A.locality
B.publicity
C.reality
D.dynasty

根据以下资料，回答下列各题： One of the many pleasures of watching Mad Men，a television drama about the advertising industry in the early 1960s，is examining the ways in which office life has changed over the years．One obvious change makes people feel good about themselves：they no longer treat women as second—class citizens．But the other obvious change makes them feel a bit more uneasy：they have lost the art of enjoying themselves at work． The ad—men in those days eaioyed simple pleasures．They puffed away at their desks．They drank throughout the day．They had affairs with their colleagues．They socialised not in order to bond，but in order to get drunk．Nowadays many companies are obsessed with fun． Software firms in Silicon Valley have installed rock—climbing walls in their reception areas and put inflatable animals in their offices．Wal-Mart orders its cashiers to smile at all and sundry． The cult of fun has spread like some disgusting haemorrhagic disease． This cult of fun is driven by three of the most popular management fads of the moment： empowerment．engagement and creativity．Many companies pride themselves on devolving power to front-line workers．But surveys show that only 20％of workers are“fully engaged with their．iob”．Even fewer are creative．Managers hope that“fun”will magically make workers more engaged and creative．But the problem is that as soon as fun becomes part of a corporate strategy it ceases to be fun and becomes its opposite-at best an empty shell and at worst a tiresome imposition． The most unpleasant thing about the fashion for fun is that it is mixed with a large dose of Dressure．Boston Pizza encourages workers to send“golden bananas”to colleagues who are“having fun while being the best”．Behind the“fun”there often lurks some crude management thinking：a desire to brand the company as better than its rivals，or a plan to boost productivity through team．building．Twitter even boasts that it has“worked hard to create an environment that spawns productMty and happiness”． While imposing fake fun on their employees，companies are battling against the real thing．Many force smokers to huddle outside like furtive criminals．Few allow their employees to drink at lunch time，let alone earlier in the day．A regiment of busybodies--from lawyers to human resources functionaries-is waging war on office romance，particularly between people of different ranks． The merchants of fake fun have met some resistance．When Wal—Mart tried to impose alien rules on its German staff-such as compulsory smiling and a ban on affairs with co-workers—it touched off a guerrilla war that ended only when the supermarket chain announced it was pulling out of Germany in 2006．But such victories are rare．For most wage slaves forced to pretend they are having fun at work，the only relief is to poke fun at their tormentors．Mad Men reminds people of a world they have lost—a world where bosses did not think that“fun”was a management tool and where employees could happily quaff Scotch at noon．Cheers to that． In the opening paragraph，the author introduces his topic by_____.
A.explaining a phenomenon
B.justifying an assumption
C.posing an argument
D.making a contrast

The less—educated tend to marry later than the well—educated due to the changes of________．
A.economic structure
B.social structure
C.political structure
D.educational structure

根据下列材料，请回答下列各题 Imagine a world where your doctor could help you avoid sickness，using knowledge of your genes as well as how you live your life．Or where he would prescribe drugs he knew would work and not have debilitating side-effects． Such a future is arriving faster than most realise：genetic tests are already widely used to identify patients who will be helped or harmed by certain drugs．And three years ago，in the face of a torrent of new scientific data，a number of new companies set themselves up to interpret this information for customers．Through shop fronts on the internet，anyone could order a testing kit．spit into a tube and send off their DNA—with results downloaded privately at home．Already customers can find out their response to many common medications，such as antivirals and blood-thinning agents．They can also explore their genetic likelihood of developing deep—vein thrombosis，skin cancer or glaucoma． The industry has been subject to conflicting criticisms．On the one hand，it stands accused of offering information too dangerous to trust to consumers；on the other it is charged with peddling irrelevant，misleading nonsense．For some rare disorders，such as Huntington’s and Tay—Sachs，genetic information is a diagnosis．But most diseases are more complicated and involve several genes，or an environmental component，or both．Someone’s chance of getting skin cancer，for example，will depend on whether he worships the sun as well as on his genes． America’s Government Accountability Office（GAO)report also revealed what the industry has openly admitted for years：that results of disease—prediction tests from different companies sometimes conflict with one another，because there is no industry—wide agreement on standard lifetime risks． Governments hate this sort of anarchy and America’s，in particular，is considering regulation．But three things argue against wholesale regulation．First，the level of interference needs to be based on the level of risk a test represents．The government does not need to be involved if someone decides to trace his ancestry or discover what type of earwax he has．Second．the laws on fraud should be sufficient to deal with the snake—oil salesmen who promise to predict，say，whether a child might be a sporting champion．And third，science is changing very fast．Fairly soon，a customer’s whole genome will be sequenced，not merely the parts thought to be medically relevant that the testing companies now concentrate on，and he will then be able to crank the results through open—source interpretation software downloadable from anywhere on the planet．That will create problems，but the only way to stop that happening would be to make it illegal for someone to have his genome sequenced--and nobody is seriously suggesting that illiberal rpstriction. Instead，then，of reacting in a hostile fashion to the trend for people to take genetic tests，governments should be asking themselves how they can make best use of this new source of information．Restricting access to tests that inform. people about bad reactions to drugs could do harm．The real question is not who controls access，but how to minimise the risks and maximise the rewards of a useful revolution． Current genetic tests are able to______．
A.identify customers’response to common medications
B.diagnose customers’health state in the future
C.judge customers’genetic inclination to some diseases
D.find the cause for some diseases，such as glaucoma

More people’s inclination to rent rather than buy a house will not_______．
A.enlarge the wealth disparity between the haves and have-nots
B.reduce the renter’s commitment to the community
C.slow the recovery of economy
D.curb social mobility

The soaring number of death from drug poisoning is due to______．
A.combined use of different drugs
B.wrong prescription of doctors
C.uncertain resource
D.easy access to opoids