[問答題]Directions:

　　Study the following drawing carefully and write an essay in which you should

　　1)describe the drawing briefly,

　　2)interpret its intended meaning, and then

　　3)give your comments.

　　You should write 160-200 words neatly on the ANSWER SHEET.

　　參考答案：

　�、貯s is shown in the picture, an interviewee is taking an interview with three interviewers holding different standards of picking up talents. ②The message conveyed by the picture is quite clear that on impressive education background can no longer smooth your job-seeking rood, which is obviously the same as what happens in the real world .

　�、踥f course, there is no consensus as regards the criteria by which candidates are selected.④What hos been put into the focus of the employer is not only the education background and grades, but also what you know about the company and what other soft powers you have acquired such as leadership skis, adventurous spirit, and curiosity.⑤Education background and grades can more often than not tell what you know, while the other qualifications could tell what you can do.⑥Anyway, it should be noted that this is not to soy the former is of no use, but those with the latter qualities are more competitive to win the attention of interviewers . ⑦Given what has been discussed above, job-seekers should equip themselves not only with the good grades but also with the qualities to show their abilities.⑧Never should we forget the saying that“Chance favors only the prepared mind”

　　參考解析：

　�、偃鐖D所示，一位應(yīng)試者正在參加面試，而三位面試官的選擇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不同。 ②圖畫所傳達(dá)的寓意清晰明了，好的教育背景不能讓求職之路一帆風(fēng)順，而現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中也如此。 ③當(dāng)然，人們對(duì)選擇人才的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)沒有一致意見。④雇主關(guān)注的不僅是教育背景和學(xué)習(xí)成績(jī)，而且是我們對(duì)公司的了解以及我們具有的軟實(shí)力，比如，7領(lǐng)導(dǎo)才能、冒險(xiǎn)精神和好奇心。⑤教育背景和分?jǐn)?shù)常常說明我們的知識(shí)，而其他條件可以說明我們的能力。⑥不論怎樣，應(yīng)該注意的是，不是教育和分 —數(shù)不重要，而是擁有其他能力的人更能獲得面試者的關(guān)注。 ⑦綜上所述，求職者不僅應(yīng)該讓自己獲得好的分?jǐn)?shù)，而且應(yīng)該獲得展現(xiàn)能力的素質(zhì)。⑧我們不能忘了，俗話說：“機(jī)會(huì)只青睞那些有準(zhǔn)備的人�！�

　　[單選題]

　　They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president， Amy Powell， over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to u “personal misconduct”.“Boards are now holding executives to higher standards， looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them，” says Pam Jeffords of Mercer， a consultancy.

　　The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity， and by extension， trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome， often more so than incompetence， firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest， most pragmatic course of action.

　　Executives were never all angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC， a professional-​services firm， found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016， not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.

　　Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First， to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second， to protect their brands' reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly， but not unlawfully， was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories， with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered， though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage， including loss of major clients and federal investigations.

　　Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions? From the perspective of protecting the brand， as well as discouraging a toxic work environment， they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm， and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device， demands a decisive response.

　　But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn， a director， last week over tweets from a decade ago， before he was hired and for which he has apologised， seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.

　　Once the fallen dominos have been counted， some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the “Weinstein effect”.Many， perhaps most， exits will be justified.But all?

　　We can infer from Paragraphs 4 and 5 that______.

　　Amany executives behaved badly because of their eagerness to protect brand reputation

　　Bonly a small percentage of the stories about executives have been proved true

　　Ca firm may suffer heavy losses due to an insensitive remark from its executives

　　Dsocial media is encouraging misconducts among chief executives with its great power

　　參考答案：C

　　[單選題]

　　The two-year degree is back.The idea of increased flexibility in higher education is， in the broadest sense， a good one.But it is a sign of how captured we have been by market-centric thinking that “flexibility”， to this government， is manifested as “squeeze the same amount into a shorter period of time to maximise your financial returns later”.The sector has undergone a “catastrophe” as part-time student numbers have collapsed; that the government's response is a degree format - the polar opposite of part​time -is indicative of its approach to governance in general.

