In general, our society is becoming one of giant enterprises directed by a bureaucratic management in which man becomes a small well-oiled cog in the machinery. The oiling is done with higher wages, well-ventilated factories and piped music, and by psychologists and “human-relations” experts. Yet all this oiling does not alter the fact that man has become powerless that he does not wholeheartedly participate in his work and that he is bored with it. In fact, the blue and the white-collar workers have become economic puppets who dance to the tune of automated machines and bureaucratic management.The worker and employee are anxious, not only because they might find themselves out of a job. They are anxious also because they are unable to acquire any real satisfaction or interest in life. They live and die without ever having confronted the fundamental realities of human existence as emotionally and intellectually independent and productive human beings.Those higher up on the social ladder are no less anxious. Their lives are no less empty than those of their subordinates. They are even more insecure in some respects. They are in a highly competitive race. To be promoted or to fall behind is not a matter of salary but even more a matter of self-respect. When they apply for their first job, they are tested for intelligence as well as for the tight mixture of submissiveness and independence. From that moment on they are tested again and again-by the psychologists, for whom testing is a big business, and by their superiors, who judge their behavior, sociability, capacity to get along, etc. This constant need to prove that one is as good as or better than one’s fellow-competitor creates constant anxiety and stress, the very causes of unhappiness and illness.Am I suggesting that we should return to the preindustrial mode of production or to nineteenth-century “free enterprise” capitalism? Certainly not. Problems are never solved by returning to a stage which one has already outgrown. I suggest transforming our social system from a bureaucratically managed industrialism in which maximal production and consumption are ends in themselves into a humanist industrialism in which man and full development of his potentialities-those of love and of reason-are the aims of all social arrangements. Production and consumption should serve only as means to this end, and should be prevented from ruling man.1.By “a well-oiled cog in the machinery” the author intends to render the idea that man is（ ）.2.The real cause of the anxiety of the workers and employees is that （ ）3.From the passage we can infer that real happiness of life belongs to those （ ）.4.To solve the present social problems the author suggests that we should（ ）.5.The author’s attitude towards industrialism might best be summarized as one of （ ）.

A.a necessary part of the society though each individual functions in it B.working in complete harmony with the rest of the society C.an unimportant part in comparison with the rest of the society, though functioning smoothly D.a humble component of the society, especially when working smoothly
问题2：
A.they are likely to lose their jobs B.they have no genuine satisfaction or interest in life C.they are faced with the fundamental realities of human existence D.they are deprived of their individuality and independence
问题3：
A.who are at the bottom of the society B.who are higher up in their social status C.who prove better than their fellow-competitors D.who could keep far away from this competitive world
问题4：
A.resort to the production mode of our ancestors B.offer higher wages to the worker and employees C.enable man to fully develop his potentialities D.take the fundamental realities for granted
问题5：
A.approval B.dissatisfaction C.suspicion D.tolerance

Web portal Sohu has gone a step further and called for netizens to join in an all-out boycott of （ ）content.

A.wholesome B.contagious C.vulgar D.stagnant

From the beginning of the Republic, Americans have enjoyed accusing the first magistrate of kingly ambition. Sometimes seriously but more often derisively, the president is denounced as a would-be king, subverting the Constitution for personal ends. From General Washington to the present incumbent, the wielder of power has usually been regarded with suspicion, a disagreeable but not unhealthy state of affairs for both governor and governed. Few presidents, however, have been accused of wanting to establish family dynasties, if only because most presidents have found it impossible to select a successor of any sort, much less promote a relative. But now something new is happening in the Republic, and as the Chinese say, we are living “in interesting times”.In 1960, with the election of the thirty-fifth president, the famous ambition of Joseph P. Kennedy seemed at last fulfilled. He himself had come a long way from obscurity to great wealth and prominence; now his eldest surviving son, according to primogeniture, had gone the full distance and become president. It was a triumph for the patriarch. It was also a splendid moment for at least half the nation. What doubts one may have had about the Kennedys were obscured by the charm and intelligence of John F. Kennedy. He appeared to be beautifully on to himself; he was also on to us; there is even evidence that he was on to the family, too. As a result, there were few intellectuals in 1960 who were not beguiled by the spectacle of a president who seemed always to be standing at a certain remove from himself, watching with amusement his own performance. He was an ironist in a profession where the prize usually goes to the apparent comball. With such a man as chief of state, all things were possible. He would “get America moving again”.But then mysteriously the thing went wrong. Despite fine rhetoric and wise commentary, despite the glamor of his presence, we did not move, and if historians are correct when they tell us that presidents are “made” in their first eighteen months in office, then one can assume that the Kennedy administration would never have fulfilled our hopes, much less his own. Kennedy was of course ill-fated from the beginning. The Bay of Pigs used up much of his credit in the bank of public opinion, while his attempts at social legislation were resolutely blocked by a more than usually obstructive Congress. In foreign affairs he was overwhelmed by the masterful Khrushchev and not until the Cuban missile crisis did he achieve tactical parity with that sly gambler. His administration’s one achievement was the test-ban treaty, an encouraging footnote to the cold war.Yet today Kennedy dead has infinitely more force than Kennedy living. Though his administration was not a success, he himself has become an exemplar of political excellence. Part of this phenomenon is attributable to the race’s need for heroes, even in deflationary times. But mostly the legend is the deliberate creation of the Kennedy family and its clients. Wanting to regain power, it is now necessary to show that once upon a time there was indeed a Camelot beside the Potomac, a golden age forever lost unless a second Kennedy should become the president. And so, to ensure the restoration of that lovely time, the past must be transformed, dull facts transcended, and the dead hero extolled in films, through memorials, and in the pages of books.1.According to the author, when many considered Kennedy as a presidential candidate, （ ）.2.During Kennedy’s presidency, the “bank of public opinion” （ ）.3.The author believes that the American public’s wariness of its leader’s ambition for power is （ ）.4.The author notes that America has not developed lasting political dynasties （ ）.5.From the description of John F. Kennedy in this essay, we might see him as foreshadowing the modern popularity of（ ）.

