1、专业八级-571 及答案解析(总分：100.00，做题时间：90 分钟)一、PART LISTENING COM(总题数：0，分数：0.00)二、SECTION A(总题数：1，分数：10.00)填空项 1:_填空项 1:_填空项 1:_填空项 1:_填空项 1:_填空项 1:_填空项 1:_填空项 1:_填空项 1:_填空项 1:_三、SECTION B(总题数：1，分数：5.00)(1).According to Dr. Adams, what does the title of his book suggest?（分数：1.00）A.A regular study program is
2、essential to learning another language.B.Eating eggs and toast is important for learning another language.C.Learning another language is as easy as eating eggs and toast.D.A language-learning program should be set upon eggs and toast.(2).According to Dr. Adams, which of the following statements is I
3、NCORRECT?（分数：1.00）A.One should start learning a foreign language with practical goals.B.One needs to develop his/her language skills by small steps.C.Planning to learn a small vocabulary every day is acceptable.D.A cramming program is suggested if one wants to learn well.(3).According to Dr. Adams,
4、visual learners do the following things EXCEPT_.（分数：1.00）A.seeing models of the patterns to be learnedB.associating images with ideas and conceptsC.performing better through artistic experiencesD.having great instinctive sense of direction(4).What is Dr. Adams own learning style?（分数：1.00）A.Visual st
5、yle.B.Tactile style.C.Auditory style.D.Writing styl(5).Why does Dr. Adams say learning styles are not singular in nature?（分数：1.00）A.Because learners are complicated and hardly analyzable.B.Because learners tend to grasp all the learning styles.C.Because learners hardly use one learning style at a ti
6、me.D.Because learners learning styles are situation-specifi四、SECTION C(总题数：3，分数：5.00)Questions 7 and 8 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions.Now listen to the news.（分数：2.00）(1).Which of the following best states Chinas stan
7、dpoint on the Iran nuclear issues?（分数：1.00）A.China opposes any form of economic sanctions against Iran.B.China plans to stop multilateral talks with other parties involved.C.China hopes to continue talks with parties concerned for solutions.D.China supports international efforts to impose sanctions
8、on Iran.(2).The UN Security Council plus_agreed to impose new sanctions on Iran.（分数：1.00）A.CanadaB.JapanC.AustraliaD.Germany1.Question 6 is based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the question.Now listen to the news.What is the main idea of th
9、e news item?（分数：1.00）A.World oil prices rose again after a short decline.B.More investors shifted their interest in the U.S. dollars.C.The Russian president suggested less dependence on the dollar.D.The U.S. dollars gained value after world oil prices rosQuestions 9 and 10 are based on the following
10、 news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions.Now listen to the news.（分数：2.00）(1).What are the scientists at the University of California doing to help patients blink?（分数：1.00）A.They are transplanting a piece of muscle from the leg to the eye.B.They are doi
11、ng surgeries on the eye to help patients blink.C.They are doing tests of a new blink system on real patients.D.They are developing artificial muscles to help patients blink.(2).Which of the following is NOT a part of the new blink system?（分数：1.00）A.The eyelid sling.B.The temples.C.The electrostatic
12、polymer.D.A tiny battery.五、PART READING COMPR(总题数：0，分数：0.00)六、TEXT A(总题数：1，分数：5.00)The FDA may rescind its approval of Avastin, a colon-cancer drug.If the summer of 2009 was the season of “death panels,“ as the debate over health-care reform exploded, this is the season of “17.5k dead women a year.
