1、【题目】Writing:

The present world witnesses invention and use of various robots, some of whom even can play games with human and defeat the latter. Such being the case, many are worried that robots will surpass human beings in intelligence and enslave them, while others believe that the human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds. What is your opinion? Write an essay of about 400 words.

In the first part of your essay you should state clearly your main argument, and in the second part you should support your argument with appropriate details. In the last part you should bring what you have written to a natural conclusion or make a summary.

You should supply an appropriate title for your essay.

Marks will be awarded for content, organization, grammar and appropriateness. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.

答案：

Sample

Robots: Superior to Mankind?

Nowadays, there is a public controversy concerning the issue of whether mankind will always be superior to machines. Some people argue that since machines are only tools of humankind, they will always be inferior to us, while others hold that machines, especially computers with artificial intelligence, will ultimately surpass us in every aspect of intellectual life. In my opinion, we must carefully consider what we mean by the word "superior" before we can answer the question.

If "superior" is meant to mean the knowledge, speed, and accuracy in doing certain technical jobs, the machines of our day will surpass human beings in most areas, given their efficiency and endurance. For instance, a specially designed computer program can solve a complex equation in moments that would take a person working with pencil and paper several days to solve. What's more, computers can keep on working for days even months without any need for rest and no diminishment in accuracy, while people require rest and recreation. Computers can store and instantly retrieve vast amounts of information in its memory while people may often forget the most important thing. Some machines, such as a hoist, are capable of accomplishing feats of strength that no human individual could ever dream of. In this sense, machines are like miracles that we have created to help us in our adaptation and reconstruction of the material world.

However, if the word "superior" is defined on the basis of creative thinking and emotional sensitivity, machines are inferior to mankind, at least at the present time. For example, we recognize familiar faces within a second or less, but a computer must follow a series of complex procedures in order to recognize even a face that has been presented to it thousands of times. Besides, while computers have been developed that are capable of producing works of art, such as pictures and musical compositions, such computer-generated works are devoid of any their creator's feelings since computers are non-sensate. Since machines, especially computers, are developing at a tremendous rate today, we can't rule out the possibility that in the future the machines can surpass humans in almost every field. But up to now, it is still incomparable to the power of human thinking in many aspects and is still under human control. Human beings should make good use of machines and remember that their development is meant to benefit mankind.

For the reasons mentioned above, I hold that humans and machines are not comparable unless we define our specific usage of the word "superior". Machines have the advantage in some areas while the human being holds the edge in the realm of creative thinking. We should utilize machines to support and enhance our thinking about the social life and avoid their improper use and application.

解析：

暂无解析

1、【题目】Writing:

Thepresentworldwitnessesinventionanduseofvariousrobots,someofwhomevencanplaygameswithhumananddefeatthelatter.Suchbeingthecase,manyareworriedthatrobotswillsurpasshumanbeingsinintelligenceandenslavethem,whileothersbelievethatthehumanmindwillalwaysbesuperiortomachinesbecausemachinesareonlytoolsofhumanminds.Whatisyouropinion?Writeanessayofabout400words.

Inthefirstpartofyouressayyoushouldstateclearlyyourmainargument,andinthesecondpartyoushouldsupportyourargumentwithappropriatedetails.Inthelastpartyoushouldbringwhatyouhavewrittentoanaturalconclusionormakeasummary.

Youshouldsupplyanappropriatetitleforyouressay.

Markswillbeawardedforcontent,organization,grammarandappropriateness.Failuretofollowtheaboveinstructionsmayresultinalossofmarks.

答案：

Sample

Robots: Superior to Mankind?

Nowadays, there is a public controversy concerning the issue of whether mankind will always be superior to machines. Some people argue that since machines are only tools of humankind, they will always be inferior to us, while others hold that machines, especially computers with artificial intelligence, will ultimately surpass us in every aspect of intellectual life. In my opinion, we must carefully consider what we mean by the word "superior" before we can answer the question.

If "superior" is meant to mean the knowledge, speed, and accuracy in doing certain technical jobs, the machines of our day will surpass human beings in most areas, given their efficiency and endurance. For instance, a specially designed computer program can solve a complex equation in moments that would take a person working with pencil and paper several days to solve. What's more, computers can keep on working for days even months without any need for rest and no diminishment in accuracy, while people require rest and recreation. Computers can store and instantly retrieve vast amounts of information in its memory while people may often forget the most important thing. Some machines, such as a hoist, are capable of accomplishing feats of strength that no human individual could ever dream of. In this sense, machines are like miracles that we have created to help us in our adaptation and reconstruction of the material world.

