If you want to teach your children how to say sorry, you must be good at saying it yourself, especially to your own children. But how you say it can be quite tricky. If you say to your children "I'm sorry I got angry with you, but ..." what follows that "but" can render the apology ineffective: "I had a bad day" or "your noise was giving me a headache " leaves the person who has been injured feeling that he should be apologizing for his bad behavior in expecting an apology. Another method by which people appear to apologize without actually doing so is to say "I'm sorry you're upset"; this suggests that you are somehow at fault for allowing yourself to get upset by what the other person has done. Then there is the general, all covering apology, which avoids the necessity of identifying a specific act that was particularly hurtful or insulting, and which the person who is apologizing should promise never to do again. Saying "I'm useless as a parent" does not commit a person to any specific improvement. These pseudo-apologies are used by people who believe saying sorry shows weakness. Parents who wish to teach their children to apologize should see it as a sign of strength, and therefore not resort to these pseudo-apologies. But even when presented with examples of genuine contrition, children still need help to become aware of the complexities of saying sorry. A three-year-old might need help in understanding that other children feel pain just as he does, and that hitting a playmate over the head with a heavy toy requires an apology. A six-year-old might need reminding that spoiling other children's expectations can require an apology. A 12-year-old might need to be shown that raiding the biscuit tin without asking permission is acceptable, but that borrowing a parent's clothes without permission is not. According to the author, saying "I'm sorry you're upset" most probably means " _ ". A) You have good reason to get upset B) I'm aware you're upset, but I'm not to blame C) I apologize for hurting your feelings D) I'm at fault for making you upset
B
Industrial pollution is not only a problem for the countries of Europe and North America but also an extremely serious problem in some developing countries. For these countries, economic growth is a very important aim. They want to introduce industries, and so they put few controls on the industries which cause pollution. Cubatao, an industrial town of 85 000 people in Brazil, is an example of the connection between industrial development and pollution. In 1954, Cubatao had no industry. Today it has more than twenty large factories, which produce many pollutants . The people of the town are suffering from the poisonous matter in their environment and the bad effects can be clearly seen. Birth shortcomings are extremely common. Among children and adults, lung problems are sometimes twelve times more common in Cubatao than in other places. It is true that Brazil, like many other countries, has laws against pollution, but these laws are not enforced strictly enough. It is cheaper for companies to take no notice of the laws and pay the fines than to buy the expensive equipment that will reduce the pollution. It is clear, therefore, that economic growth is more important to the government than to the health of the workers. However, the responsibility does not completely lie with the Brazilian government. The example of Cubatao shows that international companies are not acting in a responsible way either. A number of the factories in the town are owned by large companies from France, Italy, and the U. S. They are doing things in Brazil that they would not be able to do at home. If they caused the same amount of pollution at home, they would be severely punished or even put out of business. How is the health of the population of Cubatao? A) There are more heart diseases among people who live near chemical factories. B) More people suffer from lung diseases because of poisonous matter. C) Their health is affected by pollutants the same way as that of other Brazilians. D) Babies there are found not as bright as those who live in other places.
B
Q: Researchers are finding new ways to save snakebite victims.Experts discussed the latest findings during a recent conference. Scientists in Australia have shown that a chemical called nitric oxide could increase the chances of surviving a poisonous snakebite.The scientists injected rats with a deadly amount of snake venom.Then they rubbed an ointment containing nitric oxide on the skin around the injection site.The study found that the rats lived about one-third longer than if nitric oxide had not been used.But the treatment had to be started very quickly. Dirk van Helden led the research.He says the nitric oxide ointment also showed promise in humans.The study appeared earlier this year in the journal Nature Medicine.Scientists say the findings could help save many lives.A recent study found that poisonous snakes cause as many as ninety-four thousand deaths worldwide each year.But Ulrich Kuch of the Biodiversity and Climate Research Center in Frankfurt,Germany,says that number appears to be low. Mr Kuch says many deaths could be _ if snakebite victims are treated correctly,but they often go to traditional healers or do not seek any help at all.He said,"Sometimes it's because there is no treatment available--no antivenom ,which is the specific drug to treat snakebites--or health care staff do not know how to treat snakebites,and sometimes its because transportation to get to a health facility is not available or too expensive. Here is no single antivenom that can be used to treat all snakebites.The antivenom must be specific to the kind of snake that bit the person.In some countries the treatment is costly,while in others there is no such treatment. After being rubbed an ointment containing nitric oxide,the rats _ . A) suffered no pain B) died immediately C) lived a little longer D) started feeling uncomfortable
A: C
(Q).
It is the preferred choice of millions of health-conscious Britons. But eating organic food could make you fat, experts have warned. A studyhas shown that people tend to believe that organic foods contain fewer calories, so buy and eat more. But people who decide to "go organic" could soon find themselves piling on the pounds. The warning comes from American researchers who studied whether the sight of an organic label was enough to influence a person's choice. For example, if people believe organic foods, produced without using pesticides and artificial fertilizers , have fewer calories, they may end up eating far too much and spending less time on sports activities and put on weight. Cornell University researchers said: " Some people mistakenly think that these foods are more nutritious , just because they carry an organic label." "The growing popularity of organic foods has led to some concern, as these foods may not necessarily be healthier than non-organic ones, but still may lead consumers to nutritional mis-judgments. If people feel a food to be more nutritious, they tend to let their guard down when it comes to counting calories---in the end leading them to overeat." Although a small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically-produced crops and traditionally-produced ones, these are of little health importance. It shows that there is no proof to support the choice of organically over traditionally-produced foods because of nutritional advantage. What is the best title of the passage? A) Health Finding: Organic Foods Will Replace Traditional Foods B) Health Warning: Organic Foods Could Make You Fat C) Health Reminder: Organic Foods Have No Nutrition D) Health Surprise: Organic Foods Are Being Discounted
(A).
B