A.misgivings were nullified by charisma B.his inexperience was not a factor C.Joseph P. Kennedy’s ambitions were fulfilled D.they found it difficult to decide whether or not to vote for him
问题2：
A.overflo

Because a degree from a good university is the means to a better job, education is one of the most（ ） areas in Japanese life.

A.sophisticated B.competitive C.considerate D.superficial

Walking through my train yesterday, staggering from my seat to the buffet and back, I counted five people reading Harry Potter novels. Not children—these were real grown-ups reading children’s books.Maybe that would have been understandable. If these people had jumped whole-heartedly into a second childhood，it would have made more sense. But they were card-carrying grown-ups with laptops and spreadsheets returning from sales meetings and seminars. Yet they chose to read a children’s book.I don’t imagine you’ll find this headcount exceptional. You can no longer get on the London Tube and not see a Harry Potter book. Nor is it just the film; these throwback readers were out there in droves long before the movie campaign opened.So who are these adult readers who have made JK Rowling the second-biggest female earner in Britain （after Madonna）? As I have tramped along streets knee-deep in Harry Potter paperbacks, I’ve mentally slotted them into three groups.First come the Never-Readers，whom Harry has enticed into opening a book. Is this a bad thing? Probably not. Writing has many advantages over film, but it can never compete with its magnetic punch. If these books can re-establish the novel as a thrilling experience for some people，then this can only be for the better. If it takes obsession-level hype to lure them into a bookshop, that’s fine by me. But will they go on to read anything else? Again，we can only hope.The second group are the Occasional Readers. These people claim that tiredness, work and children allow them to read only a few books a year. Yet now --- to be part of the crowd, to say they’ve read it—they put Harry Potter on their oh-so-select reading list. It’s infuriating, and maddening. Yes，I’m a writer myself, currently writing difficult, unreadable, hopefully unsettling novels，but there are so many other good books out there, so much rewarding，enlightening, enlarging works of fiction for adults; and yet these sad cases are swept along by the hype，the faddism，into reading a children’s book.The third group are the Regular Readers, for whom Harry is sandwiched between McEwan （英国当代作家）and Balzac，Roth （德国现代诗人）and Dickens. This is the real baffler—what on earth do they get out of reading it? Why bother? But if they can rattle through it in a week just to say they’ve been there—like going to Longleat （朗利特山庄, 英国名胜）or the Eiffel Tower—the worst they’re doing is encouraging others.

1.What’s the passage mainly about?

2.The author believes that many adults read Harry Potter （ ）

3.According to the author, the Never-Readers （ ）.

4.The Occasional Readers are referred to as sad cases because （ ） .

5.What’s the bad effect of the way the Regular Readers read Harry Potter?

6.The main culprit for this madness about Harry Potter is most probably （ ）

A.The worldwide popularity of Harry Potter. B.Adults benefiting from reading Harry Potter, C.The origin of Harry Potter as a children’s book. D.Reflections on Harry Potter’s popularity among adults.问题2： A.to follow suit B.to kill time C.to enjoy a second childhood D.to share Harry’s adventures问题3： A.will take up reading as their lifelong hobby B.have got more from the book than from the film C.may barely get interested in other books than Harry Potter D.can hardly be driven by the crowds to read any book问题4： A.they're too busy to enjoy regular reading B.they’re suffering from the heavy workload C.they have a hard time selecting what to read D.their reading taste is affected by fashion问题5： A.It will promote too many visits to the places the book mentions, B.It will discourage people from reading real masterpieces. C.It will foster reading as part of a fast-food culture. D.It will cause a confusion of faddism with classics.问题6： A.JK Rowling B.the publisher C.the media hype D.its thrilling stories

The fire quickly spread through the hotel, but fortunately there were only a （1）guests and they all managed to （2）.