Which of the following could be the mo...

"At Booz Allen, we’re shaping the future of cyber-security," trumpets a recruiting message on the website of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting and technology firm. It is hard to argue with that exaggeration right now. Edward Snowden, the man who revealed he was responsible for leaks about monitoring American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA), was a contractor working for Booz Allen. That has turned a spotlight on the extensive involvement of private firms in helping America’s spies to do their jobs. The affair could lead to changes in the way these relationships work. The role of firms such as Booz Allen in the intelligence arena and the flow of government cyber-tsars into tech companies are evidence of an emerging cyber-industrial complex in which the private and public sectors are intimately linked. Some will see this as a worrying development, noting that President Dwight Eisenhower used the term "military-industrial complex" in a speech in 1961 to give warning about the dangers of too cosy a relationship between government, military men and defence contractors. There are risks inherent in the cyber-industrial complex too. Mr. Snowden’s leak will raise questions about just how watertight firms such as Booz Allen can keep their operations. There is also a theoretical risk that former officials might tap their friends in government to give their new employers an unfair advantage in bidding for federal contracts or to influence policy for commercial advantage. But there are also reasons why the cyber-industrial complex should, on balance, be welcomed. For a start, many talented but weird teenies would refuse to work for government agencies. Better to have them work as contractors than not to enlist their talents at all. Deep-pocketed firms may also be best placed to attract rare birds such as data scientists. Because of the danger that online security threats pose, companies need to co-operate closely with government spies to counter them. Former cyber-officials can advise firms how best to do this. Moreover, if the government wants to continue to benefit from the intelligence of its departing cyber-warriors, it can always hire their new firms. Government types can also help cyber-security firms and consultancies, which are prime targets for hackers, to protect their own operations better. Dmitri Alperovitch, a founder of CrowdStrike, a cyber-security company that hired Shawn Henry after he retired from a senior position at the FBI, says that in addition to working with clients Mr. Henry is also responsible for CrowdStrike’s own internal security.It can be learned from the first paragraph that_____.

A．the Snowden incident was a heavy blow to Booz Allen Hamilton
B．private firms and government spies have long worked together
C．cooperation between the private and public sectors should be stopped
D．many failed to note the role of private firms in the intelligence arena

单项选择题

Texting has long been lamented as the downfall of the written word, "penmanship for illiterates," as one critic called it. To which the proper response is LOL. Texting properly isn’t writing at all—it’s actually more similar to spoken language. And it’s a "spoken" language that is getting richer and more complex by the year. Historically, talking came first; writing is just an artifice that came along later. While talk is largely subconscious and rapid, writing is deliberate and slow. Over time, writers took advantage of this and started crafting sentences such as this one, from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "The whole engagement lasted above 12 hours, till the gradual retreat of the Persians was changed into a disorderly flight, of which the shameful example was given by the principal leaders and the Surenas himself." No one talks like that casually—or should. But it is natural to desire to do so for special occasions. In the old days, we didn’t much write like talking because there was no mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. But texting and instant messaging do—and a revolution has begun. It involves the basic mechanics of writing, but in its economy, spontaneity and even vulgarity, texting is actually a new kind of talking. There is a virtual fashion of concision and little interest in capitalization or punctuation. The argument that texting is "poor writing" is analogous, then, to one that the Rolling Stones is "bad music" because it doesn’t use violas. Texting is developing its own kind of grammar. Take LOL. It doesn’t actually mean "laughing out loud" in a literal sense anymore. LOL has evolved into something much subtler and sophisticated and is used even when nothing is remotely amusing. Jocelyn texts "Where have you been" and Annabelle texts back "LOL at the library studying for two hours." LOL signals basic empathy between texters, easing tension and creating a sense of equality. Instead of having a literal meaning, it does something—conveying an attitude—just like the "-ed" ending conveys past tense rather than "meaning" anything. LOL, of all things, is grammar. Civilization is fine—people banging away on their smartphones are fluently using a code separate from the one they use in actual writing, and there is no evidence that texting is ruining composition skills. Worldwide people speak differently from the way they write, and texting—quick, casual and only intended to be read once—is actually a way of talking with your fingers."Penmanship for illiterates" (Para, 1) suggests that_____.

A．texting is language degradation
B．texting is a disgrace to literature
C．texting is responsible for illiteracy
D．texting is more spoken than written

单项选择题

Every day, employees make decisions about whether to act like givers or like takers. When they act like givers, they contribute to others without seeking anything in return. They might offer assistance, share knowledge, or make valuable introductions. When they act like takers, they try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully guarding their own expertise and time. Organizations have a strong interest in fostering giving behavior. A willingness to help others achieve their goals lies at the heart of effective collaboration, innovation, quality improvement, and service excellence. In workplaces where such behavior becomes the norm, the benefits multiply quickly. But even as leaders recognize the importance of generous behavior and call for more of it, workers receive mixed messages about the advisability of acting in the interests of others. As a matter of fact, various situations put employees against one another, encouraging them to undercut rather than support their colleagues’ efforts. Even without a dog-eat-dog scoring system, strict description of responsibilities and a focus on individual performance metrics can cause a "not my job" mentality to take hold. As employees look around their organizations for models of success, they encounter further reasons to be wary of generosity. A study by the Stanford professor Frank Flynn highlighted this problem. When he examined patterns of favor exchange among the engineers in one company, he found that the leastproductive engineers were givers—workers who had done many more favors for others than they’d received. I made a similar discovery in a study of salespeople: The ones who generated the least revenue reported a particularly strong concern for helping others. This creates a challenge for managers. Can they promote generosity without cutting into productivity and undermining fairness How can they avoid creating situations where already-generous people give away too much of their attention while selfish coworkers feel they have even more license to take How, in short, can they protect good people from being treated like doormats Part of the solution must involve targeting the takers in the organization—providing incentives for them to collaborate and informing them of the consequences of refusing reasonable requests. But even more important, my research suggests, is helping the givers act on their generous impulses more productively. The key is for employees to gain a more subtle understanding of what generosity is and is not. Givers are better positioned to succeed when they distinguish generosity from three other attributes-timidity, availability, and empathy—that tend to travel with it.According to the author, givers are characterized by being _____.

