xcv2021 年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语(二)试题
Section I U of English
Directions:
Read the following text.Choo the best word(s) for each numberedblank and mark A,B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)
Section Reading Comprehension
Part A
Directions:
Read the following four texts.Answer the questions below each textby choosing A, B, C, or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.(40 points)
Reskilling is something that sounds like a buzzword but is actually arequirement if we plan to have a future where a lot of would-beworkers do not get left behind.
.
We know we are moving into a period where the jobs in demandwill change rapidly, as will the requirements of the jobs that remain.Rearch by the WEF detailed in the Harvard Business Review, finds
that on average 42 per cent of the core skills " within job roles willchange by 2022. That is a very short timeline, so we can onlyimagine what the changes will be further in the future.
The question of who should pay for reskilling is a thorny one Forindividual companies, the temptation is always to let go of workerswho skills are no longer demand and replace them with thowho skills are.That does not always happen.AT&T is often given asthe gold standard of a company who decided to do a massivereskilling program rather than go with a fire-and-hire strategy.ultimatelyretraining 18,000employees. Prepandemic,othercompanies including Amazon and Disney had also pledged to createtheir own plans. When the skills mismatch is in the broader economythough, the focus usually turns to government to handle. Efforts inCanada and elwhere have been arguably languid at best, and havegiven us a situation where we frequently hear of employers beggingfor workers even at times and In regions
where unemployment is high.
With the pandemic, unemployment is very
high indeed. In February,
at 3.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent respectively,unemployment rates inCanada and the United States were at generational lows and workershortages were everywhere.As of May, tho rates had spiked up to
13.3 per cent and 13.7 per cent, and although many worker shortageshad disappeared, not all had done so. In the medical field, to take anobvious example,the pandemic meant that there were still clearshortages of doctors, nurs and other medical personnel
Of cour, it is not like you can take an unemployed waiter andtrain him to be a doctor in a few weeks, no matter who pays for it.Buteven if you cannot clo that gap, maybe you can clo others, anddoing so would be to the benefit of all concerned That ems to bethe ca in Sweden, where the pandemic
kick-started a retraining
program where business as well as government had a role.
洛杉矶机场爆炸
Reskiling in this way would be challenging in a North Americancontext. You can easily imagine a chorus of"you cant do that,"becau teachers or nurs or whoever have special skills, and usingany support staff who has been quickly trained is bound to end indisaster. Maybe. Or maybe it is something that can work 'ell inSweden,with its history of co-operation between business,labourand government, but not in North America
where our history is very
different. Then again, maybe it is akin to wa
rtime, when extraordinary
things take place, but it is business as usual
after the fact.And yet, as
in war the pandemic is teaching us that many things, including rapidreskilling, can be done if there is a will to do them. In any ca,
Swedens work force is now more skilled, in more things,and moreflexible than it was before.
Of cour, reskilling programs, whether for pandemic needs or thepostpandemic world,are expensive and at a time when everyonesbudgets are lean this may not be the time to implement them.Thenagain,extending income support programs to get us through thenext months is expensive, too, to say nothing of the cost of having aswath of long-term unemployed in the
POST-COVID years Given that,perhaps we should think hard about whether the pandemic canjump-start us to a place where reskilling becomes much more than abuzzword.
B.PreDaacancies for the unemplovo teau.e1
C. Retrain their cabin staff for better rvices
D.finance their staff' s college education
Text 2jack reacher
When Microsoft bought task managen
nent app Wunderlist and
mobile calendar Sunri in 2015, it pickec
up two newcomers that
were attracting considerable buzz in Silicon Valley. Microsoft' s ownOffice dominates the market for"productivity"software, but thestart-ups reprented a new wave of technology designed from theground up for the smartphone world.
Both apps, however, were later scrapped, after Microsoft said it hadud their best features in its own products
Their teams of engineers
stayed on, making them two of the many
" acqui-hires"that the
biggest companies have ud to feed their insatiable hunger for techtalent.
