泰祺教育

Directions:

Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)

The human nose is an underrated tool. Humans are often thought to be insensitive smellers compared with animals,  1  this is largely because,  2  animals, we stand upright. This means that our noses are   3   to perceiving those smells which float through the air,   4  the majority of smells which stick to surfaces. In fact,   5  , we are extremely sensitive to smells,  6   we do not generally realize it. Our noses are capable of   7   human smells even when these are   8   to far below one part in one million.

Strangely, some people find that they can smell one type of flower but not another,   9  others are sensitive to the smells of both flowers. This may be because some people do not have the genes necessary to generate   10   smell receptors in the nose. These receptors are the cells which sense smells and send   11   to the brain. However, it has been found that even people insensitive to a certain smell   12   can suddenly become sensitive to it when   13    to it often enough.

The explanation for insensitivity to smell seems to be that the brain finds it   14   to keep all smell receptors working all the time but can   15   new receptors if necessary. This may   16   explain why we are not usually sensitive to our own smells——we simply do not need to be. We are not   17   of the usual smell of our own house, but we   18   new smells when we visit someone else’s. The brain finds it best to keep smell receptors   19  for unfamiliar and emergency signals   20   the smell of smoke, which might indicate the danger of fire.

Part A

Directions:

Text 1

The decision of the New York Philharmonic to hire Alan Gilbert as its next music director has been the talk of the classical-music world ever since the sudden announcement of his appointment in 2009. For the most part, the response has been favorable, to say the least. "Hooray! At last!" wrote Anthony Tommasini, a sober-sided classical-music critic. 

One of the reasons why the appointment came as such a surprise, however, is that Gilbert is comparatively little known. Even Tommasini, who had advocated Gilbert’s appointment in the Times, calls him "an unpretentious musician with no air of the fearful conductor about him." As a description of the next music director of an orchestra that has hitherto been led by musicians like Gustav Mahler and Pierre Boulez, that seems likely to have struck at least some Times readers as faint praise. 

For my part, I have no idea whether Gilbert is a great conductor or even a good one. To be sure, he performs an impressive variety of interesting compositions, but it is not necessary for me to visit Avery Fisher Hall, or anywhere else, to hear interesting orchestral music. All I have to do is to go to my CD shelf, or boot up my computer and download still more recorded music from iTunes. 

Devoted concertgoers who reply that recordings are no substitute for live performance are missing the point. For the time, attention, and money of the art-loving public, classical instrumentalists must compete not only with opera houses, dance troupes, theater companies, and museums, but also with the recorded performances of the great classical musicians of the 20th century. These recordings are cheap, available everywhere, and very often much higher in artistic quality than today’s live performances; moreover, they can be "consumed" at a time and place of the listener’s choosing. The widespread availability of such recordings has thus brought about a crisis in the institution of the traditional classical concert. 

One possible response is for classical performers to program attractive new music that is not yet available on record. Gilbert’s own interest in new music has been widely noted: Alex Ross, a classical-music critic, has described him as a man who is capable of turning the Philharmonic into "a markedly different, more vibrant organization." But what will be the nature of that difference? Merely expanding the orchestra’s repertoire will not be enough. If Gilbert and the Philharmonic are to succeed, they must first change the relationship between America’s oldest orchestra and the new audience it hopes to attract. 

Text 2

When Liam McGee departed as president of Bank of America in August, his explanation was surprisingly straight up. Rather than cloaking his exit in the usual vague excuses, he came right out and said he was leaving "to pursue my goal of running a company." Broadcasting his ambition was "very much my decision," McGee says. Within two weeks, he was talking for the first time with the board of Hartford Financial Services Group, which named him CEO and chairman on September 29. 

McGee says leaving without a position lined up gave him time to reflect on what kind of company he wanted to run. It also sent a clear message to the outside world about his aspirations. And McGee isn’t alone. In recent weeks the No. 2 executives at Avon and American Express quit with the explanation that they were looking for a CEO post. As boards scrutinize succession plans in response to shareholder pressure, executives who don’t get the nod also may wish to move on. A turbulent business environment also has senior managers cautious of letting vague pronouncements cloud their reputations. 