A．sharing
B．selfless
C．productive
D．collaborative

单项选择题

Hope may be the lovely, lyrical, inspiring thing many people believe it is—"the thing with feathers," as Emily Dickinson called it. But to scientists, it’s also a more dull thing as well: a skill, a tool, a simple choice that is a lot less accidental or lucky. As psychologist Shane Lopez, a senior scientist at the Gallup organization argues in his new book, Making Hope Happen, it’s also much more attainable than it seems. In both children and adults, there can be a hard-to-deny link between a robust sense of hope and either work productivity or academic achievement. In studies of this idea, hope is measured by a widely accepted psychological survey and productivity is measured by grades earned, sales made, equipment manufactured etc. When Lopez and his colleagues recently gathered up a large body of this research and subjected it all to a meta-analysis, they came up with what they believe are very solid numbers. "Our finding was that hope accounts for about 14% of work productivity and 12% of academic achievement," he said. Hoping, Lopez stresses, is a lot different from wishing, though the two are often mixed. The super-bestseller The Secret is based on the vaguely defined and not-exactly peer-reviewed "law of attraction," which in this case means that just having positive thoughts about wealth, love, success and more can draw all of those things to you. "This wonderful future will happen for you if you just sit back and wish hard enough," Lopez says. But wishing, he explains is only an element of hope—it is, in a sense, hope without a plan. And that often leads nowhere. Effective hoping, Lopez says, is a very deliberate, three-step process. First there is selecting a goal, whether short-term or long term. Then you have to consider the gap between where you are now and where you will be when you achieve the goal, and lay out a series of sequential, short-term goals that will allow you to close that gap. Finally, there is the execution, establishing a plan for when you will begin to implement those steps and where and how you will execute them. It’s far too much to say that effective hoping is the only—or even the biggest—part of what it takes to succeed. If 14% of business productivity can be attributed to hope, that means 86% is dependent on raw talent, unpredictable business cycles, the quality of the product you’re selling, and often pure luck. But even if hope is just one ingredient in all of that, it’s a stimulating, energizing one—the gas in the tank, the fuel rod in the reactor, the Mentos in the Pepsi. Hope may be the thing with feathers—but it’s also the thing with power.Hope is believed to be "the thing with feathers" because _____.

A．it can inspire us
B．it is dull and dumb
C．it is weak and fragile
D．it can not be attained

单项选择题

"At Booz Allen, we’re shaping the future of cyber-security," trumpets a recruiting message on the website of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting and technology firm. It is hard to argue with that exaggeration right now. Edward Snowden, the man who revealed he was responsible for leaks about monitoring American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA), was a contractor working for Booz Allen. That has turned a spotlight on the extensive involvement of private firms in helping America’s spies to do their jobs. The affair could lead to changes in the way these relationships work. The role of firms such as Booz Allen in the intelligence arena and the flow of government cyber-tsars into tech companies are evidence of an emerging cyber-industrial complex in which the private and public sectors are intimately linked. Some will see this as a worrying development, noting that President Dwight Eisenhower used the term "military-industrial complex" in a speech in 1961 to give warning about the dangers of too cosy a relationship between government, military men and defence contractors. There are risks inherent in the cyber-industrial complex too. Mr. Snowden’s leak will raise questions about just how watertight firms such as Booz Allen can keep their operations. There is also a theoretical risk that former officials might tap their friends in government to give their new employers an unfair advantage in bidding for federal contracts or to influence policy for commercial advantage. But there are also reasons why the cyber-industrial complex should, on balance, be welcomed. For a start, many talented but weird teenies would refuse to work for government agencies. Better to have them work as contractors than not to enlist their talents at all. Deep-pocketed firms may also be best placed to attract rare birds such as data scientists. Because of the danger that online security threats pose, companies need to co-operate closely with government spies to counter them. Former cyber-officials can advise firms how best to do this. Moreover, if the government wants to continue to benefit from the intelligence of its departing cyber-warriors, it can always hire their new firms. Government types can also help cyber-security firms and consultancies, which are prime targets for hackers, to protect their own operations better. Dmitri Alperovitch, a founder of CrowdStrike, a cyber-security company that hired Shawn Henry after he retired from a senior position at the FBI, says that in addition to working with clients Mr. Henry is also responsible for CrowdStrike’s own internal security.Some are worried about the cyber-industrial complex in that_____.