13、“ Thats the body count scaremongers are predicting if the Food and Drug Administration rescinds its provisional approval of the drug Avastin for metastatic breast cancer, a decision expected by years end. Although the move has nothing to do with the new health-care law, uncertainty about “Obama-care
14、“ has given opponents an opening to terrify people about whats cominglike bureaucrats rationing health care to save money.The reality is far different and, for those who care more about helping cancer patients than about scoring political points, much sadder. Thats because in 2008, when the FDA gave
15、 “fast track“ approval for Avastin in breast cancer that has metastasizedusually to the lungs, bones, liver, or brainit was conditional on the manufacturer, Genentech, running additional clinical trials of the drugs safety and efficacy. There was good reason for that. Avastin is an angiogenesis inhi
16、bitor, a class of cancer drugs that have not lived up to their hype: although they stop one mechanism by which malignant cells grow blood vessels to sustain them, the cells often activate a different mechanism and go on proliferating.Although Avastin does extend the lives of patients with metastatic
17、 colorectal and kidney cancer, and remains FDA-approved for those uses, the new studies show it does not work the same miracle against metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Instead, Avastin increased whats called progression-free survival (how long before cancer spreads or grows) by about one to three wee
18、ks, depending on which chemo agent it was paired with. But it did not keep women alive any longer than chemo alone. To some advocates, progression-free survival without an increase in overall survival is still welcome, since it suggests patients have a better quality of life during their last months
19、.But its hard to make that case for Avastin. Not only did it not keep women alive, but it also caused hypertension, hemorrhaging, bowel perforations, and other side effects. “It seems as if the drugs toxicity cancels out any benefit,“ cancer surgeon David Gorski of the Karmanos Cancer Institute told
20、 me. Perforated bowels do not equal a better quality of life.These dismal results are what led an FDA panel to vote 121 in July to rescind the conditional approval of Avastin for MBC. Critics of health-care reform, predictably, saw nefarious motivesin particular, evidence that Obamacare will ration
21、expensive drugs. (Avastin costs some $88,000 a year, though few patients live that long. ) The Wall Street Journal editorialized about the “Avastin mugging,“ and Sen. David Vitter accused the FDA of “assigning a value to a day of a persons life. “If Avastin did extend lives for, lets say, $10,000 a
22、day, Vitter might have a case. But it doesnt extend life at all. That makes allegations like the 17,500 dead women (from a right-wing blog) “utter demagoguery of the most vile and despicable sort,“ Gorski wrote on the blog Science-Based Medicine.There are stories galore of women with metastatic brea
23、st cancer who are alive “because of Avastin. “ Indeed, patients have been flooding the airwaves and blogosphere with claims that Avastin helped them. But the only way to tell whether Avastin deserves the credit for keeping patients alive is through large studies. “There are always patients who live
24、longer than average,“ biostatistician Donald Berry of the MD?Anderson Cancer Center told me. “They attribute it to the treatment; people love to make attributions. “ But when the proportion of patients alive at any given time in a study is the same whether they are receiving Avastin or notas the two
25、 large trials foundthen crediting Avastin is “very likely wrong. “ That some women did live longer on Avastin, Berry explained, “may simply reflect the natural heterogeneity of the disease and say nothing about the therapy. “Doctors can keep prescribing Avastin for metastatic breast cancer off-label
26、, though insurers will not pay for it. Some activists welcome that. There is “no evidence of clinical benefit from Avastin, yet there is harm,“ says Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. “We need to demand more of treatment before we unleash it on the public. “ Science-based
27、 medicine isnt always pretty. But its better than politics-based medicine, which is what some critics of the Avastin decision are practicingand much better than deluding ourselves into thinking something works when it doesnt.（分数：5.00）(1).What does “scaremonger“ mean in the second paragraph?（分数：1.00）
28、A.A prophet who can predict what will happen in the future.B.A person who spreads frightening rumors and stirs up trouble.C.A scientist who is specialized in medicine.D.A sociologist who is concerned about social issues.(2).Which of the following is NOT the benefit of Avastin?（分数：1.00）A.It can help
29、malignant cells grow blood vessels to sustain them.B.It can extend the lives of patients with metastatic colorectal and kidney cancer.C.It can extend the lives of patients with breast cancer.D.It can help patients have a better quality of life during their last months.(3).Why may the FDA rescind its
30、 approval of Avastin?（分数：1.00）A.Because it may cause breast cancer to metastasize to other organsB.Because it did not keep women alive.C.Because it may cause side effects.D.Because its toxicity outweighs its benefits.(4).Opponents criticize FDAs rescinding its approval of Avastin because_.（分数：1.00）A
31、.Avastin is too expensiveB.they think Obama will ration health care to save moneyC.few women benefit from the use of AvastinD.Avastin is effective in dealing with cancers(5).The best title of the passage is_.（分数：1.00）A.Its not about rationingB.Why the FDA may reverse course on AvastinC.A value to a
