A person who observes an individual fall overboard from an OSV should（）.

A . at a high rate of speed B . under oars C . against the wind D . with the wind

A . at a high rate of speed B . under oars C . against the wind D . with the wind

A . meets B . faces C . see

A . perform the Heimlich maneuver B . immediately start CPR C . give back blows and something to drink D . allow the person to continue coughing and dislodge the obstruction on his ow

A . has the ownership of a vessel B . has the ship owned by a shipping company C . owns no ship of a shipping company D . owns the ship named by a register of shipping

A . call for help and keep the individual in sight B . run to the radio room to send an emergency message C . immediately jump in the water to assist the individual D . go to the bridge for the distress flare

A . boric acid solution B . water C . baking soda solution D . ammonia

A．assessor B．access C．acquaintance D．accessory

A．Why don’t you just do it？ B．I wouldn’t have a clue. C．Go for it. D．I'm thinking about it.

听力原文： Now, I want to tell you a story about a person who al- ways went to the same beerhouse at the same time every day and asked for two glasses of beer. He drank them and then asked for two more. One day the waiter in the beerhouse said to him, "Why do you always ask for two glasses of beer？ Why not get one big glass instead？" The person answered, "Because I don't like to drink alone. I drink with my friend." But a few days later the person came in and asked only for one glass of beer. "Oh," said the waiter, "has your friend died？" "Oh, no, "said the person." He is very well. This glass of beer is for him. But I have stopped drinking beer. My doctor does not want me to drink any more because it is dangerous for me." What did the person do every day？ A．He drank a big glass of beer. B．He went to the same beerhouse. C．He drank with a different friend.

M: I saw that article, too. But think, if someone runs into a drug store for 10 minutes, he is usually there to make a specific purchase. W: And someone who spends more time there may be just looking？ M: Exactly. Haven't you ever gone into a store thinking that you'll buy something and then talk yourself out of it？ W: Yes, I have. Especially when I thought I could get it for less elsewhere, or I really didn't need it after all. M: Exactly, but, if you run in to buy something specific and have very little time, you pick it up, pay for it immediately, and then leave. W: That's true. Maybe we should learn a lesson from that. Take your time end you'll spend less money. M: I doubt if that would be true in all stores though. In a department store, for instance, you may see a sweater or some thing you never intend to buy, and buy it because you have time to look around. (20) A．A druggist's suggestion. B．An advertisement. C．An article. D．A salesclerk's comment.

I inherited my one litmus test from my father, Jim Alter, who flew 33 harrowing missions over Nazi Germany during World War 11. My father is not just a veteran who by all odds should not have survived. He is a true patriot. His litmus test is the proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, which will come up for a vote next week in the U. S. Senate. For dad—and me—any member of Congress who supports amending the Bill of Rights for the first time in the history of this country for a nonproblem like flag burning is showing serious disrespect for our Constitution and for the values for which brave Americans gave their lives. Such disrespect is a much more serious threat than the random idiots who once every decade or so try (often unsuccessfully) to burn a flag. Our understandable outrage at flag burning shouldn't turn our brains to mush. "I feel the same sense of outrage, but I would not amend that great shield of democracy (the Constitution) to hammer a few miscreants," Colin Powell said when the issue last came up (his position has not changed). "The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away." Powell argues that a constitutional ban on flag burning is a sign of weakness and fear. John Glenn, another of the thousands of combat veterans against the amendment (they have banded together in a group called Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights), notes that "those 10 amendments we call the Bill of Rights have never been changed or altered by one iota, not by one word, not a single time in all of American history. There was not a single change during any of our foreign wars, and not during recessions or depressions or panics. Not a single change when we were going through times of great emotion and anger like the Vietnam era, when flag after flag was burned or desecrated. There is only one way to weaken our nation. The way to weaken our nation would be to erode the freedom that we all share." Actually, even during the Vietnam War, flag burning was rare. By one count, there have been only 45 such incidents in 200 years, and fewer than half a dozen since it was outlawed in 1989. Should the Constitution be amended, however, the incidence of flag burning is expected to surge as a form. of civil disobedience. What began as a phony issue designed to prove patriotism (usually on the part of those who never served, the primary sponsors) could become a real concern. The flag-burning amendment, which already passed the House, is apparently just short of the 67 needed in the Senate. With one or two absences, the amendment would be approved. It would then go to the states for ratification, where its chances for approval appear good. Senators afraid of being seen as soft on flag burners should just adopt the Hillary Clinton dodge: support for a statute, but not an amendment. Another law is a dopey idea (an earlier one was struck down by the Supreme Court), but it's politically safe and better than perverting the Constitution. To make matters worse, the amendment is vaguely worded, which led to fatuous debate in the Senate over whether a woman wearing a skimpy bathing suit patterned with stars and stripes was guilty of desecration. Bloggers wondered the same thing about President Bush's new habit of autographing flags when he shakes hands on rope lines. Unconstitutional？ With a war on and a hundred other pressing problems, it's nice to see our elected representatives focused on what really counts. The usual litmus tests-abortion, gun control, Iraq-shouldn't be. Reasonable and sincere people can disagree, w A．The effectiveness of litmus test is greatly undermined by its failure to judge politicians on a variety of positions. B．It's unfair to exclude a politician who fails a certain litmus test from the presidency. C．Current litmus tests like abortion or gun control are not reliable indicators of public opinions. D．Some specific litmus tests on certain issues axe fundamental in shaping people' s judgment of politicians.

A．the same opportunity cost of spending time on leisure activities B．a higher opportunity cost of working an additional hour C．a lower opportunity cost of driving farther to work D．a higher opportunity cost of taking the day off work

A．has lost one&39; s fortune B．has lost one&39; s parents C．has lost one&39; s beloved one D．has made others jealous

A．cool-minded B．cold-blooded C．unfriendly D．passionate