A．it is a duplicate of the military-industrial complex
B．the possible intimate link will pose potential risks
C．private and public sectors will plot together to monitor citizens
D．they will be deprived of the right to the freedom of speech

单项选择题

Texting has long been lamented as the downfall of the written word, "penmanship for illiterates," as one critic called it. To which the proper response is LOL. Texting properly isn’t writing at all—it’s actually more similar to spoken language. And it’s a "spoken" language that is getting richer and more complex by the year. Historically, talking came first; writing is just an artifice that came along later. While talk is largely subconscious and rapid, writing is deliberate and slow. Over time, writers took advantage of this and started crafting sentences such as this one, from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "The whole engagement lasted above 12 hours, till the gradual retreat of the Persians was changed into a disorderly flight, of which the shameful example was given by the principal leaders and the Surenas himself." No one talks like that casually—or should. But it is natural to desire to do so for special occasions. In the old days, we didn’t much write like talking because there was no mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. But texting and instant messaging do—and a revolution has begun. It involves the basic mechanics of writing, but in its economy, spontaneity and even vulgarity, texting is actually a new kind of talking. There is a virtual fashion of concision and little interest in capitalization or punctuation. The argument that texting is "poor writing" is analogous, then, to one that the Rolling Stones is "bad music" because it doesn’t use violas. Texting is developing its own kind of grammar. Take LOL. It doesn’t actually mean "laughing out loud" in a literal sense anymore. LOL has evolved into something much subtler and sophisticated and is used even when nothing is remotely amusing. Jocelyn texts "Where have you been" and Annabelle texts back "LOL at the library studying for two hours." LOL signals basic empathy between texters, easing tension and creating a sense of equality. Instead of having a literal meaning, it does something—conveying an attitude—just like the "-ed" ending conveys past tense rather than "meaning" anything. LOL, of all things, is grammar. Civilization is fine—people banging away on their smartphones are fluently using a code separate from the one they use in actual writing, and there is no evidence that texting is ruining composition skills. Worldwide people speak differently from the way they write, and texting—quick, casual and only intended to be read once—is actually a way of talking with your fingers.It can be learned that writing _____.

A．is merely a duplicate of talking
B．is less important than talking
C．is formal and carefully-worded
D．was separated from talking in the past

单项选择题

Every day, employees make decisions about whether to act like givers or like takers. When they act like givers, they contribute to others without seeking anything in return. They might offer assistance, share knowledge, or make valuable introductions. When they act like takers, they try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully guarding their own expertise and time. Organizations have a strong interest in fostering giving behavior. A willingness to help others achieve their goals lies at the heart of effective collaboration, innovation, quality improvement, and service excellence. In workplaces where such behavior becomes the norm, the benefits multiply quickly. But even as leaders recognize the importance of generous behavior and call for more of it, workers receive mixed messages about the advisability of acting in the interests of others. As a matter of fact, various situations put employees against one another, encouraging them to undercut rather than support their colleagues’ efforts. Even without a dog-eat-dog scoring system, strict description of responsibilities and a focus on individual performance metrics can cause a "not my job" mentality to take hold. As employees look around their organizations for models of success, they encounter further reasons to be wary of generosity. A study by the Stanford professor Frank Flynn highlighted this problem. When he examined patterns of favor exchange among the engineers in one company, he found that the leastproductive engineers were givers—workers who had done many more favors for others than they’d received. I made a similar discovery in a study of salespeople: The ones who generated the least revenue reported a particularly strong concern for helping others. This creates a challenge for managers. Can they promote generosity without cutting into productivity and undermining fairness How can they avoid creating situations where already-generous people give away too much of their attention while selfish coworkers feel they have even more license to take How, in short, can they protect good people from being treated like doormats Part of the solution must involve targeting the takers in the organization—providing incentives for them to collaborate and informing them of the consequences of refusing reasonable requests. But even more important, my research suggests, is helping the givers act on their generous impulses more productively. The key is for employees to gain a more subtle understanding of what generosity is and is not. Givers are better positioned to succeed when they distinguish generosity from three other attributes-timidity, availability, and empathy—that tend to travel with it.It can be learned from Paragraph 3 that _____.

A．leaders fail to appreciate the value of giving behavior
B．workers are encouraged to provide mutual support
C．many working environment discourages generosity
D．employees are told to mind their own businesses only

单项选择题

Hope may be the lovely, lyrical, inspiring thing many people believe it is—"the thing with feathers," as Emily Dickinson called it. But to scientists, it’s also a more dull thing as well: a skill, a tool, a simple choice that is a lot less accidental or lucky. As psychologist Shane Lopez, a senior scientist at the Gallup organization argues in his new book, Making Hope Happen, it’s also much more attainable than it seems. In both children and adults, there can be a hard-to-deny link between a robust sense of hope and either work productivity or academic achievement. In studies of this idea, hope is measured by a widely accepted psychological survey and productivity is measured by grades earned, sales made, equipment manufactured etc. When Lopez and his colleagues recently gathered up a large body of this research and subjected it all to a meta-analysis, they came up with what they believe are very solid numbers. "Our finding was that hope accounts for about 14% of work productivity and 12% of academic achievement," he said. Hoping, Lopez stresses, is a lot different from wishing, though the two are often mixed. The super-bestseller The Secret is based on the vaguely defined and not-exactly peer-reviewed "law of attraction," which in this case means that just having positive thoughts about wealth, love, success and more can draw all of those things to you. "This wonderful future will happen for you if you just sit back and wish hard enough," Lopez says. But wishing, he explains is only an element of hope—it is, in a sense, hope without a plan. And that often leads nowhere. Effective hoping, Lopez says, is a very deliberate, three-step process. First there is selecting a goal, whether short-term or long term. Then you have to consider the gap between where you are now and where you will be when you achieve the goal, and lay out a series of sequential, short-term goals that will allow you to close that gap. Finally, there is the execution, establishing a plan for when you will begin to implement those steps and where and how you will execute them. It’s far too much to say that effective hoping is the only—or even the biggest—part of what it takes to succeed. If 14% of business productivity can be attributed to hope, that means 86% is dependent on raw talent, unpredictable business cycles, the quality of the product you’re selling, and often pure luck. But even if hope is just one ingredient in all of that, it’s a stimulating, energizing one—the gas in the tank, the fuel rod in the reactor, the Mentos in the Pepsi. Hope may be the thing with feathers—but it’s also the thing with power.It can be learned from the first two paragraphs that _____.

