【单选题】 The greatest outcome of the discovery of the reaction principle was that
A rockets could be propelled into the air.
B space travel became a reality.
C a major problem had been solved.
D bigger rockets were able to be built.
【分析解答题】Stumped RawalpindiHe has a normal head, but nestling between his massive shoulders it seems small. He is ShoaibAkhtar, "the RawalpindiExpress", the fastest recorded bowler of a cricket ball in history.And right now, before a small but baying crowd at the RawalpindiCricket Ground, he is steaming towards this correspondent. From 22 yards, Mr.Akhtar launches into the weirdly beautiful contortion that fast bowlers perform to hurl a six-ounce lump of cork and leather at up to 100mph. Half a second later, the ball demolishes the stumps.For over two centuries, cricket has been played according to a largely unwritten code of honour for the practical reason that its laws are too complicated for officials to enforce to the reality.But technology has been rewriting the old etiquette.And according to some recent research, one of cricket’’s most basic laws is untenable, and now the game is in turmoil. According to law 24. 3, bowlers may not straighten their arm in the final act of delivering the ball. This leads to Mr.Akhtar’’s brutal run-up and elaborate action as alternative means of generating pace on the ball. The centrality of law 24.3 to cricket — and the virtual impossibility of policing it — is reflected in the game’’s etiquette. To accuse a bowler of throwing the ball is one of the gravest insults in the game; yet now such accusations are flying thick and fast.Mr.Akhtar, the first man to bowl a delivery timed at 100mph, is one of a number of modern stars recently reported with "suspect actions". These rulings followed research into biomechanics that match officials had hoped would vindicate their decision.The University of WesternAustralia’’s School of Human Movement has been investigating cricket biomechanics.In 2003, a study by Marc Portus, at theAustralian Institute of Sport inCanberra, filmed a number of fast bowlers in action using a dozen cameras recording 250 frames per secon
D、They showed that virtually all bowlers straighten their arm, or throw, to some extent. Mr.Akhtar flexes his arm more than most only because he is extremely double-jointe
D、And to confuse matters further, a brilliant Sri Lankan spin bowler, Muttiah Muralitharan bowls with a crooked arm only because a congenital condition prevents him straightening it fully.In an effort to restore sanity to matters, bowlers are now allowed a varying margin for error depending on the pace at which they bowl. Thus, fast bowlers are legally allowed to straighten their arm by 10°, medium pacers by 7.5° and slow bowlers by 5°.But even this innovation has been rapidly undone. Last month, for the third time in his illustrious career, and even though poised to break the all-time wicket-taking record, Mr. Muralitharan was reported with a suspect action. Though Mr. Muralitharan was previously cleared by biomechanics, anEnglish match official questioned the legality of a wicked addition to his armoury of top-spinners, off-spinners and leg-spinners. It is nicknamed the "doosra", which in Hindi or Urdu means "second" or "other". Here the ball is delivered with a huge flick of Mr. Muralitharan’’s rubbery wrists and, according to many observers, a flexing of his elbow. Subsequent testing showed that Mr. Muralitharan flexes his arm by more than 10° when bowling the doosra, and the delivery could be banne
D、Sri Lanka, where Mr. Muralitharan is revered, is now seething while manyAustralians, who have long reviled him as a "chucker", are crowing. Should they pause for air, they would hear their own scientists cry foul. Last week, the scientists who tested Mr. Muralitharan admitted that they actually did not know much about the mechanics of spin bowling, and that he should receive no censure. When it comes to cricket, science may be stumpe
D、According to some recent research, one of cricket’’s most basic laws is (2) ______.