32、day of a persons lifeD.Avastin, a controversial medicine七、TEXT B(总题数：1，分数：5.00)I have a plan that will raise wages, lower prices, increase the nations stock of scientists and engineers, and maybe even create the next Google. Better yet, this plan wont cost the government a dime. In fact, it will sav
33、e a lot of money. But few politicians are going to want to touch it. Heres the plan: More immigration. A pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants. And a recognition that immigration policy is economic policy, and needs to be thought of as such.See what I meant about politicians not liking
34、 it?Economists will tell you that immigrants raise wages for the average native-born worker. Theyll tell you that they make things cheaper for us to buy here, and that if we didnt have immigrants for some of these jobs, the jobs would move to other countries. Theyll tell you that we should allow for
35、 much more highly skilled immigration, because thats about as close to a free lunch as youre likely to find. Theyll tell you that the people who should most want a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants are the low-income workers who are most opposed to such plans. And about all this, the
36、economists are right.There are also noneconomic considerations, of course. Integrating cultures and nationalities is difficult. Undocumented immigrants raise issues of law and fairness. Border security is important. Those questions are important. Theyre just not the subject of this column.The mistak
37、e we make when thinking about the effect immigrants have on our wages, says Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California at Davis who has studied the issue extensively, is we imagine an economy where the number of jobs is fixed. Then, if one immigrant comes in, he takes one of those j
38、obs or forces a worker to accept a lower wage. But thats not how our economy works. With more laborparticularly more labor of different kindsthe economy grows larger. It produces more stuff. There are more workers buying things and that increases the total number of jobs. We understand perfectly wel
39、l that Europe is in trouble because its low birth rates mean fewer workers and that means less economic growth. We ourselves worry that were not graduating enough scientists and engineers. But the economy doesnt care if it gets workers through birth rates or green cards.In fact, theres a sense in wh
40、ich green cards are superior. Economists separate new workers into two categories: Those who “substitute“ for existing laborwere both construction workers, and the boss can easily swap you out for me; and those who “complement“ existing laboryoure a construction engineer and Im a construction worker
41、. Immigrants, more so than U.S.-born workers, tend to be in the second category, as the jobs you want to give to someone who doesnt speak English very well and doesnt have many skills are different from the jobs you give to people who are fluent and have more skills.But thats only half of their bene
42、fit. “Living standards are a function of two things,“ says Michael Greenstone, director of the Hamilton Project, which is hosting a Washington conference on the economics of immigration next week. “Theyre a function of our wages and the prices of the goods we purchase. “ And immigrants reduce the pr
43、ices of those goods. Patricia Cortes, an economist at the University of Chicagos Booth School of Business, found that immigrants lowered the prices in “immigrant-intensive industries“ like housekeeping and gardening by about 10 percent. So our wages go up and the prices of the things we want to buy
44、go down.We should remember, though, that the average worker isnt every worker. A study by Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz found that although immigrants raised native wages overall, they slightly hurt the 8 percent of workers without a high-school education and those with a colleg
45、e education. A subsequent study by Peri looked harder at the ways immigrant labor differed from native labor and found that all groups of workers saw a benefit from immigrantsthough unskilled workers saw less of a benefit than highly skilled workers.And unskilled workers face even tougher competitio
46、n from undocumented immigrants who, because their status is so tenuous, will accept pay beneath the minimum wage. And they are unlikely to complain about safety regulations or work conditions. That takes unskilled immigrants from being a bit cheaper than unskilled natives and makes them a lot cheape
47、rwhich makes employers likelier to hire them for jobs that native workers could do better.This suggests, first, that American workers would be better off if we figured out a way to take the 12 million undocumented immigrants and give them legal status, and second, that we might want to give them mor
48、e direct help if were going to increase immigration. Both are possiblejust politically difficult.Our immigration policy should be primarily oriented around our national goals. And one goal is to have the worlds most innovative and dynamic economy. Its never going to be the case that each and every o
49、ne of the planets most talented individuals is born on American soil. But those born elsewhere could be lured here. People like living here. We should be leveraging that advantage, mercilessly roaming the globe, finding the most talented people and attracting them to our country. When we have the best talent, we have the best innovations. Tha