A．scientists believe hope is accidental, thus can not be attained
B．there is a hard-to-deny link between study and work
C．hope actually contributes to success in study and work
D．hope plays a rather vital role in both work and study

单项选择题

Texting has long been lamented as the downfall of the written word, "penmanship for illiterates," as one critic called it. To which the proper response is LOL. Texting properly isn’t writing at all—it’s actually more similar to spoken language. And it’s a "spoken" language that is getting richer and more complex by the year. Historically, talking came first; writing is just an artifice that came along later. While talk is largely subconscious and rapid, writing is deliberate and slow. Over time, writers took advantage of this and started crafting sentences such as this one, from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "The whole engagement lasted above 12 hours, till the gradual retreat of the Persians was changed into a disorderly flight, of which the shameful example was given by the principal leaders and the Surenas himself." No one talks like that casually—or should. But it is natural to desire to do so for special occasions. In the old days, we didn’t much write like talking because there was no mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. But texting and instant messaging do—and a revolution has begun. It involves the basic mechanics of writing, but in its economy, spontaneity and even vulgarity, texting is actually a new kind of talking. There is a virtual fashion of concision and little interest in capitalization or punctuation. The argument that texting is "poor writing" is analogous, then, to one that the Rolling Stones is "bad music" because it doesn’t use violas. Texting is developing its own kind of grammar. Take LOL. It doesn’t actually mean "laughing out loud" in a literal sense anymore. LOL has evolved into something much subtler and sophisticated and is used even when nothing is remotely amusing. Jocelyn texts "Where have you been" and Annabelle texts back "LOL at the library studying for two hours." LOL signals basic empathy between texters, easing tension and creating a sense of equality. Instead of having a literal meaning, it does something—conveying an attitude—just like the "-ed" ending conveys past tense rather than "meaning" anything. LOL, of all things, is grammar. Civilization is fine—people banging away on their smartphones are fluently using a code separate from the one they use in actual writing, and there is no evidence that texting is ruining composition skills. Worldwide people speak differently from the way they write, and texting—quick, casual and only intended to be read once—is actually a way of talking with your fingers.The Rolling Stones is cited in Paragraph 3 to _____.

A．criticize the vulgarity of rock music
B．indicate that texting is a revolution
C．imply that texting is no poor writing
D．show the fashion of concision in texting

单项选择题

Every day, employees make decisions about whether to act like givers or like takers. When they act like givers, they contribute to others without seeking anything in return. They might offer assistance, share knowledge, or make valuable introductions. When they act like takers, they try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully guarding their own expertise and time. Organizations have a strong interest in fostering giving behavior. A willingness to help others achieve their goals lies at the heart of effective collaboration, innovation, quality improvement, and service excellence. In workplaces where such behavior becomes the norm, the benefits multiply quickly. But even as leaders recognize the importance of generous behavior and call for more of it, workers receive mixed messages about the advisability of acting in the interests of others. As a matter of fact, various situations put employees against one another, encouraging them to undercut rather than support their colleagues’ efforts. Even without a dog-eat-dog scoring system, strict description of responsibilities and a focus on individual performance metrics can cause a "not my job" mentality to take hold. As employees look around their organizations for models of success, they encounter further reasons to be wary of generosity. A study by the Stanford professor Frank Flynn highlighted this problem. When he examined patterns of favor exchange among the engineers in one company, he found that the leastproductive engineers were givers—workers who had done many more favors for others than they’d received. I made a similar discovery in a study of salespeople: The ones who generated the least revenue reported a particularly strong concern for helping others. This creates a challenge for managers. Can they promote generosity without cutting into productivity and undermining fairness How can they avoid creating situations where already-generous people give away too much of their attention while selfish coworkers feel they have even more license to take How, in short, can they protect good people from being treated like doormats Part of the solution must involve targeting the takers in the organization—providing incentives for them to collaborate and informing them of the consequences of refusing reasonable requests. But even more important, my research suggests, is helping the givers act on their generous impulses more productively. The key is for employees to gain a more subtle understanding of what generosity is and is not. Givers are better positioned to succeed when they distinguish generosity from three other attributes-timidity, availability, and empathy—that tend to travel with it.Prof. Frank Flynn’s study has found that_____.