D、They showed that virtually all bowlers straighten their arm, or throw, to some extent. Mr.Akhtar flexes his arm more than most only because he is extremely double-jointe
D、And to confuse matters further, a brilliant Sri Lankan spin bowler, Muttiah Muralitharan bowls with a crooked arm only because a congenital condition prevents him straightening it fully.In an effort to restore sanity to matters, bowlers are now allowed a varying margin for error depending on the pace at which they bowl. Thus, fast bowlers are legally allowed to straighten their arm by 10°, medium pacers by 7.5° and slow bowlers by 5°.But even this innovation has been rapidly undone. Last month, for the third time in his illustrious career, and even though poised to break the all-time wicket-taking record, Mr. Muralitharan was reported with a suspect action. Though Mr. Muralitharan was previously cleared by biomechanics, anEnglish match official questioned the legality of a wicked addition to his armoury of top-spinners, off-spinners and leg-spinners. It is nicknamed the "doosra", which in Hindi or Urdu means "second" or "other". Here the ball is delivered with a huge flick of Mr. Muralitharan’’s rubbery wrists and, according to many observers, a flexing of his elbow. Subsequent testing showed that Mr. Muralitharan flexes his arm by more than 10° when bowling the doosra, and the delivery could be banne
D、Sri Lanka, where Mr. Muralitharan is revered, is now seething while manyAustralians, who have long reviled him as a "chucker", are crowing. Should they pause for air, they would hear their own scientists cry foul. Last week, the scientists who tested Mr. Muralitharan admitted that they actually did not know much about the mechanics of spin bowling, and that he should receive no censure. When it comes to cricket, science may be stumpe
D、According to some recent research, one of cricket’’s most basic laws is (2) ______.
【分析解答题】Questions 21-23
Choose the correct letter, A,
B、or C、
Choose the correct letter, A,
B、or C、
【分析解答题】Pessimistic on poverty TheEconomist argued that the WorldBank has overstated the extent of absolute poverty in the world -- that there is less poverty than theBank claims and that it is falling faster.
A、methodological debate lies at the heart of this claim. TheBank relies as much as possible on nationally representative household surveys, typically done by governmental statistics offices following international standards. TheBank’’s latest estimates draw on interviews with about 1. 1 million randomly sampled households in 100 developing countries, representing 93% of the population of the developing worlD、TheBank’’s method of measuring poverty from surveys follows long-standing practices.But it is not the only possible approach. TheEconomist points to an alternative method that ignores data on levels of income or consumption from surveys.Instead the poverty measures are anchored to national accounts data, using the surveys only to measure inequality -- the shares of total income accruing to different income groups. It is unclear why proponents of this approach think that surveys can be trusted for measuring inequality, but not levels of poverty.How much does the choice matter
A、striking graph in the issue of March 13th compares two sets of estimates, one from theBank’’s researchers and one using this alternative method, namely the estimates made by Xavier Sala-i-Martin atColumbia U-niversity. His series shows a much steeper decline in absolute poverty and a much lower level in recent years than that found by theBank’’s researchers.This month, the WorldBank’’s numbers has shown there have been superseded: the series shown began only in the late 1980s, and cannot be properly compared with Mr Sala-i-Martin’’s estimates, which go further back. The period under consideration makes a big difference. The late 1980s and early 1990s were a difficult time for the world’’s poor. Using either a longer period or a shorter one changes the picture a lot.TheBank currently estimates that the world poverty rate fell from 33% in 1981 (about 1.5 billion people) to 18% in 2001 (1.1 billion), when judged by the frugal $1-a-day standard at 1993 purchasing-power parity.Compare this with Mr Sala-i-Martin’’s estimates. He finds that the global poverty rate fell from 13% to 7% (in 1998).Yes, the levels differ substantially.But by both methods, the global poverty rate almost halveD、The two trends are also similar for the 1990s, once growth had been restored inChina and Indi