However, if the word "superior" is defined on the basis of creative thinking and emotional sensitivity, machines are inferior to mankind, at least at the present time. For example, we recognize familiar faces within a second or less, but a computer must follow a series of complex procedures in order to recognize even a face that has been presented to it thousands of times. Besides, while computers have been developed that are capable of producing works of art, such as pictures and musical compositions, such computer-generated works are devoid of any their creator's feelings since computers are non-sensate. Since machines, especially computers, are developing at a tremendous rate today, we can't rule out the possibility that in the future the machines can surpass humans in almost every field. But up to now, it is still incomparable to the power of human thinking in many aspects and is still under human control. Human beings should make good use of machines and remember that their development is meant to benefit mankind.

For the reasons mentioned above, I hold that humans and machines are not comparable unless we define our specific usage of the word "superior". Machines have the advantage in some areas while the human being holds the edge in the realm of creative thinking. We should utilize machines to support and enhance our thinking about the social life and avoid their improper use and application.

解析：

暂无解析

1、【题目】In some countries where racial prejudice is acute, violence has so come to be taken for granted as a means of solving differences, that it is not even questioned. There are countries where the white man imposes his rule by brute force; there are countries where the black man protests by setting fire to cities and by looting and pillaging. Important people on both sides, who would in other respects appear to be reasonable men, get up and calmly argue in favor of violence – as if it were a legitimate solution, like any other. What is really frightening, what really fills you with despair, is the realization that when it comes to the crunch, we have made no actual progress at all. We may wear collars and ties instead of war-paint, but our instincts remain basically unchanged. The whole of the recorded history of the human race, that tedious documentation of violence, has taught us absolutely nothing. We have still not learnt that violence never solves a problem but makes it more acute. The sheer horror, the bloodshed, the suffering mean nothing. No solution ever comes to light the morning after when we dismally contemplate the smoking ruins and wonder what hit us. The truly reasonable men who know where the solutions lie are finding it harder and herder to get a hearing. They are despised, mistrusted and even persecuted by their own kind because they advocate such apparently outrageous things as law enforcement. If half the energy that goes into violent acts were put to good use, if our efforts were directed at cleaning up the slums and ghettos, at improving living-standards and providing education and employment for all, we would have gone a long way to arriving at a solution. Our strength is sapped by having to mop up the mess that violence leaves in its wake. In a well-directed effort, it would not be impossible to fulfill the ideals of a stable social programme. The benefits that can be derived from constructive solutions are everywhere apparent in the world around us. Genuine and lasting solutions are always possible, providing we work within the framework of the law. Before we can even begin to contemplate peaceful co-existence between the races, we must appreciate each other's problems. And to do this, we must learn about them: it is a simple exercise in communication, in exchanging information. "Talk, talk, talk," the advocates of violence say, "all you ever do is talk, and we are none the wiser." It's rather like the story of the famous barrister who painstakingly explained his case to the judge. After listening to a lengthy argument the judge complained that after all this talk, he was none the wiser. "Possible, my lord," the barrister replied, "none the wiser, but surely far better informed." Knowledge is the necessary prerequisite to wisdom: the knowledge that violence creates the evils it pretends to solve.

1. What is the best title for this passage?

[A] Advocating Violence.

[B] Violence Can Do Nothing to Diminish Race Prejudice.

[C] Important People on Both Sides See Violence As a Legitimate Solution.

[D] The Instincts of Human Race Are Thirsty for Violence.

2. Recorded history has taught us

[A] violence never solves anything. [B] nothing. [C] the bloodshed means nothing. [D]everything.

3. It can be inferred that truly reasonable men

[A] can't get a hearing.

[B] are looked down upon.

[C] are persecuted.

[D] Have difficulty in

advocating law enforcement.

4. "He was none the wiser" means

[A] he was not at all wise in listening.

[B] He was not at all wiser than nothing before.

[C] He gains nothing after listening.

[D] He makes no sense of the argument.

5. According the author the best way to solve race prejudice is

[A] law enforcement. [B] knowledge. [C] nonviolence. [D] Mopping up the violent mess.

答案：

BBDCA

解析：

1.B暴力难以消除种族偏见。文章一开始就提出有些国家种族偏见严重，而暴力却是公认的一种解决方法。白人采用暴力镇压，黑人以防火、掠抢为反抗。而双方的大人物平静地论及暴力，似乎这是一种合法的解决方案。作者就此指出人类的进步只在于表面――衣饰等，人类的本能没有改变。整个有记录历史的文件没有教会人类任何东西。这是真正令人可怕的事件。第二段论及真正有理智的懂得解决方案所在的人鼓吹法制，人们不停。他们反而收到轻视、迫害。作者就此提出假设，答出真正的解决方案嗜法制，以法治理。第三段进一步说明“交流、对话”是了解双方问题的前提，即使暴力者不同意，但知道暴力制造它假装要解决的罪恶，是智慧聪明的必要前提。A.鼓吹暴力。C.双方重要人物都把暴力作为合法的解决方案。D.人类的本性是嗜暴性。