A．employees are wary of generosity in the workplace
B．there are more takers than givers among the engineers
C．takers are the most productive among the employees
D．generosity seems to be an obstacle to productivity

单项选择题

"At Booz Allen, we’re shaping the future of cyber-security," trumpets a recruiting message on the website of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting and technology firm. It is hard to argue with that exaggeration right now. Edward Snowden, the man who revealed he was responsible for leaks about monitoring American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA), was a contractor working for Booz Allen. That has turned a spotlight on the extensive involvement of private firms in helping America’s spies to do their jobs. The affair could lead to changes in the way these relationships work. The role of firms such as Booz Allen in the intelligence arena and the flow of government cyber-tsars into tech companies are evidence of an emerging cyber-industrial complex in which the private and public sectors are intimately linked. Some will see this as a worrying development, noting that President Dwight Eisenhower used the term "military-industrial complex" in a speech in 1961 to give warning about the dangers of too cosy a relationship between government, military men and defence contractors. There are risks inherent in the cyber-industrial complex too. Mr. Snowden’s leak will raise questions about just how watertight firms such as Booz Allen can keep their operations. There is also a theoretical risk that former officials might tap their friends in government to give their new employers an unfair advantage in bidding for federal contracts or to influence policy for commercial advantage. But there are also reasons why the cyber-industrial complex should, on balance, be welcomed. For a start, many talented but weird teenies would refuse to work for government agencies. Better to have them work as contractors than not to enlist their talents at all. Deep-pocketed firms may also be best placed to attract rare birds such as data scientists. Because of the danger that online security threats pose, companies need to co-operate closely with government spies to counter them. Former cyber-officials can advise firms how best to do this. Moreover, if the government wants to continue to benefit from the intelligence of its departing cyber-warriors, it can always hire their new firms. Government types can also help cyber-security firms and consultancies, which are prime targets for hackers, to protect their own operations better. Dmitri Alperovitch, a founder of CrowdStrike, a cyber-security company that hired Shawn Henry after he retired from a senior position at the FBI, says that in addition to working with clients Mr. Henry is also responsible for CrowdStrike’s own internal security.The cyber-industrial complex should be welcomed probably because _____.

A．it can create more job opportunities in America
B．it can enhance industrialization of IT researches
C．it is a good way to combat online security threats
D．it can prevent scandals like the Snowden incident

单项选择题

Hope may be the lovely, lyrical, inspiring thing many people believe it is—"the thing with feathers," as Emily Dickinson called it. But to scientists, it’s also a more dull thing as well: a skill, a tool, a simple choice that is a lot less accidental or lucky. As psychologist Shane Lopez, a senior scientist at the Gallup organization argues in his new book, Making Hope Happen, it’s also much more attainable than it seems. In both children and adults, there can be a hard-to-deny link between a robust sense of hope and either work productivity or academic achievement. In studies of this idea, hope is measured by a widely accepted psychological survey and productivity is measured by grades earned, sales made, equipment manufactured etc. When Lopez and his colleagues recently gathered up a large body of this research and subjected it all to a meta-analysis, they came up with what they believe are very solid numbers. "Our finding was that hope accounts for about 14% of work productivity and 12% of academic achievement," he said. Hoping, Lopez stresses, is a lot different from wishing, though the two are often mixed. The super-bestseller The Secret is based on the vaguely defined and not-exactly peer-reviewed "law of attraction," which in this case means that just having positive thoughts about wealth, love, success and more can draw all of those things to you. "This wonderful future will happen for you if you just sit back and wish hard enough," Lopez says. But wishing, he explains is only an element of hope—it is, in a sense, hope without a plan. And that often leads nowhere. Effective hoping, Lopez says, is a very deliberate, three-step process. First there is selecting a goal, whether short-term or long term. Then you have to consider the gap between where you are now and where you will be when you achieve the goal, and lay out a series of sequential, short-term goals that will allow you to close that gap. Finally, there is the execution, establishing a plan for when you will begin to implement those steps and where and how you will execute them. It’s far too much to say that effective hoping is the only—or even the biggest—part of what it takes to succeed. If 14% of business productivity can be attributed to hope, that means 86% is dependent on raw talent, unpredictable business cycles, the quality of the product you’re selling, and often pure luck. But even if hope is just one ingredient in all of that, it’s a stimulating, energizing one—the gas in the tank, the fuel rod in the reactor, the Mentos in the Pepsi. Hope may be the thing with feathers—but it’s also the thing with power.The super-bestseller "The Secret" is mentioned in Paragraph 3 to _____.

A．justify that wishing and hoping are usually mixed
B．define what "law of attraction" actually is
C．illustrate that wishing is the same thing as hoping
D．draw forth the contents related with wishing

单项选择题

Texting has long been lamented as the downfall of the written word, "penmanship for illiterates," as one critic called it. To which the proper response is LOL. Texting properly isn’t writing at all—it’s actually more similar to spoken language. And it’s a "spoken" language that is getting richer and more complex by the year. Historically, talking came first; writing is just an artifice that came along later. While talk is largely subconscious and rapid, writing is deliberate and slow. Over time, writers took advantage of this and started crafting sentences such as this one, from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "The whole engagement lasted above 12 hours, till the gradual retreat of the Persians was changed into a disorderly flight, of which the shameful example was given by the principal leaders and the Surenas himself." No one talks like that casually—or should. But it is natural to desire to do so for special occasions. In the old days, we didn’t much write like talking because there was no mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. But texting and instant messaging do—and a revolution has begun. It involves the basic mechanics of writing, but in its economy, spontaneity and even vulgarity, texting is actually a new kind of talking. There is a virtual fashion of concision and little interest in capitalization or punctuation. The argument that texting is "poor writing" is analogous, then, to one that the Rolling Stones is "bad music" because it doesn’t use violas. Texting is developing its own kind of grammar. Take LOL. It doesn’t actually mean "laughing out loud" in a literal sense anymore. LOL has evolved into something much subtler and sophisticated and is used even when nothing is remotely amusing. Jocelyn texts "Where have you been" and Annabelle texts back "LOL at the library studying for two hours." LOL signals basic empathy between texters, easing tension and creating a sense of equality. Instead of having a literal meaning, it does something—conveying an attitude—just like the "-ed" ending conveys past tense rather than "meaning" anything. LOL, of all things, is grammar. Civilization is fine—people banging away on their smartphones are fluently using a code separate from the one they use in actual writing, and there is no evidence that texting is ruining composition skills. Worldwide people speak differently from the way they write, and texting—quick, casual and only intended to be read once—is actually a way of talking with your fingers.We may learn from the text that texting is _____.

