關於阿摩
40萬題免費題庫,最詳盡的詳解,是您考試的必備利器!

錯在阿摩,贏在考場!
錯在阿摩,贏在考場!

搜尋:molting is the mechanism

  • 可怕的學歷通膨 21 by Pei Pei Pei
    工商時報【林佳誼】 ■不只台灣大學生畢業後只能領22k,美國如今也出現「學歷通膨」現象,許..
  • 可怕的學歷通膨 20 by S.
      作者: 林佳誼 | 中時電子報 – 2013年3月10日 上..
  • 可怕的學歷通膨 23 by Lissy Lin
      工商時報【林佳誼】 ■不只台灣大學生畢業後只能領22k,美國如今也出現..
  • 1200 Essential Words 73 by Ming Chang C
    The Words You Should Know to Sound Smart DESCRIP..
  • Philosophy and Organization Theory(原版) 16 by Ming Chang C
    Philosophy and Organization Theory (Research in t..
1. Part II Reading Comprehension (Skimming and Scanning) (15 minutes) Directions: In this part, you will have 15 minutes to go over the passage quickly and answer thequestions on Answer Sheet 1. For questions 1-7, choose the best answer from the four choices marked A, B, Cand D. For questions 8-10, complete the sentences with the information given in the passage. Google's Plan for World's Biggest Online Library: Philanthropy Or Act of Piracy? In recent years, teams of workers dispatched by Google have been working hard to make digital copies of books. So far, Google has scanned more than 10 million titles from libraries in America and Europe - including half a million volumes held by the Bodleian in Oxford. The exact method it uses is unclear; the company does not allow outsiders to observe the process. Why is Google undertaking such a venture? Why is it even interested in all those out-of-printlibrary books, most of which have been gathering dust on forgotten shelves for decades? Thecompany claims its motives are essentially public-spirited. Its overall mission, after all, is to "organise the world's information", so it would be odd if that information did not include books. The company likes to present itself as having lofty aspirations. "This really isn't about making money. We are doing this for the good of society." As Santiago de la Mora, head of Google Books for Europe, puts it: "By making it possible to search the millions of books that exist today, we hope to expand the frontiers of human knowledge." Dan Clancy, the chief architect of Google Books, does seem genuine in his conviction that thisis primarily a philanthropic (慈善的) exercise. "Google's core business is search and find, soobviously what helps improve Google's search engine is good for Google," he says. "But we havenever built a spreadsheet (电子数据表) outlining the financial benefits of this, and I have neverhad to justify the amount I am spending to the company's founders." It is easy, talking to Clancy and his colleagues, to be swept along by their missionary passion. But Google's book-scanning project is proving controversial. Several opponents have recently emerged, ranging from rival tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon to small bodies representing authors and publishers across the world. In broad terms, these opponents have levelled two sets of criticisms at Google. First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the world's books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company. In a recent essay in the New YorkReview of Books, Robert Darnton, the head of Harvard University's library, argued that because such books are a common resource – the possession of us all – only public, not-for-profit bodiesshould be given the power to control them. The second related criticism is that Google's scanning of books is actually illegal. This allegation has led to Google becoming mired in (陷入) a legal battle whose scope and complexity makes the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Charles Dickens' Bleak House look straightforward. At its centre, however, is one simple issue: that of copyright. The inconvenient fact about most books, to which Google has arguably paid insufficient attention, is that they are protected by copyright. Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general protection extends for the duration of an author's life and for a substantial period afterwards, thus allowing the author's heirs to benefit. (In Britain and America, this post-death period is 70 years.) This means, of course, that almost all of the books published in the 20th century are still under copyright – and the last century saw more books published than in all previous centuries combined. Of the roughly 40 million books in US libraries, for example, an estimated 32 million are in copyright. Of these, some 27 million are out of print. Outside the US, Google has made sure only to scan books that are out of copyright and thus in the "public domain" (works such as the Bodleian's first edition of Middlemarch, which anyone canread for free on Google Books Search). But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. Inits defence, Google points out that it displays only small segments of books that are in copyrightarguing that such displays are "fair use". But critics allege that by making electronic copies of these books without first seeking the permission of copyright holders, Google has committed piracy. "The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission," says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. "Google has reversed this – it has simply copied all these works without bothering toask." In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers, launched aclass action suit (集团诉讼) against Google that, after more than two years of negotiation, endedwith an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-courtsettlement. The full details are complicated - the text alone runs to 385 pages– and trying tosummarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," saysBlofeld, one of the settlement's most vocal British critics. Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to compensate authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates fromtheir works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future. This settlement hands Google the power - but only with the agreement of individual rights holders – to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlement's most controversial aspect. Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, thesettlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the company's role from provider of information to seller. "Google's business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates," points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlement's provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling. Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on "orphan" works, where there is noknown copyright holderthese make up an estimated 5-10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% oforphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence. It is by no means certain that the settlement will be enacted (执行) – it is the subject of afairness hearing in the US courts. But if it is enacted, Google will in effect be off the hook as far as copyright violations in the US are concerned. Many people are seriously concerned by this - and the company is likely to face challenges in other courts around the world. No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained byscanning the world's library books, and the truth, as Gleick, an American science writer and member of the Authors Guild, points out, is that the company probably doesn't even know itself. But what is certain is that, in some way or other, Google's entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in the years to come. 注意:此部分试题请在答题卡1上作答。 Google claims its plan for the world's biggest online library is _____. A) to serve the interest of the general public B) to encourage reading around the world C) to save out-of-print books in libraries D) to promote its core business of searching
編輯私有筆記
答案:B
難度:適中
1. Part II Reading Comprehension (Skimming and Scanning) (15 minutes) Directions: In this part, you will have 15 minutes to go over the passage quickly and answer thequestions on Answer Sheet 1. For questions 1-7, choose the best answer from the four choices marked A, B, Cand D. For questions 8-10, complete the sentences with the information given in the passage. Google's Plan for World's Biggest Online Library: Philanthropy Or Act of Piracy? In recent years, teams of workers dispatched by Google have been working hard to make digital copies of books. So far, Google has scanned more than 10 million titles from libraries in America and Europe - including half a million volumes held by the Bodleian in Oxford. The exact method it uses is unclear; the company does not allow outsiders to observe the process. Why is Google undertaking such a venture? Why is it even interested in all those out-of-printlibrary books, most of which have been gathering dust on forgotten shelves for decades? Thecompany claims its motives are essentially public-spirited. Its overall mission, after all, is to "organise the world's information", so it would be odd if that information did not include books. The company likes to present itself as having lofty aspirations. "This really isn't about making money. We are doing this for the good of society." As Santiago de la Mora, head of Google Books for Europe, puts it: "By making it possible to search the millions of books that exist today, we hope to expand the frontiers of human knowledge." Dan Clancy, the chief architect of Google Books, does seem genuine in his conviction that thisis primarily a philanthropic (慈善的) exercise. "Google's core business is search and find, soobviously what helps improve Google's search engine is good for Google," he says. "But we havenever built a spreadsheet (电子数据表) outlining the financial benefits of this, and I have neverhad to justify the amount I am spending to the company's founders." It is easy, talking to Clancy and his colleagues, to be swept along by their missionary passion. But Google's book-scanning project is proving controversial. Several opponents have recently emerged, ranging from rival tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon to small bodies representing authors and publishers across the world. In broad terms, these opponents have levelled two sets of criticisms at Google. First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the world's books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company. In a recent essay in the New YorkReview of Books, Robert Darnton, the head of Harvard University's library, argued that because such books are a common resource – the possession of us all – only public, not-for-profit bodiesshould be given the power to control them. The second related criticism is that Google's scanning of books is actually illegal. This allegation has led to Google becoming mired in (陷入) a legal battle whose scope and complexity makes the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Charles Dickens' Bleak House look straightforward. At its centre, however, is one simple issue: that of copyright. The inconvenient fact about most books, to which Google has arguably paid insufficient attention, is that they are protected by copyright. Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general protection extends for the duration of an author's life and for a substantial period afterwards, thus allowing the author's heirs to benefit. (In Britain and America, this post-death period is 70 years.) This means, of course, that almost all of the books published in the 20th century are still under copyright – and the last century saw more books published than in all previous centuries combined. Of the roughly 40 million books in US libraries, for example, an estimated 32 million are in copyright. Of these, some 27 million are out of print. Outside the US, Google has made sure only to scan books that are out of copyright and thus in the "public domain" (works such as the Bodleian's first edition of Middlemarch, which anyone canread for free on Google Books Search). But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. Inits defence, Google points out that it displays only small segments of books that are in copyrightarguing that such displays are "fair use". But critics allege that by making electronic copies of these books without first seeking the permission of copyright holders, Google has committed piracy. "The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission," says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. "Google has reversed this – it has simply copied all these works without bothering toask." In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers, launched aclass action suit (集团诉讼) against Google that, after more than two years of negotiation, endedwith an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-courtsettlement. The full details are complicated - the text alone runs to 385 pages– and trying tosummarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," saysBlofeld, one of the settlement's most vocal British critics. Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to compensate authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates fromtheir works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future. This settlement hands Google the power - but only with the agreement of individual rights holders – to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlement's most controversial aspect. Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, thesettlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the company's role from provider of information to seller. "Google's business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates," points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlement's provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling. Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on "orphan" works, where there is noknown copyright holderthese make up an estimated 5-10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% oforphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence. It is by no means certain that the settlement will be enacted (执行) – it is the subject of afairness hearing in the US courts. But if it is enacted, Google will in effect be off the hook as far as copyright violations in the US are concerned. Many people are seriously concerned by this - and the company is likely to face challenges in other courts around the world. No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained byscanning the world's library books, and the truth, as Gleick, an American science writer and member of the Authors Guild, points out, is that the company probably doesn't even know itself. But what is certain is that, in some way or other, Google's entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in the years to come. 注意:此部分试题请在答题卡1上作答。 Google claims its plan for the world's biggest online library is _____. A) to serve the interest of the general public B) to encourage reading around the world C) to save out-of-print books in libraries D) to promote its core business of searching
編輯私有筆記
答案:B
難度:適中
Passage Two Questions 62 to 66 are based on the following passage. By almost any measure, there is a boom in Internet-based instruction. In just a few years, 34 percent of American universities have begun offering some form of distance learning (DL), and among the larger schools, it’s close to 90 percent. If you doubt the popularity of the trend, you probably haven’t heard of the University of Phoenix. It grants degrees entirely on the basis of online instruction. It enrolls 90,000 students, a statistic used to support its claim to be the largest private university in the country.   While the kinds of instruction offered in these programs will differ, DL usually signifies a course in which the instructors post syllabi (课程大纲), reading assignment, and schedules on Websites, and students send in their assignments by e-mail. Generally speaking, face-to-face communication with an instructor is minimized or eliminated altogether.   The attraction for students might at first seem obvious. Primarily, there's the convenience promised by courses on the Net: you can do the work, as they say, in your pajamas (睡衣). But figures indicate that the reduced effort results in a reduced commitment to the course. While dropout rate for all freshmen at American universities is around 20 percent, the rate for online students is 35 percent. Students themselves seem to understand the weaknesses inherent in the setup. In a survey conducted for eCornell, the DL division of Cornell University, less than a third of the respondents expected the quality of the online course to be as good as the classroom course.   Clearly, from the schoolsperspective, there’s a lot of money to be saved. Although some of the more ambitious programs require new investments in servers and networks to support collaborative software, most DL courses can run on existing or minimally upgraded (升级) systems. The more students who enroll in a course but don’t come to campus, the more school saves on keeping the lights on in the classrooms, paying doorkeepers, and maintaining parking lots. And, while there’s evidence that instructors must work harder to run a DL course for a variety of reasons, they won’t be paid any more, and might well be paid less. 注意:此部分试题请在答题卡2上作答。
【題組】65. What accounts for the high drop-out rates for online students?
(A) There is no mechanism to ensure that they make the required effort.
(B) There is no strict control over the academic standards of the courses.
(C) The evaluation system used by online universities is inherently weak.
(D) Lack of classroom interaction reduces the effectiveness of instruction.