2.B没有什么。第一段中就明确提出整个人类有记录历史又长又臭的暴力文件记录，一点都没有教给我们任何东西。A.暴力解决不了任何事情。C.杀戮(流血)没有任何意义。D.一切。

3.D在鼓吹法制方面有困难。答案在第二段，真正有理智的人鼓吹法制，遭到同类们的轻视、不信任和迫害。他们发现要人倾听他们的意见越来越困难。A.人们不听。B.遭人轻视。C.遭人迫害。这三项都包含在D项内。

4.C听后无所得。Nonethewiser一点也不比以前聪明(这是按字面翻译)。实际就是C项。A.在倾听别人上他一点也不聪明。B.他和以前一个样。D.他听不懂论点。

5.A法制。第二段最后一句，如果我们在法律的构架中进行工作，真正的持久的解决总是能实现的。第二段第二句，他们遭到迫害是因为他们鼓吹法制这种显然令人不能容忍的事。B.知识。C.非暴力。D.处理暴力带来的混乱。

1、【题目】汉译英：生活就像一杯红酒，热爱生活的人会从其中品出无穷无尽的美妙。将它握在手中仔细观察，它的暗红色中有血的感觉，那正是生命的痕迹。抿一口留在口中回味，它的甘甜中有一丝苦涩，如人生一般复杂迷离。喝一口下肚，余香沁人心脾，让人终身受益。红酒越陈越美味，生活越丰富越美好。当人生走向晚年，就如一瓶待开封的好酒，其色彩是沉静的，味道中充满慷慨与智慧。

答案：

Life is like a cup of wine; people who love it discover inexhaustible wonders from it. Hold in the hand and gaze at it, the dark red color is reminiscent of the blood, which is the impress of life. Take a sip of it and appreciate the taste, the bittersweet flavor is exactly the same with life, which is complicated and blurred. Once the sip is swallowed, the lingering fragrance pleases the heart and refreshes the mind, leaving a person lifelong benefit. There was a remarkable resemblance between life and wine: the taste becomes more delicious as the wine mellows, just as life gets better as it becomes more abundant. When life comes to twilight years, it looks calm and tastes full of wisdom and generosity, just like a bottle of wine to be savored.

解析：

暂无解析

1、【题目】BernardBailynhasrecentlyreinterpretedtheearlyhistoryoftheUnitedStatesbyapplyingnewsocialresearchfindingsontheexperiencesofEuropeanmigrants.Inhisreinterpretation,migrationbecomestheorganizingprincipleforrewritingthehistoryofpreindustrialNorthAmerica.Hisapproachrestsonfourseparatepropositions.ThefirstoftheseassertsthatresidentsofearlymodernEnglandmovedregularlyabouttheircountryside;migratingtotheNewWorldwassimplyanaturalspillover.AlthoughatfirstthecoloniesheldlittlepositiveattractionfortheEnglishDtheywouldratherhavestayedhomeDbytheeighteenthcenturypeopleincreasinglymigratedtoAmericabecausetheyregardeditasthelandofopportunity.Secondly,Bailynholdsthat,contrarytothenotionthatusedtoflourishinAmericahistorytextbooks,therewasneveratypicalNewWorldcommunity.Forexample,theeconomicanddemographiccharacterofearlyNewEnglandtownsvariedconsiderably.Bailyn'sthirdpropositionsuggesttwogeneralpatternsprevailingamongthemanythousandsofmigrants:onegroupcameasindenturedservants,anothercametoacquireland.Surprisingly,Bailynsuggeststhatthosewhorecruitedindenturedservantswerethedrivingforcesoftransatlanticmigration.ThesecolonialentrepreneurshelpeddeterminethesocialcharacterofpeoplewhocametopreindustrialNorthAmerica.Atfirst,thousandsofunskilledlaborerswererecruited;bythe1730's,however,Americanemployersdemandedskilledartisans.Finally,Bailynarguesthatthecolonieswereahalf-civilizedhinterlandoftheEuropeanculturesystem.HeisundoubtedlycorrecttoinsistthatthecolonieswerepartofanAnglo-Americanempire.ButtodividetheempireintoEnglishcoreandcolonialperiphery,asBailyndoes,devaluestheachievementsofcolonialculture.Itistrue,asBailynclaims,thathighcultureinthecoloniesnevermatchedthatinEngland.Butwhatofseventeenth-centuryNewEngland,wherethesettlerscreatedeffectivelaws,builtadistinguisheduniversity,andpublishedbooksBailynmightrespondthatNewEnglandwasexceptional.However,theideasandinstitutionsdevelopedbyNewEnglandPuritanshadpowerfuleffectsonNorthAmericanculture.AlthoughBailyngoesontoapplyhisapproachtosomethousandsofindenturedservantswhomigratedjustpriortotherevolution,hefailstolinktheirexperiencewiththepoliticaldevelopmentoftheUnitedStates.Evidencepresentedinhisworksuggestshowwemightmakesuchaconnection.TheseindenturedservantsweretreatedasslavesfortheperiodduringwhichtheyhadsoldtheirtimetoAmericanemployers.Itisnotsurprisingthatassoonastheyservedtheirtimetheypassedupgoodwagesinthecitiesandheadedwesttoensuretheirpersonalindependencebyacquiringland.Thus,itisinthewestthatapeculiarlyAmericanpoliticalculturebegan,amongcolonistswhoweresuspiciousofauthorityandintenselyanti-aristocratic.

