题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A．They blush more readily than women do.
B．They're uncomfortable performing in front of adults.
C．They don' t respond to stress well.
D．They blush less frequently than adults do.
简答题官方参考答案
（由简答题聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
更多“A．They blush more readily than women do.B．They're uncomfortable performing in front of”相关的问题
A profit-maximizing monopsonist hires both men and women to do a certain task. The two sexes are equally good at this task and are regarded as perfect substitutes. Labor supply curves for both sexes are upward-sloping. In order to hire M men, the firm would have to pay men a wage of AM, where A is a positive constant. In order to hire F women, the monopsonist would have to pay a wage of BFc where B and c are positive constants. Which, if any, of these conditions necessarily implies that he pays a lower wage to women than to men?
A、A > B .
B、A < c.
C、c < 1.
D、Bc < A
A、have less invested in the current system
B、have more invested in the current system
C、have confidence in themselves
D、have less to lose
A．Moderate cost.
B．Local sight-seeing is investigated by the tourist organization.
C．People enjoy the first-rate comforts.
D．Everybody can enjoy the "grand tour".
In some countries where racial prejudice is acute, violence has so come to be taken for granted as a means of solving differences, that it is not even questioned. There are countries where the white man imposes his rule by brute force; there are countries where the black man protests by setting fire to cities and by looting and pillaging. Important people on both sides, who would in other respects appear to be reasonable men, get up and calmly argue in favor of violence-as if it were a legitimate solution, like any other. What is really frightening, what really fills you with despair, is the realization that when it comes to the crunch, we have made no actual progress at all. We may wear collars and ties instead of war-paint, but our instincts remain basically unchanged. The whole of the recorded history of the human race, that tedious documentation of violence, has taught us absolutely nothing. We have still not learnt that violence never solves a problem but makes it more acute. The sheer horror, the bloodshed, the suffering mean nothing. No solution ever comes to light the morning after when we dismally contemplate the smoking ruins and wonder what hit us.
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 program. 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.
A．Straitford's prediction about Ukraine has proved tree
B．Straitford guarantees the truthfulness of its information
C．Straitford's business is characterized by unpredictability
D．Straitford is able to provide fairly reliable information
One of London Zoo's recent advertisements caused me some irritation, so patently did it distort reality. Headlined "Without zoos you might as well tell these animals to get stuffed", it was bordered with illustrations of several endangered species and went on to extol the myth that without zoos like London Zoo these animals "will almost certainly disappear forever". With the zoo world's rather mediocre record on conservation, one might be forgiven for being slightly skeptical about such an advertisement.
Zoos were originally created as places of entertainment, and their suggested involvement with conservation didn't seriously arise until about 30 years ago, when the Zoological Society of London held the first formal international meeting on the subject. Eight years later, a series of world conferences took place, entitled "The Breeding of Endangered Species", and from this point onwards conservation became the zoo community's buzzword. Tiffs commitment has now been clearly defined in The World Zoo Conservation Strategy (WZCS, September 1993), which-although an important and welcome document-does seem to be based on an unrealistic optimism about the nature of the zoo industry.
The WZCS estimates that there are about 10,000 zoos in the world, of which around 1,000 represent a core of quality collections capable of participating in coordinated conservation programmes. This is probably the document's first failing, as I believe that 10,000 is a serious underestimate of the total number of places masquerading as zoological establishments. Of course it is difficult to get accurate data but, to put the issue into perspective, I have found that, in a year of working in Eastern Europe, I discover fresh zoos on almost a weekly basis.
The second flaw in the reasoning of the WZCS document is the naive faith it places in its 1,000 core zoos. One would assume that the caliber of these institutions would have been carefully examined, but it appears that the criterion for inclusion on this select list might merely be that the zoo is a member of a zoo federation or association. This might be a good starting point, working on the premise that members must meet certain standards, but again the facts don't support the theory. The greatly respected American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) has had extremely dubious members, and in the UK the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland has occasionally had members that have been roundly censured in the national press. These include Robin Hill Adventure Park on the Isle Wight, which many considered the most notorious collection of animals in the country. This establishment, which for years was protected by the Isle's local council (which viewed it as a tourist amenity), was finally closed down following a damning report by a veterinary inspector appointed under the terms of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. As it was always a collection of dubious repute, one is obliged to reflect upon the standards that the Zoo Federation sets when granting membership. The situation is even worse in developing countries where little money is available for redevelopment and it is hard to see a way of incorporating collections into the overall scheme of the WZCS.