A、Why are theBank’’s poverty counts so much higher Mr. Sala-i-Martin uses GDP from national accounts to measure the average income per person of households.But GDP includes much more than household consumption; private investment and government spending, for example. This method must give lower poverty counts relative to a common poverty line. But why would one use the same poverty line for GDP as for household consumption TheBank’’s $1-a-day line is based on the poverty lines actually found in low-income countries, and those lines do not include allowances for investment and government spending; they typically include only the most basic food and other consumption needs. To compare Mr Sala-i-Martin’’s numbers with theBank’’s, one should use a higher poverty line for the former.It is not clear how much higher Mr Sala-i-Martin’’s poverty line should be to assure comparability with theBank’’s $1-a-day standarD、However, a good guess might be that his poverty threshold should be doubled to reflect the other items that he has implicitly included in his measure of income. Then, in fact, the two series line up rather well.Good news, for some Despite the methodological differences, a similar trend of long-term reduction in poverty does emerge. That is certainly good news -- but no cause for complacency. The 400 million people who escaped absolute poverty by the $ 1-a-day standard over 1981-2001 are still poor
A、methodological debate lies at the heart of this claim. TheBank relies as much as possible on nationally representative household surveys, typically done by governmental statistics offices following international standards. TheBank’’s latest estimates draw on interviews with about 1. 1 million randomly sampled households in 100 developing countries, representing 93% of the population of the developing worlD、TheBank’’s method of measuring poverty from surveys follows long-standing practices.But it is not the only possible approach. TheEconomist points to an alternative method that ignores data on levels of income or consumption from surveys.Instead the poverty measures are anchored to national accounts data, using the surveys only to measure inequality -- the shares of total income accruing to different income groups. It is unclear why proponents of this approach think that surveys can be trusted for measuring inequality, but not levels of poverty.How much does the choice matter
A、striking graph in the issue of March 13th compares two sets of estimates, one from theBank’’s researchers and one using this alternative method, namely the estimates made by Xavier Sala-i-Martin atColumbia U-niversity. His series shows a much steeper decline in absolute poverty and a much lower level in recent years than that found by theBank’’s researchers.This month, the WorldBank’’s numbers has shown there have been superseded: the series shown began only in the late 1980s, and cannot be properly compared with Mr Sala-i-Martin’’s estimates, which go further back. The period under consideration makes a big difference. The late 1980s and early 1990s were a difficult time for the world’’s poor. Using either a longer period or a shorter one changes the picture a lot.TheBank currently estimates that the world poverty rate fell from 33% in 1981 (about 1.5 billion people) to 18% in 2001 (1.1 billion), when judged by the frugal $1-a-day standard at 1993 purchasing-power parity.Compare this with Mr Sala-i-Martin’’s estimates. He finds that the global poverty rate fell from 13% to 7% (in 1998).Yes, the levels differ substantially.But by both methods, the global poverty rate almost halveD、The two trends are also similar for the 1990s, once growth had been restored inChina and Indi
A、Why are theBank’’s poverty counts so much higher Mr. Sala-i-Martin uses GDP from national accounts to measure the average income per person of households.But GDP includes much more than household consumption; private investment and government spending, for example. This method must give lower poverty counts relative to a common poverty line. But why would one use the same poverty line for GDP as for household consumption TheBank’’s $1-a-day line is based on the poverty lines actually found in low-income countries, and those lines do not include allowances for investment and government spending; they typically include only the most basic food and other consumption needs. To compare Mr Sala-i-Martin’’s numbers with theBank’’s, one should use a higher poverty line for the former.It is not clear how much higher Mr Sala-i-Martin’’s poverty line should be to assure comparability with theBank’’s $1-a-day standarD、However, a good guess might be that his poverty threshold should be doubled to reflect the other items that he has implicitly included in his measure of income. Then, in fact, the two series line up rather well.Good news, for some Despite the methodological differences, a similar trend of long-term reduction in poverty does emerge. That is certainly good news -- but no cause for complacency. The 400 million people who escaped absolute poverty by the $ 1-a-day standard over 1981-2001 are still poor
【分析解答题】you shoulD spEnD ABout 20 minutEs on this tAsk.
thE tABlE shows thE proportion oFAustrAliAn FAmiliEs thAt ownED CErtAin housEholD AppliAnCEs in 1995 AnD 2002.
summArisE thE inFormAtion By sElECting AnD rEporting thE mAin FEAturEs AnD By mAking CompArisons whErE rElEvAnt.
writE At lEAst 150 worDs.
thE tABlE shows thE proportion oFAustrAliAn FAmiliEs thAt ownED CErtAin housEholD AppliAnCEs in 1995 AnD 2002.
summArisE thE inFormAtion By sElECting AnD rEporting thE mAin FEAturEs AnD By mAking CompArisons whErE rElEvAnt.
writE At lEAst 150 worDs.
| pErsonAl stErEos | ComputErs | tv sEts | wAshing mAChinEs | rEFrigErA -tors | hAirDryErs | |
| 1995 | 33% | 18% | 79% | 67% | 78% | 44% |
| 2002 | 45% | 76% | 93% | 80% | 96% | 67% |
发布评论 查看全部评论