one. The metronome imitation will not do--at least, not for young infants. So it seems fairly certain that this is the explanation of the mother's left-side approach to baby-holding. It is interesting that when 466 Madonna and child paintings (dating back over several hundred years) were analyzed for this feature, 373 of them showed the baby on the left breast. Here again the figure was at the 80 per cent level. This contrasts with observations of females carrying parcels, where it was found that 50 per cent carried them on the left and 50 per cent on the right. What other possible results could this heart—beat imprinting have? It may，for example，explain why we insist on locating feelings of love in the heart rather than the head．As the song says：“You gotta have a heart!” It may also explain why mothers rock their babies to lull them to sleep．The rocking motion is carried on at about the same speed as the heart—beat，and once again it probably 'reminds' the infants of the rhythmic sensations they became SO familiar with inside the womb，as the great heart of the mother pumped and thumped away above them．
22.