Even assuming that the WZCS's 1,000 core zoos are all of a high standard—complete with scientific staff and research facilities, trained and dedicated keepers, accommodation that permits normal or natural behaviour, and a policy of co-operating fully with one another—what might be the potential for conservation？ Colin Tudge, author of Last Animals at the Zoo (Oxford University Press, 1992), argues that "if the world's zoos worked together in co-operative breeding programmes, then even without further expansion they could save around 2,000 species of endangered land vertebrates". This seems an extremely optimistic proposition from a man who must be aware of the failing and weaknesses of
A．London Zoo's advertisements are dishonest.
B．Zoos made an insignificant contribution to conservation up until 30 years ago.
C．No one knew how the animals were being treated at Robin Hill Adventure Park.
D．The number of successful zoo conservation programmes is unsatisfactory.
That does not mean it hasn't generated discussion. Several members of the Parliament opposed the measure as un-Asian. Others who acknowledged the problem of the elderly poor believed it a disproportionate response. Still others believe it will subvert relations within the family: cynics dubbed it the "Sue Your Son" law.
Those who say that the bill does not promote filial responsibility, of course, are right. It has nothing to do with filial responsibility. It kicks in where filial responsibility fails. The law cannot legislate filial responsibility any more than it can legislate love. All that the law can do is to provide a safety net where this morality proves insufficient. Singapore needs this bill not to replace morality, but to provide incentives to shore it up.
Like many other developed nations, Singapore faces the problems of an increasing proportion of people over 60 years of age. Demography is inexorable. In 1980, 7.2% of the population was in this bracket. By the end of the century that figure will grow to 11%. By 2030, the proportion is projected to be 26%. The problem is not old age per se. It is that the ratio of economically active people to economically inactive people will decline.
But no amount of government exhortation or paternalism will completely eliminate the problem of old people who have insufficient means to make ends meet. Some people will fall through the holes in any safety net.
Traditionally, a person's insurance against poverty in his old age was his family. This is not a revolutionary concept. Nor is it uniquely Asian. Care and support for one's parents is a universal value shared by all civilized societies.
The problem in Singapore is that the moral obligation to look after one's parents is unenforceable. A father can be compelled by law to maintain his children. A husband can be forced to support his wife. But, until now, a son or daughter had no legal obligation to support his or her parents.
In 1989, an Advisory Council was set up to look into the problems of the aged. Its report stated with a tinge of complacency that 950% of those who did not have their own income were receiving cash contributions from relations. But what about the 5% who aren't getting relatives' support? They have several options: (a) get a job and work until they die; (b) apply for public assistance (you have to be destitute to apply); (c) starve quietly. None of these options is socially acceptable. And what if this 5% figure grows, as it is likely to do, as society ages?
The Maintenance of Parents Bill was put forth to encourage the traditional virtues that have so far kept Asian nations from some of the breakdowns encountered in other affluent societies. This legislation will allow a person to apply to the court for maintenance from any or all of his children. The court would have the discretion to refuse to make an order if it is unjust.
Those who deride the proposal for opening up the courts to family lawsuits miss the point. Only in extreme cases would any parent take his child to court. If it does indeed become law, the bill's effect would be far more subtle.
First, it will reaffirm the notion that it is each individual's—not society's—responsibility to look after his parents. Singapore is still conservative enough that most people will not object to this idea. It reinforces the traditional values and it doesn't hurt a society now and then to remind itself of its core values.
Second, and more important, it will make those who are inclined to shirk their responsibilities think twice. Until now, if a person asked family elders, clergymen or t
A．received unanimous support in the Singapore Parliament
B．was believed to solve all the problems of the elderly poor
C．was intended to substitute for traditional values in Singapore
D．was passed to make the young more responsible to the old
A．The majority of the Nobel winners have lived or worked in America.
B．Most Americans are innovative and willing to start their own business.
C．The American future-mindedness is both a blessing and a curse.
D．American venture-capital firms consist of futuristic dwarfs from nations all over the world.
B．To help reduce the promotion cost of that product.
C．To induce more famous people to use that product.
D．To get TV viewers to remember that product.
警告：系统检测到您的账号存在安全风险
为了保护您的账号安全，请在“简答题”公众号进行验证，点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证，验证成功后方可继续查看答案！
