I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: On November18, 1995, Itzhak Perlman, the world famous violinist, came on stage to give a concert at Lincoln Centre in New York City. If you have ever been to a Perlman concert, you know that getting on stage is not easy for him. He got polio as a child, and has to walk with the aid of two crutches now. That night Perlman walked slowly to his chair. Then he sat down and began to play. But, suddenly, one of the strings on his violin broke. You could hear it break---it broke with a loud noise. People thought to themselves, "He would have to get up to either find another violin or find another string for this one." But he didn't. Instead, he waited a moment, closed his eyes and then signaled the conductor to begin again. The orchestra began, and he played from where he had stopped. He played with such passion and such power. Of course, everyone knows that it is impossible to play a symphonic work with just three strings. But that night Itzhak Perlman refused to know that. You could see him changing and recomposing the piece in his head. When he finished, there was a silence in the room. Then people rose and cheered. We were all on our feet, doing everything we could to show how much we appreciated what he had done. He smiled and then he said in a quiet tone, "You know, sometimes it is the artist's task to find out how much music you can make with what you have left." His words have stayed in my mind ever since I heard them. That is also the way of life. Perhaps our task in this quickly changing world in which we live is to make music, at first with all that we have, and then, when that is no longer possible, to make music with what we have left. Question: If one of the strings suddenly broke, what would an ordinary player do? Options: A: He would cancel the concert. B: He would play another violin. C: Another performer would play instead. D: The concert would be put off.
B
(Question)
I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Dear Sara, As we drove off from Columbia,I wanted to write a letter to you to tell you all that is on my mind.First,I want to tell you how proud we are.Getting into Columbia College shows what a great well-rounded student you are.Your academic,artistic,and social skills have truly blossomed in the last few years.Whether it is getting the highest grade in mathematics,completing your elegant fashion design,successfully selling your painted running shoes,or becoming one of the top speakers in Model United Nations,you have become a talented and accomplished young woman.You should be as proud of yourself as we are. College will be the most important years in your life.It is in college that you will truly discover what learning is about.This will be the period where you go from teacher-taught to master-inspired,after which you must become self-learner.So do take each subject seriously,and even if what you learn isn't critical for your life,the skills of learning will be important to you forever. Follow your passion in college.Take courses you think you will enjoy.Don't be trapped in what others think or say.Do your best in classes,but don't let pressure get to you.Your mother and I have no expectations for your grades.If you graduate and learn something in your four years,we would feel happy.So please don't give yourself pressure. I told your mom I'm writing this letter,and asked what she wanted me to say.She thought and said:"Just ask her to take care of herself."Please listen to your mother and take care of yourself. So please treasure your college years,make the best of your free time,and become an independent thinker;learn and grow through your successes and challenges. Love, Dad(& Mom) Question: Sara'performance in the last few years makes his parents _ . Options: A: annoyed B: proud C: upset D: concerned
(Answer)
B
I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Cowboy or spaceman? A dilemma for a children's party, perhaps. But also a question for economists, argued Kenneth Boulding, a British economist, in an essay published in 1966. We have run our economies, he warned, like cowboys on the open grassland: taking and using the world's resources, confident that more lies over the horizon. But the Earth is less a grassland than a spaceship--a closed system, alone in space, carrying limited supplies. We need, said Boulding, an economics that takes seriously the idea of environmental limits. In the half century since his essay, a new movement has responded to his challenge. "Ecological economists", as they call themselves, want to revolutionise its aims and assumptions. What do they say--and will their ideas achieve lift-off? To its advocators, ecological economics is neither ecology nor economics, but a mix of both. Their starting point is to recognise that the human economy is part of the natural world. Our environment, they note, is both a source of resources and a sink for wastes. But it is ignored in conventional textbooks, where neat diagrams trace the flows between firms, households and the government as though nature did not exist. That is a mistake, say ecological economists. There are two ways our economies can grow, ecological economists point out: through technological change, or through more intensive use of resources. Only the former, they say, is worth having. They are suspicious of GDP, a crude measure which does not take account of resource exhaustion, unpaid work, and countless other factors. In its place they advocate moreholistic approaches, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), a composite index that includes things like the cost of pollution, deforestation and car accidents. While GDP has kept growing, global GPI per person peaked in 1978: by destroying our environment we are making ourselves poorer, not richer. The solution, says Herman Daly, a former World Bank economist and eco-guru, is a "steady-state" economy, where the use of... Question: The comparison between GDP and GPI data in 1978 has warned us that . Options: A: GDP is crude measure that is not worth using B: car accident should by all means include in GDP C: we are gaining material wealth by destroying nature D: resources and energy will one day be totally used up
C