A．more delicate and complicated than writing
B．different from writing in grammatical uses
C．responsible for the degradation of writing skills
D．more of "talking" style than "writing" style

单项选择题

Every day, employees make decisions about whether to act like givers or like takers. When they act like givers, they contribute to others without seeking anything in return. They might offer assistance, share knowledge, or make valuable introductions. When they act like takers, they try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully guarding their own expertise and time. Organizations have a strong interest in fostering giving behavior. A willingness to help others achieve their goals lies at the heart of effective collaboration, innovation, quality improvement, and service excellence. In workplaces where such behavior becomes the norm, the benefits multiply quickly. But even as leaders recognize the importance of generous behavior and call for more of it, workers receive mixed messages about the advisability of acting in the interests of others. As a matter of fact, various situations put employees against one another, encouraging them to undercut rather than support their colleagues’ efforts. Even without a dog-eat-dog scoring system, strict description of responsibilities and a focus on individual performance metrics can cause a "not my job" mentality to take hold. As employees look around their organizations for models of success, they encounter further reasons to be wary of generosity. A study by the Stanford professor Frank Flynn highlighted this problem. When he examined patterns of favor exchange among the engineers in one company, he found that the leastproductive engineers were givers—workers who had done many more favors for others than they’d received. I made a similar discovery in a study of salespeople: The ones who generated the least revenue reported a particularly strong concern for helping others. This creates a challenge for managers. Can they promote generosity without cutting into productivity and undermining fairness How can they avoid creating situations where already-generous people give away too much of their attention while selfish coworkers feel they have even more license to take How, in short, can they protect good people from being treated like doormats Part of the solution must involve targeting the takers in the organization—providing incentives for them to collaborate and informing them of the consequences of refusing reasonable requests. But even more important, my research suggests, is helping the givers act on their generous impulses more productively. The key is for employees to gain a more subtle understanding of what generosity is and is not. Givers are better positioned to succeed when they distinguish generosity from three other attributes-timidity, availability, and empathy—that tend to travel with it.By saying "being treated like doormats" (Para 5), the author implies that_____.

A．the takers have posed a challenge for the managers
B．the takers are praised for their high productivity
C．the givers have been unfairly taken advantage of
D．the givers have been blamed for low productivity

单项选择题

"At Booz Allen, we’re shaping the future of cyber-security," trumpets a recruiting message on the website of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting and technology firm. It is hard to argue with that exaggeration right now. Edward Snowden, the man who revealed he was responsible for leaks about monitoring American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA), was a contractor working for Booz Allen. That has turned a spotlight on the extensive involvement of private firms in helping America’s spies to do their jobs. The affair could lead to changes in the way these relationships work. The role of firms such as Booz Allen in the intelligence arena and the flow of government cyber-tsars into tech companies are evidence of an emerging cyber-industrial complex in which the private and public sectors are intimately linked. Some will see this as a worrying development, noting that President Dwight Eisenhower used the term "military-industrial complex" in a speech in 1961 to give warning about the dangers of too cosy a relationship between government, military men and defence contractors. There are risks inherent in the cyber-industrial complex too. Mr. Snowden’s leak will raise questions about just how watertight firms such as Booz Allen can keep their operations. There is also a theoretical risk that former officials might tap their friends in government to give their new employers an unfair advantage in bidding for federal contracts or to influence policy for commercial advantage. But there are also reasons why the cyber-industrial complex should, on balance, be welcomed. For a start, many talented but weird teenies would refuse to work for government agencies. Better to have them work as contractors than not to enlist their talents at all. Deep-pocketed firms may also be best placed to attract rare birds such as data scientists. Because of the danger that online security threats pose, companies need to co-operate closely with government spies to counter them. Former cyber-officials can advise firms how best to do this. Moreover, if the government wants to continue to benefit from the intelligence of its departing cyber-warriors, it can always hire their new firms. Government types can also help cyber-security firms and consultancies, which are prime targets for hackers, to protect their own operations better. Dmitri Alperovitch, a founder of CrowdStrike, a cyber-security company that hired Shawn Henry after he retired from a senior position at the FBI, says that in addition to working with clients Mr. Henry is also responsible for CrowdStrike’s own internal security.Shawn Henry is mentioned in the last paragraph to ______.