As the first signs of recovery begin to take hold, deputy chiefs may be more willing to make the jump without a net. In the third quarter, CEO turnover was down 23% from a year ago as nervous boards stuck with the leaders they had, according to Liberum Research. As the economy picks up, opportunities will abound for aspiring leaders. The decision to quit a senior position to look for a better one is unconventional. For years executives and headhunters have adhered to the rule that the most attractive CEO candidates are the ones who must be poached. Says Korn/Ferry senior partner Dennis Carey: "I can’t think of a single search I’ve done where a board has not instructed me to look at sitting CEOs first." 

Those who jumped without a job haven’t always landed in top positions quickly. Ellen Marram quit as chief of Tropicana a decade age, saying she wanted to be a CEO. It was a year before she became head of a tiny Internet-based commodities exchange. Robert Willumstad left Citigroup in 2005 with ambitions to be a CEO. He finally took that post at a major financial institution three years later. 

Many recruiters say the old disgrace is fading for top performers. The financial crisis has made it more acceptable to be between jobs or to leave a bad one. "The traditional rule was it’s safer to stay where you are, but that’s been fundamentally inverted," says one headhunter. "The people who’ve been hurt the worst are those who’ve stayed too long." 

Text 3

Up until a few decades ago, our visions of the future were largely — though by no means uniformly — glowingly positive. Science and technology would cure all the ills of humanity, leading to lives of fulfillment and opportunity for all. 

Now utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to epidemic flu and to climate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little future to look forward to.

But such gloominess is misplaced. The fossil record shows that many species have endured for millions of years — so why shouldn't we? Take a broader look at our species' place in the universe, and it becomes clear that we have an excellent chance of surviving for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years. Look up Homo sapiens in the "Red List" of threatened species of the International Union for the Conversation of Nature (IUCN) ,and you will read: "Listed as Least Concern as the species is very widely distributed, adaptable, currently increasing, and there are no major threats resulting in an overall population decline."

So what does our deep future hold? A growing number of researchers and organizations are now thinking seriously about that question. For example, the Long Now Foundation has its flagship project a medical clock that is designed to still be marking time thousands of years hence.

Perhaps willfully, it may be easier to think about such lengthy timescales than about the more immediate future. The potential evolution of today's technology, and its social consequences, is dazzlingly complicated, and it's perhaps best left to science fiction writers and futurologists to explore the many possibilities we can envisage. That's one reason why we have launched Arc, a new publication dedicated to the near future.

But take a longer view and there is a surprising amount that we can say with considerable assurance. As so often, the past holds the key to the future: we have now identified enough of the long-term patterns shaping the history of the planet, and our species, to make evidence-based forecasts about the situations in which our descendants will find themselves.

This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more likely to be a passing fad. To be sure, the future is not all rosy. But we are now knowledgeable enough to reduce many of the risks that threatened the existence of earlier humans, and to improve the lot of those to come.

Text 4

As a wise man once said, we are all ultimately alone. But an increasing number of Europeans are choosing to be so at an ever earlier age. This isn’t the stuff of gloomy philosophical contemplations, but a fact of Europe’s new economic landscape, embraced by sociologists, real-estate developers and ad executives alike. The shift away from family life to solo lifestyle, observes a French sociologist, is part of the “irresistible momentum of individualism” over the last century. The communications revolution, the shift from a business culture of stability to one of mobility and the mass entry of women into the workforce have greatly wreaked havoc on (擾亂) Europeans’ private lives.

Europe’s new economic climate has largely fostered the trend toward independence. The current generation of home-aloners came of age during Europe’s shift from social democracy to the sharper, more individualistic climate of American style capitalism. Raised in an era of privatization and increased consumer choice, today’s tech-savvy (精通技術的) workers have embraced a free market in love as well as economics. Modern Europeans are rich enough to afford to live alone, and temperamentally independent enough to want to do so.