1.WhichofthefollowingstatementsaboutmigrantstocolonialNorthAmericaissupportedbyinformationinthetext

[A]AlargerpercentageofmigrantstocolonialNorthAmericacameasindenturedservantsthanasfreeagentsinterestedinacquiringland.

[B]Migrantswhocametothecoloniesasindenturedservantsweremoresuccessfulatmakingalivelihoodthanwerefarmersandartisans.

[C]MigrantstocolonialNorthAmericaweremoresuccessfulatacquiringtheirownlandduringtheeighteenthcenturythanduringtheseventeenthcentury.

[D]Bythe1730's,migrantsalreadyskilledinatradewereinmoredemandbyAmericanemployersthanwereunskilledlaborers.

2.TheauthorofthetextstatesthatBailynfailedto

[A]GivesufficientemphasistotheculturalandpoliticalinterdependenceofthecoloniesandEngland.

[B]DescribecarefullyhowmigrantsofdifferentethnicbackgroundspreservedtheircultureintheUnitedStates.

[C]TakeadvantageofsocialresearchontheexperiencesofcolonistswhomigratedtocolonialNorthAmericaspecificallytoacquireland.

[D]RelatetheexperienceofthemigrantstothepoliticalvaluesthateventuallyshapedthecharacteroftheUnitedStates.

3.Whichofthefollowingbestsummarizestheauthor'sevaluationofBailyn'sfourthproposition

[A]Itistotallyimplausible.

[B]Itispartiallyacceptable.

[C]Itishighlyadmirable.

[D]Itiscontroversialthoughpersuasive.

4.Accordingtothetext,BailynandtheauthoragreeonwhichofthefollowingstatementsaboutthecultureofcolonialNewEngland

[A]HighcultureinNewEnglandneverequaledthehighcultureofEngland.

[B]TheculturalachievementsofcolonialNewEnglandhavegenerallybeenunrecognizedbyhistorians.

[C]ThecolonistsimitatedthehighcultureofEngland，anddidnotdevelopaculturethatwasuniquelytheirown.

[D]ThesoutherncoloniesweregreatlyinfluencedbythehighcultureofNewEngland.

5.TheauthorofthetextwouldbemostlikelytoagreewithwhichofthefollowingstatementsaboutBailyn'swork

[A]BailynunderestimatestheeffectsofPuritanthoughtonNorthAmericanculture.

[B]BailynoveremphasizestheeconomicdependenceofthecoloniesonGreatBritain.

[C]Bailyn'sdescriptionofthecoloniesaspartofanAnglo-Americanempireismisleadingandincorrect.

[D]BailynfailedtotesthispropositionsonaspecificgroupofmigrantstocolonialNorthAmerica.

答案：

DDBAA

解析：

暂无解析

1、【题目】汉译英：手机改变了人与人之间的关系。 通常有注意到会议室的门上的告示，写着―关闭手机。‖然而，会议室仍然充满着铃声。我们都是普通人，没有很多重要的事情。但是，我们也不愿轻易关闭手机。打开手机象征着我们与世界的联系。 手机反映出我们的社交饥渴。我们经常看到，一个人走着走着，就突然停下来了，眼睛盯着他的手机，不管他在那里，无论是在道路中心或旁边有厕所。

答案：

Cell phone has altered human relations. There is usually a note on the door of conference room， which reads "close your handset." However， the rings are still resounding in the room. We are all common people and have few urgencies to do. Still， we are reluctant to turn off the phone. Cell phone symbolizes our connection with the world and reflects our "thirst for socialization." We are familiar with the scene when a person stops his steps to edit short messages with eyes glued at his phone， disregard of his location， whether in road center or beside restroom.

解析：

暂无解析