If you have a hard life, your life is ____

A . remain in the vicinity of the vessel B . head for the closest land C . head for the closest sea-lanes D . get a majority opinio

A . Repeat the message using any other channel on which you might attract attention B . Key the microphone several times before transmitting again C . Turn up the volume on the receiver before transmitting again D . Report the problem to the head electricia

A . gain B . grain C . train D . rai

A . Create a scheduled task that runs Dfrg.msc. B . Create a scheduled task that runs Defrag.exe. C . From Computer Management, run Disk Management. D . From Computer Management, run Disk Defragmenter.

A . diploma B . certificate C . license D . passport

A . is B . aren’t C . isn’t D . are

A . From Diskpart.exe， run Select vdisk. B . From Disk Management， modify the active partition. C . Run Bootcfg.exe and specify the /default parameter. D . Run Bcdedit.exe and modify the Windows Boot Manager settings.

W: After two sleepless nights, I'm finally through with it. Q: What do we learn from this conversation？ (15) A．Neither the man nor the woman has finished the assignment yet. B．The man thinks the paper is easy. C．The woman thinks the paper is easy. D．Both the man and the woman think the paper is hard.

That is because the tidiness lobby counts the benefits of neatness, but not its costs. A rough storage system (important papers close to the keyboard, the rest distributed in loosely related piles on every flat surface) takes very little time to manage. Filing every bit of paper in a precise category, with colour-coded index tabs and a neat system of cross-referencing, will certainly take longer. And by the end, it may not save any time. Your reviewer's office is easily the most untidy in The Economist (not entirely his own work, it should be said, thanks to the heroic efforts of his even untidier office-mate). But when it comes to managing information, there seems to be no discernible difference in the end result. The authors of this book trawl the furthest reaches of psychology, management studies, biology and physics to show why a bit of disorder is good for you. Chiefly, it creates much more room for coincidence and serendipity. Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin because he was notoriously untidy, and didn't clean a Petri dish, thus allowing fungal spores to get to work on bacteria. He remarked wryly on visiting a colleague's spotless lab: "no danger of mould here". It can also help make sense of things. Hearing depends on random movement of molecules: when they coincide with sounds from outside, they are strong enough to stimulate the inner ear. A bit of background noise on the phone enables our ears to filter out echoes. A slightly mushy photograph can be easier to understand. Music and art depend on mess. Procrastination makes sense too. America’s Marine Corps, the authors repeat (several times), never makes detailed plans in advance. Leaving important things to the last minute reduces the risk of wasting time on things that may ultimately prove not important at all. The authors are witheringly contemptuous of the bogus equation of tidiness and morality—for example in corporate "clean desk" policies. Disorder and creativity are so closely linked that any employer who penalizes the first sacrifices the second, they argue. America's professional organizers, a thriving and lucrative cult of tidiness coaches, are merchants of guilt, not productivity boosters. It's all fine, up to a point. But the book has two weaknesses. One is that it overstates the case. The case for tidiness in some environments—surgery, a dinner table or income tax returns—is really overwhelming. The other is that the book is a bit repetitive and disorganized. Even readers who love mess in their own lives don't necessarily like it in others. Paraphrase the sentence "the tidiness lobby counts the benefits of neatness, but not its costs". (para. 2)

The only solid piece of scientific truth abut which I feel totally confident is that we are profoundly ignorant about nature. Indeed, I regard this as the major discovery of the past hundred years of biology. It is, in its way, an illuminating piece of news. It would have amazed the brightest minds of the 18th. century Enlightenment to be told by any of us how little we know and how bewildering seems the way ahead. It is this sudden confrontation with the depth and scope of ignorance that represents the most significant contribution of the 20th century science to the human intellect. In earlier times, we either pretended to understand how things worked or ignored the problem, or simply made up stories to fill the gaps. Now that we have begun exploring in earnest, we are getting glimpses of how huge the questions are, and how far from being answered. Because of this, we are depressed. It is not so bad being ignorant if you are totally ignorant; the hard thing is knowing in some detail the reality of ignorance, the worst spots and here and there the not-so-bad spots, but no true light at the end of the tunnel nor even any tunnels that can yet be trusted. But we are making a beginning, and there ought to be some satisfaction. There are probably no questions we can think up that can' t be answered, sooner or later, including even the matter of consciousness. To be sure, there may well be questions we can't think up and therefore limits to the reach of human intellect, but that is another matter. Within our limits, we should be able to work our way through to all our answers, if we keep at it long enough, and pay attention. According to the author, really good science ______. A．would surprise the brightest minds of the 18th century Enlightenment B．will help people to make the right choice in advance C．will produce results which cannot be foreseen D．will bring about disturbing results

A:对 B:错

A．Follow me,please B．There is a table for you now． C．Sorry to have kept you waiting for so long, sir． D．One table is available now, come h E．

A．in B．out C．up D．to

A．plan B．idea C．impression D．imagination