Once upon a time, people who lived alone tended to be those on either side of marriage — twenty something professionals or widowed senior citizens. While pensioners, particularly elderly women, make up a large proportion of those living alone, the newest crop of singles are high earners in their 30s and 40s who increasingly view living alone as a lifestyle choice. Living alone was conceived to be negative — dark and cold, while being together suggested warmth and light. But then came along the idea of singles. They were young, beautiful, strong! Now, young people want to live alone.

The booming economy means people are working harder than ever. And that doesn’t leave much room for relationships. Pimpi Arroyo, a 35-year-old composer who lives alone in a house in Paris, says he hasn’t got time to get lonely because he has too much work. “I have deadlines which would make life with someone else fairly difficult.” Only an ideal woman would make him change his lifestyle, he says. Kaufmann, author of a recent book called “The Single Woman and Prince Charming,” thinks this fierce new individualism means that people expect more and more of mates, so relationships don’t last long — if they start at all. Eppendorf, a blond Berliner with a deep tan, teaches grade school in the mornings. In the afternoon she sunbathes or sleeps, resting up for going dancing. Just shy of 50, she says she’d never have wanted to do what her mother did — give up a career to raise a family. Instead, “I’ve always done what I wanted to do: live a self-determined life.”

Part B
Directions:

Net-zero rules set to send cost of new homes and extensions soaring

New building regulations aimed at improving energy efficiency are set to increase the price of new homes, as well as those of extensions and loft conversions on existing ones.

The rules, which came into effect on Wednesday in England, are part of government plans to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. They set new standards for ventilation, energy efficiency and heating, and state that new residential buildings must have charging points for electric vehicles.

The moves are the most significant change to building regulations in years, and industry experts say they will inevitably lead to higher prices at a time when a shortage of materials and high labour costs are already driving up bills.

Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, says them measures will require new materials, testing methods, products and systems to be installed, “All this comes at an increased cost during a time when prices are already sky high inevitably, consumers will have to pay more,” he says.

Gareth Belsham, of surveyors Naismiths, says people who are upgrading, or extending their home, will be directly affected. “The biggest changes relate to heating and insulation,” he explains. “There are new rules concerning the amount of glazing used in extensions, and any new windows or doors must be highly insulated.”

Windows and doors will have to adhere to higher standards, while there are new limits on the amount of glazing you can have to reduce unwanted heat from the sun.

Thomas Goodman, of My Job Quote, says this will bring in new restrictions for extensions. “Glazing on windows, doors and roof lights must cover no more than 25% of the floor area to prevent heat loss,” he says.

As the rules came into effect last Wednesday, property developers were rushing to file plans just before the deadline. Any plans submitted before that date are considered to be under the previous rules, and can go ahead as long as work starts before 15 Jun. next year.

Builders which have costed projects, but have not filed the paperwork, may need to go back and submit fresh estimates, says Marcus Jefford of Build Aviator.

Materials prices are already up 25% in the last two years. How much overall prices will increase as a result of the rule changes is not clear. “Whilst admirable in their intentions, they will add to the cost of house building at a time when many already feel that they are priced out of home ownership,” says Jonathan Rolande of the National Association of Property Buyers. “An average extension will probably see around ￡3,000 additional cost thanks to the new regs.”

John Kelly, a construction lawyer at Freeths law firm, believes prices will eventually come down. But not in the immediate future. “As the marketplace adapts to the new requirements, and the technologies that support them, the scaling up of these technologies will eventually bring costs down, but in the short term, we will all have to pay the price of the necessary transition.” he says.

However, the long-term effects of the changes will be more comfortable and energy-efficient homes, adds Andrew Mellor, of PRP architects. “Homeowners will probably recoup that cost over time in energy bill savings. It will obviously be very volatile at the moment, but they will have that benefit over time.”