　　For most demographics whose access to higher education is restricted， condensing the course doesn't address the barriers they're facing.If you're balancing employment and childcare with a full-time education， especially if you're relying on sketchy public transport infrastructure， it's unrealistic to squeeze any more into your schedule.Many universities currently structure their courses around the reality that many students work， at least part-time， while studying.None of this is to mention those with disabilities who may face additional barriers to access.

　　There are no doubt some - the independently wealthy， for example - who may benefit， but it seems perverse that these people should be the focus of a major policy change.Troublingly， we seem to have fully accepted the shift from education as a social good to a product sold to students on grounds of higher earnings in the job market.Often， the grand promises of access to employment don't hold up.The labour market has been increasingly casualised and “hollowed out”， with a gap emerging between the skilled and “unskilled”， Progression through the ranks is vanishing， with a degree becoming a requirement for all sorts of jobs beyond simply those with high wages.

　　Even beyond the gap between the promise and reality， though， lies a philosophical flaw with the current approach.The two-year degree， in and of itself， is neither a good nor a bad thing.For some people it will be a positive， for the majority of others an irrelevance.What is troubling is what it represents about how Britain's political establishment sees education.It fits well into the reductive free- market philosophy， where every aspect of life can be sold as a commodity.A government that sees the price of everything and the value of nothing will inevitably be drawn to the idea of squeezing maximum output into minimum time.

　　A government that really wanted to make higher education more flexible， open and accessible would be exploring options that made sense for those with restricted access.There is no evidence， though， that this government thinks the choice between being stuck in a low-wage hellscape or taking on thousands of pounds in debt to play a roulette wheel with better odds is a bad thing.The days of education policies that address none of the problems with education are far from over.

　　The beneficiaries of the two-year degree would most probably be______.

　　Asingle parents

　　Bworking-class people

　　Cthose with disabilities

　　Dfinancially wealthy people

　　參考答案：D

　　[單選題]

　　第41題應(yīng)該填()。

　　A"It is always better to buy a house; paying rent is like pouring money down the drain."For years,such advice has encouraged people to borrow heavily to get on the property ladder as soon as possible.But is it still sound advice? House prices are currently at record levels in relation to rents in many parts of the world and it now often makes more financial sense-especially for first-time buyers to rent instead.

　　B“If I don't buy now, I'll never get on the property ladder”is a common cry from first-time buyers.If house prices continue to outpace wages, that is true.But it now looks unlikely.When prices get out of line with what first-timers can afford, as they are today they always eventually fall in real terms.The myth that buying is always better than renting grew out of the high inflation era of the 1970s and 1980s.First-time buyers then always ended up better off than renters, because inflation eroded the real value of mortgages even while it pushed up rents.With inflation now tamed, home ownership is far less attractive.

　　CHomebuyers tend to underestimate their costs.Once maintenance costs insurance and property taxes are added to mortgage payments, total annual outgoings now easily exceed the cost of renting an equivalent property, even after taking account of tax breaks.Ah, but capital gains will more than make up for that, it is popularly argued.Over the past seven years, average house prices in America have risen by 65%; those in Britain, Spain, Australia and Ireland have more than doubled.But it is unrealistic to expect such gains to continue.Making the(optimistic) assumption that house prices instead rise in line with inflation, and including buying and selling costs, then over a period of seven years-the average time American owners one house-our calculations show that you would generally be better off renting.

　　DBe warned, if you make such a bold claim at a dinner party, you will immediately be set upon.Paying rent is throwing money away, it will be argued.Much better to spend the money on a mortgage, and by so doing build up equity.The snag is that the typical first-time buyer keeps a house for less than five years, and during that time most mortgage payments go on interest, not on repaying the loan.And if prices fall, it could wipe out your equity.

