[单选题]Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all? The report from PwC reveals——
A.decreased tolerance to incompetent executives
B.increased immoral behaviors among executives
C.improvement in executives'job performance
D.increased requirements on executives'accountability

[单选题]Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all? We can infer from Paragraphs 4 and 5 that——
A.many executives behaved badly because of their eagerness to protect brand reputation
B.only a small percentage of the stories about executives have been proved true
C.a firm may suffer heavy losses due to an insensitive remark from its executives
D.social media is encouraging misconducts among chief executives with its great power

[单选题]Text 4"I like money and nice things,but it's not money that makes me happy.It's people,"says one woman in a World Bank survey.She's not alone:research has found that social integration is more important for well-being than income,and also decreases poverty.Loneliness,conversely,can be deadly:one study found it did more damage to health than smoking.This week,policymakers from 40 countries met in Colombia to ponder ways to measure deprivation that take account of more than just income,including isolation.Several Latin American countries are devising or have already adopted such"multi-dimensional"measures of poverty.Income can be a misleading measure of need because poor people end up living in different degrees of hardship depending on their intangible resources.Having strong social bonds eases financial deprivation.Friends and relatives can lend money,pool risk,mind children and bring news ofjob openings.Researchers from the London School of Economics found that when a group of Bangladeshi women were given business training and free livestock,not only djd they move up the income ladder,but their friends'lot improved too.A year later the friends'consumption had risen by almost 20%,and they claimed to have become sawier about business as well.The downside is that not having the right friends can deepen hardship.The more concentrated the poverty,the less helpful social networks tend to be.In Atlanta,living in a poor neighbourhood decreases the chance of having a friend with a job by almost 60%,and of having a friend who had been to university by over a third.A global survey conducted in 2014 by a polling firm,found that 30%of people in the poorest flfth of their country's population had nobody to rely on in times of need,compared t0 16%of the richest fifih.It is doubly unfortunate,then,that poor people are often socially excluded precisely because they are poor.Chileans and Venezuelans see poverty as a bigger cause of discrimination than gender or ethnicity,according to researchers from Oxford University.Several countries have experienced with schemes that connect lonely old people and deprived youth.Germany,for instance,has built"multi-generational"community centres where older visitors get computer coaching from teenagers.With luck,these connections will help:one American study found that in poor neighbourhoods,three-quarters ofjobholders found work through friends.Perhaps Gennany's centres will furnish income as well as company.37.London School of Economics holds the view that
A.more jobs should be introduced to poor people.
B.women can raise their social status by giving livestock.
C.poor people are involved into complex social relationships.
D.business training are necessary for low-income people.

[单选题]Dave:What sports do you like? Rita:I like basketball. Dave:Why do you like it? Rita:_____56_____ Dave:Do you want to play it now? Rita:_____57_____ Dave:What movie? Rita:_____58_____ Dave:But I don′t think so.Action movies are usually boring and scary. Rita:____59______ Dave:I like comedies. Rita:____60______ 第（60）题选 A.I enjoy P.
A.at school
B.I like basketball
C.What kind of movies do you like,then
D.Because it′s exciting
E.It′s an action movie and it′s interesting
F.Oh,I like comedies,too
G.Sorry.I don′t.I want to go to a movie
H.I don′t like watching movies

[单选题]Text 4 As the nation experiences one of the worst flu seasons in years,thousands of Americans have already died from influenza,according to the U.S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Though the season peaked in February,the CDC recently warned that we should prepare for a second wave of cases to hit before we emerge from the season entirely.Now,it appears more than 50,000 could die from the flu before the season ends.Perhaps most troubling is that this year marks a century since the deadliest viral outbreak in human history,which claimed the lives of 670,000 American men,women and children and as many as 50 to 100 million people worldwide.Among the lessons medical researchers gleaned from the catastrophic event is the critical importance of getting vaccinated.It's a lesson that much of the public continues to ignore,even as our scientific understanding of communicable diseases continues to grow.-The strain in tlus flu season,H3N2,is particularly nasty.It's similar to the HINl strain that set off the 1918 influenza pandemic,and it has resulted in high rates of death,particularly among the elderly.Researchers have struggled to create effective vaccines for the H3N2 strain;this year's flu vaccine is only about 36 percent effective at protecting against the virus,compared to an average of 45 percent over the past seven years.Nonetheless,it does provide some protection,and the unvaccinated are hit much harder without it.Earlier this year,a healthy young man from Pittsburgh did not get vaccinated and died soon afier getting the flu.While low vaccine efficacy means that those who get vaccinated can still contract the flu,it remains common sense and good civic behavior to get vaccinated.As a result of herd immunity,even low efficacy vaccines are enough to curb a pandemic from happening if vaccination rates are high.Flu vaccines did not exist during the pandemic of 1918,which is why it was so deadly.Yet year after year few Americans bother to get vaccinated.In economic terms,the herd immunity benefits of vaccination are a"public good."If I am vaccinated,I cannot exclude anyone from the herd immunity that I now offer.Similarly,someone enjoying my herd immunity does not diminish someone else's ability to enjoy my herd immunity.What typically happens when a public good like the flu vaccine is available is that many,perhaps most,people underinvest.They free ride off other people who get the vaccine.If too many people opt out of vaccination,communities become wlnerable to flu epidemics.According to the CDC,only 38 percent of the population chose to get vaccinated as ofNovember 2017.Low rates ofvaccination are particularly dangerous for children and the elderly,who are especially susceptible to influenza.As individuals,we have veU little control over the strain of the flu that emerges in a given year,or the efficacy of a vaccine,but we do have complete control over whether we get vaccinated.The public's response to a bad fiu outbreak or to low vaccine efficacy should be an increase in flu vaccinations,not a decrease.39.The author implies in the last paragraph that faced with a bad flu outbreak,
A.the public should try to enhance the efficacy of a vaccine.
B.effective vaccines should be used to control over it.
C.the public should make a quicker response to it.
D.emphasis should be laid more on vaccination than a vaccine efficacy.