Dorothea Shaw is 71 years old and nearly blind, and she chose to live alone far away from people. She lives in Belize -- a county the size of Wales with a population only that of Swansea. Her home is at Gales Point, a tiny village which can be reached only by sea or air; after a 10-mile walk into the hills one finally reaches a piece of land and two small houses so hidden in the thick over-grown forest that only a handful of people know Dorothea is there. She lives happily and totally alone - growing her vegetables, looking after her trees and dogs, cats and chickens. Once a month or so an old friend passes by with her food supplies and letters-usually including a letter from her sister in Scunthorpe and some bits of clothing from friends in Canada. Sometimes a local man will come and cut wood for her and a group of British soldiers will come across her and be greeted with the offer of a cup of coffee. At night she lies in her tiny sleeping room with the dogs on the floor, the cats on the table near the typewriter and one of the hens settled down in a corner of the bookshelf, and listens for hours to any Spanish, English, German or French broadcasts she can find on her radio. Sometimes she gets lonely but most of the time the animals and the radio are company enough. But recently the very things that she had tried to get free from so well have begun to catch up with her. The peace of the forest has been destroyed by the noise of earth-moving machines not many miles away. What she once only heard of distantly on the radio is now on her doorstep. Things began to change three years ago. The new main north-south road in Belize was cut through the forest only four or five miles away. "Now more people know I'm here." She says. "I feel more and more uneasy each day." Dorothea doesn't get lonely since she has _ with her. A) her sister B) some animals C) friends from Canada D) a postman
B
When times get tough, we all look for ways to cut back. When we're hungry, we eat at home instead of going out. We take buses instead of taxis. And we wear our old designer jeans just a few months longer. With college expenses at all-time highs, high school students are eager to do anything to cut the cost of a university education. One cost-cutting proposal is to allow college students to get a bachelor's degree in three years instead of four. Educational institutions have been actively exploring ways to make the learning process more efficient. But there's a question: Would the quality of undergraduate education suffer? Few US universities have formally approved a "three-year degree" model. I doubt that mainstream North American colleges will carry out a three-year curriculum any time soon. For one thing, most universities already allow highly qualified students to graduate early by testing out of certain classes and obtaining a number of college credits. In addition, at famous universities, the committee who determine which courses are required and which courses are electives are unlikely to suddenly "throw out" one quarter of the required credits. Professors will resist "diluting " the quality of the education they offer. In my opinion, a quality four-year education is always superior to a quality three-year education. A college education requires sufficient time for a student to become skilled in their major and do coursework in fields outside their major. It is not a good idea to water down education, any more than it's not a good idea to water down medicine. If we want to help students find their way through university, we should help them understand early on what knowledge and skills they need to have upon graduation. We should allow students to test out of as many courses as possible. We should give them a chance to earn money as interns in meaningful part-time jobs that relate to their university studies, such as the five-year co-op program at Northeastern University. ks5uks5u We can infer that _ . A) the author is a college professor B) the author thinks the cost of a university education is too high for people to afford C) the author considers the university education quality very important D) the author pays special attention to the all-round development of college students
C
Q: The next day I sat down,with almost a hundred other candidates,for the intelligence test.I must have done all right because after about half an hour's wait I was sent into another room for a psychological test.This time there were only about fifty candidates.The interviewer sat at a desk.Candidates were signaled forward to occupy the seat opposite him when the previous occupant had been dismissed,after a greater or shorter time.Obviously the long interviews were the more successful ones.Some of the interviews were as short as five minutes.Mine was the only one that lasted a minute and a half. I can remember the questions now:"Why did you leave your last job?""Why did you leave your job before that?""And the one before that?"I can't recall my answers,except that they were short at first and grew progressively shorter.His closing statement,I thought,evealed a lack of sensitivity which helped to explain why as a psychologist,he had risen no higher than the underground railway."You've failed the psychological test and we are unable to offer you a position." Failing to get that job was my low point.Or so I thought,believing that the work was easy.Actually,such jobs--being a postman is another one I still desire--demand exactly the sort of elementary yet responsible awareness that the habitual dreamer is least qualified to give.But I was still far short of full self-understanding.I was also short of cash. What does the writer realize now that he did not realize then? A) How unpleasant ordinary jobs can be B) How difficult it is to be a poet C) How unsuitable he was for the job D) How badly he did in the interview
A: C
As more and more books become movie adaptations , I can't help but think how this will affect English classes in America. Thinking back to my years in middle and high school -- ten years ago, I would be rewarded if I had read a number of classics. Today, a majority of those books are now also movies Life of Pi, The Great Gatsby, Much Ado About Nothing and Anna Karenina, to name a few. Even modern books such as The Hunger Games and Harry Potter have been adapted for the big screen. In discussion with my students, I often hear them say they are not going to read books because movies will come out soon, which makes me wonder what effect movie adaptations have on modern-day students. Will the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) encourage them to read books more carefully or to use movies to improve their understanding of the text? The CCSS requires students to provide text-based evidence when reading and discussing a book. By focusing on such evidence, teachers can pull specific details from a book that may have not made the final cut when the book was adapted for the big screen. For instance, after reading and watching The Hunger Games, there were a number of details from the book that were missing from the film -- many people were disappointed with Rue's meek movie role. A student who failed to read The Hunger Games would not quite understand Rue's impact on the games in the same way as someone who had read the book and remembered all the details that went into her death. I am not saying the CCSS will stop students from cutting corners, but I believe if teachers use the support the CCSS provides, it can be a great roadway to ensure all students are digging deep into texts and not just hitting the play button. According to the text, it seems that the CCSS _ . A) prevents students watching movies B) provides students with well-known movies C) encourages students to write novels D) provides guidance on teaching and learning
D