A．demonstrate that he is one of the so-called government types
B．justify the intimate link between private and public sectors
C．show that companies closely cooperate with government
D．illustrate the help rendered by former officials to companies

单项选择题

Texting has long been lamented as the downfall of the written word, "penmanship for illiterates," as one critic called it. To which the proper response is LOL. Texting properly isn’t writing at all—it’s actually more similar to spoken language. And it’s a "spoken" language that is getting richer and more complex by the year. Historically, talking came first; writing is just an artifice that came along later. While talk is largely subconscious and rapid, writing is deliberate and slow. Over time, writers took advantage of this and started crafting sentences such as this one, from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "The whole engagement lasted above 12 hours, till the gradual retreat of the Persians was changed into a disorderly flight, of which the shameful example was given by the principal leaders and the Surenas himself." No one talks like that casually—or should. But it is natural to desire to do so for special occasions. In the old days, we didn’t much write like talking because there was no mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. But texting and instant messaging do—and a revolution has begun. It involves the basic mechanics of writing, but in its economy, spontaneity and even vulgarity, texting is actually a new kind of talking. There is a virtual fashion of concision and little interest in capitalization or punctuation. The argument that texting is "poor writing" is analogous, then, to one that the Rolling Stones is "bad music" because it doesn’t use violas. Texting is developing its own kind of grammar. Take LOL. It doesn’t actually mean "laughing out loud" in a literal sense anymore. LOL has evolved into something much subtler and sophisticated and is used even when nothing is remotely amusing. Jocelyn texts "Where have you been" and Annabelle texts back "LOL at the library studying for two hours." LOL signals basic empathy between texters, easing tension and creating a sense of equality. Instead of having a literal meaning, it does something—conveying an attitude—just like the "-ed" ending conveys past tense rather than "meaning" anything. LOL, of all things, is grammar. Civilization is fine—people banging away on their smartphones are fluently using a code separate from the one they use in actual writing, and there is no evidence that texting is ruining composition skills. Worldwide people speak differently from the way they write, and texting—quick, casual and only intended to be read once—is actually a way of talking with your fingers.The author’s attitude toward texting is one of_____.

A．criticism
B．approval
C．skepticism
D．objectiveness

单项选择题

Hope may be the lovely, lyrical, inspiring thing many people believe it is—"the thing with feathers," as Emily Dickinson called it. But to scientists, it’s also a more dull thing as well: a skill, a tool, a simple choice that is a lot less accidental or lucky. As psychologist Shane Lopez, a senior scientist at the Gallup organization argues in his new book, Making Hope Happen, it’s also much more attainable than it seems. In both children and adults, there can be a hard-to-deny link between a robust sense of hope and either work productivity or academic achievement. In studies of this idea, hope is measured by a widely accepted psychological survey and productivity is measured by grades earned, sales made, equipment manufactured etc. When Lopez and his colleagues recently gathered up a large body of this research and subjected it all to a meta-analysis, they came up with what they believe are very solid numbers. "Our finding was that hope accounts for about 14% of work productivity and 12% of academic achievement," he said. Hoping, Lopez stresses, is a lot different from wishing, though the two are often mixed. The super-bestseller The Secret is based on the vaguely defined and not-exactly peer-reviewed "law of attraction," which in this case means that just having positive thoughts about wealth, love, success and more can draw all of those things to you. "This wonderful future will happen for you if you just sit back and wish hard enough," Lopez says. But wishing, he explains is only an element of hope—it is, in a sense, hope without a plan. And that often leads nowhere. Effective hoping, Lopez says, is a very deliberate, three-step process. First there is selecting a goal, whether short-term or long term. Then you have to consider the gap between where you are now and where you will be when you achieve the goal, and lay out a series of sequential, short-term goals that will allow you to close that gap. Finally, there is the execution, establishing a plan for when you will begin to implement those steps and where and how you will execute them. It’s far too much to say that effective hoping is the only—or even the biggest—part of what it takes to succeed. If 14% of business productivity can be attributed to hope, that means 86% is dependent on raw talent, unpredictable business cycles, the quality of the product you’re selling, and often pure luck. But even if hope is just one ingredient in all of that, it’s a stimulating, energizing one—the gas in the tank, the fuel rod in the reactor, the Mentos in the Pepsi. Hope may be the thing with feathers—but it’s also the thing with power.Which of the following is true of effective hoping

A．Effective hoping is hoping without a plan, leading to nowhere.
B．People should set long-term goals in effective hoping first.
C．Effective hoping involves goal-setting, planning and executing.
D．Effective hoping is so powerful that it can determine success.

单项选择题

"At Booz Allen, we’re shaping the future of cyber-security," trumpets a recruiting message on the website of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting and technology firm. It is hard to argue with that exaggeration right now. Edward Snowden, the man who revealed he was responsible for leaks about monitoring American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA), was a contractor working for Booz Allen. That has turned a spotlight on the extensive involvement of private firms in helping America’s spies to do their jobs. The affair could lead to changes in the way these relationships work. The role of firms such as Booz Allen in the intelligence arena and the flow of government cyber-tsars into tech companies are evidence of an emerging cyber-industrial complex in which the private and public sectors are intimately linked. Some will see this as a worrying development, noting that President Dwight Eisenhower used the term "military-industrial complex" in a speech in 1961 to give warning about the dangers of too cosy a relationship between government, military men and defence contractors. There are risks inherent in the cyber-industrial complex too. Mr. Snowden’s leak will raise questions about just how watertight firms such as Booz Allen can keep their operations. There is also a theoretical risk that former officials might tap their friends in government to give their new employers an unfair advantage in bidding for federal contracts or to influence policy for commercial advantage. But there are also reasons why the cyber-industrial complex should, on balance, be welcomed. For a start, many talented but weird teenies would refuse to work for government agencies. Better to have them work as contractors than not to enlist their talents at all. Deep-pocketed firms may also be best placed to attract rare birds such as data scientists. Because of the danger that online security threats pose, companies need to co-operate closely with government spies to counter them. Former cyber-officials can advise firms how best to do this. Moreover, if the government wants to continue to benefit from the intelligence of its departing cyber-warriors, it can always hire their new firms. Government types can also help cyber-security firms and consultancies, which are prime targets for hackers, to protect their own operations better. Dmitri Alperovitch, a founder of CrowdStrike, a cyber-security company that hired Shawn Henry after he retired from a senior position at the FBI, says that in addition to working with clients Mr. Henry is also responsible for CrowdStrike’s own internal security.The author’s attitude toward the cyber-industrial complex is _____.