　　EIn any case, a renter can accumulate wealth by putting the money saved each year from the lower cost of renting into shares.These have, historically, yielded a higher return than housing.Putting all your money into a house also breaks the basic rule of prudent investing: diversify.And yes, it is true that a mortgage leverages the gains on your initial deposit on a house, but it also amplifies your losses if house prices fall.

　　FThe divergence between rents and house prices is, of course, evidence of a housing bubble.Someday prices will fall relative to rents and wages.After they do, it will make sense to buy home.Until they do, the smart money is on renting

　　G"I want to have a place to call home"is a popular retort.Renting provides less long-term security and you cannot paint all the walls orange if you want to.Home ownership is an excellent personal goal, but it may not always make financial sense.The pride of “owning” your own home may quickly fade if you are saddled with a mortgage that costs much more than renting.Also, renting does have some advantages.Renters find it easier to move for job or family reasons.

　　參考答案：C

　　[單選題]

　　第43題應(yīng)該填()。

　　AWhen it comes to academics, students who we would consider pragmatic tend not to pursue an education for its own sake.Instead, they tend to cut whatever comers are needed to optimize their grade average and survive the current academic term.But, is this approach the only way to succeed academically? Certainly not.Students who earnestly pursue intellectual paths that truly interest them are more likely to come away with a meaningful and lasting education.In fact, a sense of mission about one’s area of fascination is strong motivation te participate actively in class and to study earnestly, both of which contribute to better grades in that area.Thus although the idealist-student might sacrifice a high overall grade average, the depth of knowledge, academic discipline, and sense of purpose the student gains will serve that student well later in life

　　BMeeting one's immediate needs, while arguably necessary for short-term survival, accomplishes little without a sense of mission, a vision, or a dream for the long term.

　　C“In any realm of life-whether academic, social, business, or political-the only way to succeed is to take a practical, rather than an idealistic, point of view.Pragmatic behavior guarantees survival, whereas idealistic views tend to be superceded by simpler, more immediate options.”

　　DI agree with the speaker insofar as that a practical, pragmatic approach toward our endeavors can help us survive in the short-term.However, idealism is just as crucial-if not more so-for long-term success in any endeavor, whether it be in academics, business, or political and social reform.

　　EWhat about the business world? After all, isn’t business fundamentally about pragmatism-that is, "getting the job done" and paying attention to the "bottom line"? Emphatically, no Admittedly, the everyday machinations of business are very much about meeting mundane short-term goals:deadlines for production, sales quotas, profit margins, and so forth.Yet underpinning these activities is the vision of the company's chief executive-a vision that might extend far beyond mere profit maximization to the ways in which the firm can make a lasting and meaningful contribution to the community, to the broader economy, and to the society as a whole.without a dream or vision that is, without strong idealist leadership-a firm can easily be cast about in the sea of commerce without clear direction, threatening not only the firm’s bottom line but also its very survival.

　　FMost politicians seem driven by their interest in being elected and reelected-that is, in surviving-rather than by any sense of mission, or even obligation to their constituency country.Diplomatic and legal maneuverings and negotiations often appear intended to meet the practical needs of the parties involved-minimizing costs, preserving options, and so forth.But, it is idealists-not pragmatists-who sway the masses, incite revolutions, and make political ideology reality.

　　GConsider idealists such as America's founders, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King.Had these idealists concerned themselves with short-term survival and immediate needs rather than with their notions of an ideal society, the United States and India might still be British colonies, and African Americans might still be relegated to the backs of buses.

　　參考答案：E

進(jìn)入焚題庫(kù) 領(lǐng)取備考資料

　　☛☛☛試題來源于華課網(wǎng)校焚題庫(kù)，進(jìn)入2022年研究生考試練習(xí)題庫(kù)>>>更多考研試題(每日一練、模擬試卷、歷年真題、易錯(cuò)題)等你來做!

掃碼進(jìn)入考研交流群

☟☟☟