If you could leave a farewell video for your loved ones that they'd see only if you died, would you do it? I think I would. I read about an app that helps people create a video to be published on a social-networking site only after death. Of course you don't need an app since it's easy to make your own video with smartphones, laptops and computers. But how many people do you know who would actually go ahead and leave "If I die" footage ? My father died unexpectedly on Christmas Eve three years ago and I've since longed for one more time to talk to him and hear his voice. Imagine if he had left such a video. I would see him again, hear his laughter and benefit from his parting words and advice. I don't think people, unless they have a terminal illness, go through life thinking they'd better leave a video in case of an _ death. But it is an opportunity to say all the things you want to say before it's too late. Still, some say that such a video robs loved ones of their own memories of you. Any special images they have would be superimposed by the video image you've created. Others think it's scaring and might be tempting fate. I expect my video would consist of reminders to my children: Be safe; be[:++Z+X+X+K]mindful of your surroundings; exercise good judgment; speak up; it never hurts to ask; don't waste time and "call when you get there". And in addition, I would repeat what I always tell them: I need to know where you are, every-step-of-the-way. That would make them laugh. Readers, would you find comfort in knowing you've said your farewells and left something concrete for your loved ones? What messages would you leave for family and friends? The writer mentions the app to show _ . A) the app is out of date now B) smartphones are better tools to make videos C) it is not convenient to make a video with the app D) how he was inspired to get the idea of creating a video before death
D
(Question)
TV talk shows dominate daytime television. And anyone who watches them regularly knows that each one is different in style. But no two shows are more opposite in content, while at the same time standing out above the rest than the Jerry Springer and the Oprah Winfrey shows. Jerry Springer could easily be considered the king of "rubbish talk". The contents on his show are as surprising as possible. For example, the show takes the forever-common talk show titles of love, sex, cheating, and hate to a different level. Clearly, the Jerry Springer show is about the dark side of society, yet people are willing to eat up the troubles of other people's lives. Like Jerry Springer, Oprah Winfrey takes TV talk show to its top, but Oprah goes in the opposite direction. The show is mainly about the improvement of society and the quality of life. Contents are from teaching your children lessons, managing your work week, to getting to know your neighbors. Compared with Oprah, the Jerry Springer looks like poisonous waste being poured into society. Jerry ends every show with a "final word". He makes a small speech about the main idea of the show. Hopefully, this is the part where most people will learn something very valuable. Clear as it is, the Oprah show is not for everyone. The show's main viewers are middle-class Americans. Most of these people have the time, money, and ability to deal with life's tougher problems. The Jerry Springer show, on the other hand, has more of connection with the young adults of society. These are 18-to-21-year-olds whose main troubles in life include love, relationship, sex, money and drugs. They are the ones who see some value and lessons to be learned through the show's exploitation (,). From the passage we can learn that the two talk shows _ . A) are the only ones of their kind B) exploit weaknesses in human nature C) appear at different times of the day D) have their own specific viewers
(Answer)
D
When TV news programmers report wars or diseases, the editors rarely use the most horrifying pictures of dead or wounded victims because they don't want to upset their viewers. Even so, viewers are usually warned in advance that they"may find some of these scenes disturbing", so they can look away if they choose. But the men and women whose job is to record those scenes, the TV cameramen, have no such choice. It is their duty to witness the horrors of the world and record them, no matter how unpleasant they may be. As a result, it is one of the most dangerous, exposed and emotionally _ jobs the world has to offer. Today, the demand for their work is rising. The explosion of satellite broadcasting and 24hour news in recent years has created an almost insatiable demand for TV information. But major broadcaster sand the TV news agencies , such as Reuters and WTN, have never had enough staff to meet thje worldwide demand for up-to-date pictures, so increasingly they turn to freelance TV cameramen. These freelance cameramen are independent operators tied to no particular organization. They will work for any company which hires them, for just a few hours or for several weeks in a war zone. But if the freelance cameraman is injured in the course of the job, the TV company is not responsible for him. The freelance must survive on his own. "TV will always need hard, vivid and moving pictures which are fresh, but these companies feel uncomfortable with large numbers of employees on their books."Explains Nik Cowing, once a foreign editor for Britain's Channel 4 news and now a BBC news presenter. "By hiring freelancers, they can buy in the skills they need only when they need them. It also enables them to reduce the risk."He says. The freelance cameramen _ . A) have better skills than other cameramen B) are tied to many TV news agencies C) have to take great risks in the course of work D) need to reduce risks of work for TV companies
C