A．critical
B．supportive
C．objective
D．skeptical

单项选择题

Every day, employees make decisions about whether to act like givers or like takers. When they act like givers, they contribute to others without seeking anything in return. They might offer assistance, share knowledge, or make valuable introductions. When they act like takers, they try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully guarding their own expertise and time. Organizations have a strong interest in fostering giving behavior. A willingness to help others achieve their goals lies at the heart of effective collaboration, innovation, quality improvement, and service excellence. In workplaces where such behavior becomes the norm, the benefits multiply quickly. But even as leaders recognize the importance of generous behavior and call for more of it, workers receive mixed messages about the advisability of acting in the interests of others. As a matter of fact, various situations put employees against one another, encouraging them to undercut rather than support their colleagues’ efforts. Even without a dog-eat-dog scoring system, strict description of responsibilities and a focus on individual performance metrics can cause a "not my job" mentality to take hold. As employees look around their organizations for models of success, they encounter further reasons to be wary of generosity. A study by the Stanford professor Frank Flynn highlighted this problem. When he examined patterns of favor exchange among the engineers in one company, he found that the leastproductive engineers were givers—workers who had done many more favors for others than they’d received. I made a similar discovery in a study of salespeople: The ones who generated the least revenue reported a particularly strong concern for helping others. This creates a challenge for managers. Can they promote generosity without cutting into productivity and undermining fairness How can they avoid creating situations where already-generous people give away too much of their attention while selfish coworkers feel they have even more license to take How, in short, can they protect good people from being treated like doormats Part of the solution must involve targeting the takers in the organization—providing incentives for them to collaborate and informing them of the consequences of refusing reasonable requests. But even more important, my research suggests, is helping the givers act on their generous impulses more productively. The key is for employees to gain a more subtle understanding of what generosity is and is not. Givers are better positioned to succeed when they distinguish generosity from three other attributes-timidity, availability, and empathy—that tend to travel with it.According to the author, the most important way to solve the problem under discussion is to _____.

A．take some measures to make takers be more collaborative
B．reasonably refuse or turn down some requests of the takers
C．ask the givers to get rid of being timid, available as well as sympathetic
D．make the concept of generosity well understood and practised by employees

单项选择题

Hope may be the lovely, lyrical, inspiring thing many people believe it is—"the thing with feathers," as Emily Dickinson called it. But to scientists, it’s also a more dull thing as well: a skill, a tool, a simple choice that is a lot less accidental or lucky. As psychologist Shane Lopez, a senior scientist at the Gallup organization argues in his new book, Making Hope Happen, it’s also much more attainable than it seems. In both children and adults, there can be a hard-to-deny link between a robust sense of hope and either work productivity or academic achievement. In studies of this idea, hope is measured by a widely accepted psychological survey and productivity is measured by grades earned, sales made, equipment manufactured etc. When Lopez and his colleagues recently gathered up a large body of this research and subjected it all to a meta-analysis, they came up with what they believe are very solid numbers. "Our finding was that hope accounts for about 14% of work productivity and 12% of academic achievement," he said. Hoping, Lopez stresses, is a lot different from wishing, though the two are often mixed. The super-bestseller The Secret is based on the vaguely defined and not-exactly peer-reviewed "law of attraction," which in this case means that just having positive thoughts about wealth, love, success and more can draw all of those things to you. "This wonderful future will happen for you if you just sit back and wish hard enough," Lopez says. But wishing, he explains is only an element of hope—it is, in a sense, hope without a plan. And that often leads nowhere. Effective hoping, Lopez says, is a very deliberate, three-step process. First there is selecting a goal, whether short-term or long term. Then you have to consider the gap between where you are now and where you will be when you achieve the goal, and lay out a series of sequential, short-term goals that will allow you to close that gap. Finally, there is the execution, establishing a plan for when you will begin to implement those steps and where and how you will execute them. It’s far too much to say that effective hoping is the only—or even the biggest—part of what it takes to succeed. If 14% of business productivity can be attributed to hope, that means 86% is dependent on raw talent, unpredictable business cycles, the quality of the product you’re selling, and often pure luck. But even if hope is just one ingredient in all of that, it’s a stimulating, energizing one—the gas in the tank, the fuel rod in the reactor, the Mentos in the Pepsi. Hope may be the thing with feathers—but it’s also the thing with power.Which of the following could be the most appropriate title for the text

A．Hope: The Thing with Feathers
B．How Hope Works
C．Wishing: A Part of Hope
D．What Is Effective Hoping

你可能感兴趣的试题