To Microsoft’ s critics,the fates of Wunderlist and Sunri areexamples of a remorless drive by Big Tech to chew up anyinnovative companies that lie in their path. " They bought theedlings and clod them down,"complained Paul Arnold, a partnerat San Francisco-bad Switch Ventures, putting paid to businessthat might one day turn into competitors. Microsoft declined tccomment.
Like other start-up investors,Mr Arnold ' s own business oftendepends on lling start-ups to larger tech companies,though headmits to mixed feelings about the result:
"I think the things are
good for me, if I put my lfish hat on. But are they good for theAmerican economy? I don' t know.”
The US Federal Trade Commission says it wants to find the answerto that question. This week, it asked the five most valuable US techcompanies for information about their many small
acquisitions ovelthe past decade. Although only a rearch project at this stage, therequest has raid the prospect of regulators wading into early-stagetech markets that until now have been beyond their reach.
Given their combined market value of more than $5.5tn,riflingthrough such small deals —many of them much less prominent thanwunderlist and Sunri —might em beside the point. Betweenthem,the five companies (Apple，Microsoft,Google，Amazon andFacebook) have spent an average of only $3.4bn a year on sub-$1bnacquisitions over the past five years a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial rerves, and the more than$130bn of venture capital that was invested in the US last year.
However, critics say that the big companies u such deals to buytheir most threatening potential competitcrs before their business
have a chance to gain momentum, in some cas as part of a"buyand kill" tactic to simply clo them downwouldyoumarryme
31. What is true about Wuderlist and sunri after their acquisitionsA.Their market values declined.
B. Their tech features improved
C. Their engineers were retained
D. Their products were
re-priced.
32. Microsoft's critics believe that the big tech companies tend toA. ignore public opinions
D.eliminate their potential competitors.
33. Paul Arnold is concerned that small acquisitions miahtA. harm the national economy
天堂英语
B. worn market competition克蕾曼丝 波西
C. discourage start-up investors
D.weaken big tech companies.
34. The US Federal Trade Commission intend toA. examine small acquisitions
B. limit Big Tech'’ s expansion
C. supervi start-ups’operations
毒龙是什么意思35. For the five biggest tech companies, their small acquisition haveA. brought little financial pressure
B. raid few management challenges
C.t an example for future deals
D. generated considerable profits
Text 4
we're fairly good at judging people bad on first impressions,thin slices of experience ranging from a glimp of a photo to afive-minute interaction, and deliberation can be not only extraneousbut intrusive. In one study of the ability she dubbed"thin slicing,"the late psychologist Nalini Ambady asked participants to watch
silent 10-cond video clips of professors and to rate the instructor's overall effectiveness. Their ratings correlated strongly withstudents’ end-of-mester ratings.Another t of participants had tccount backward from 1,000 by nines as they watched the clips,occupying their con
ratings were just as
accurate, demonstri
illustrated
e social processing.
Critically, another
ninute writing down
答案2020reasons for their Jjudgment,betore giving the rating. Accuracydropped dramatically. Ambady suspected that deliberation focudthem on vivid but misleading cues,such as certain gestures orutterances, rather than letting the complex interplay of subtle signalsform a holistic impression. She found similar interference whenparticipants watched 15-cond clips of pairs of people and judgedwhether they were strangers, friends, or dating partners.
bestonesOther rearch shows we' re better at detecting deception andxual orientation from thin slices when we rely on intuition insteadof reflection.“It' s as if you' re driving a stick shift," says Judith Hall,a psychologist at Northeastern University,
"and if you start thinking
about it too much, you can' t remember what you’ re doing. But if yougo on automatic pilot, you' re fine. Much of our social life is like that."Thinking too much can also harm our ability to form preferencesCollege students' ratings of strawberry jams and college coursaligned better with experts' opinions when the students weren'tasked to analyze their rationale. And people