編輯私有筆記
答案:A
難度:適中
Passage B “WOULD You Kill the Fat Man?” is the title of a recent book about a set of moral problems that philosophers like to ponder, and psychologists to put to their experimental subjects. In the canonical form, you are on a footbridge watching a trolley speeding down a track that will kill five unsuspecting people. You can push a fat man over the bridge onto the tracks to save the five. (You cannot stop the trolley by jumping yourself, only the fat man is heavy enough.) Would you do it? Most people quail at the idea of shoving the man to his death. But alter the scenario a bit, and reactions change. People are more likely to throw a switch that would divert the trolley on to another track where it will kill only one person. The utilitarian calculation is identical—but the physical and emotional distance from the killing makes throwing the switch much more popular than throwing the man. There are other ways to nudge people‟s judgments, too. A rather counter-intuitive one was reported in a paper published last month in PLOS ONE, a journal. In it, Albert Costa of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain, and his colleagues, found that the language in which the dilemma is posed can alter how people answer. Specifically, when people are asked the fat-man question in a foreign language, they are more likely to kill him for the otherssake. Dr. Costa and his colleagues interviewed 317 people, all of whom spoke two languagesmostly English plus one of Spanish, Korean or French. Half of each group were randomly assigned the dilemma in their native tongue. The other half answered the problem in their second language. When asked in their native language, only 20% of subjects said they would push the fat man. When asked in the foreign language, the proportion jumped to 33%. Morally speaking, this is a troubling result. The language in which a dilemma is posed should make no difference to how it is answered. Linguists have wondered whether different languages encode different assumptions about morality, which might explain the result. But the effect existed for every combination of languages that the researchers looked at, so culture does not seem to explain things. Other studies in “trolleyologyhave found that East Asians are less likely to make the coldly utilitarian calculation, and indeed none of the Korean subjects said they would push the fat man when asked in Korean. But 7.5% were prepared to when asked in English. The explanation seems to lie in the difference between being merely competent in a foreign language and being fluent. The subjects in the experiment were not native bilinguals, but had, on average, begun the study of their foreign language at age 14. (The average participant was 21.) The participants typically rated their ability with their acquired tongue at around 3.0 on a five-point scale. Their language skills were, in other words, pretty good—but not great. Several psychologists, including Daniel Kahneman, who was awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 2002 for his work on how people make decisions, think that the mind uses two separate cognitive systems—one for quick, intuitive decisions and another that makes slower, more reasoned choices. These can conflict, which is what the trolley dilemma is designed to provoke: normal people have a moral aversion to killing (the intuitive system), but can nonetheless recognize that one death is, mathematically speaking, better than five (the reasoning system). 第 9 頁,共 10 頁 This latest study fits with other research which suggests that speaking a foreign language boosts the second systemprovided, that is, you don‟t speak it as well as a native. Earlier work, by some of the same scholars who performed this new study, found that people tend to fare better on tests of pure logic in a foreign language—and particularly on questions with an obvious-but-wrong answer and a correct answer that takes time to work out. Regardless of the exact mental mechanism behind the team‟s findings, they could have big implications. Boaz Keysar, a psychologist at the University of Chicago and one of the study‟s authors, talks of investigating the impact on medical or legal decision-making. Meanwhile, globalization is boosting the number of bilinguals. There are more non-native English speakers (500m, by one estimate) than native ones (perhaps 340m). Big firms are making English their internal language, even if it is not the native tongue of most of their workers. Meetings of international organizations like the United Nations or the European Union are often conducted in languages that are not the preferred ones of most of those attending. Perhaps it is reassuring to think they may be more coolly rational than meetings of monoglotsunless, that is, you are the metaphorical fat man about to be pushed under a train.
【題組】36. What is the main idea of the passage?
(A) Learning a foreign language boosts a person‟s cognitive system for decision making.
(B) People become more rational when moral dilemmas are posed in a foreign language.
(C) Bilinguals perform better than monoglots in areas that require logical reasoning.
(D) The mental mechanism that controls a person‟s decision making still remains unknown.
編輯私有筆記
答案:B
難度:適中
10
 【站僕】摩檸Morning:有沒有達人來解釋一下?
倒數 5天 ,已有 0 則答案


22. Darwin's main conclusions about the origin of species were _____.
(A) all organisms are descended with modification from common ancestors
(B) the mechanism for evolution was natural selection
(C) inheritance is generally particulate
(D) A and B
(E) B and C
編輯私有筆記
答案:D
難度:適中
10
 【站僕】摩檸Morning:有沒有達人來解釋一下?
倒數 1天 ,已有 0 則答案