Military training has long been considered a ritual  that freshmen must go through in order to officially start their college lives. While some question the necessity of such training. Many students see military training as a campus tradition that should be maintained. Early in February, the Ministry of Education issued a new regulation that colleges and universities should carry out a minimum of 14 days compulsory military training for freshmen. In a report by Beijing Evening News, Hou Zhengfang, a Beijing-based education PhD, questioned the benefits of military training. "The training routine does little to improve students' physical fitness over only two weeks' time. Maybe some disaster prevention training, such as earthquake survival or escaping from fires would be of greater benefit." Meng Yang, a 19-year-old freshman at Guangxi University, fainted during training. She said that many students, especially girls, are willing to train under direct sunshine. "For me, military training is physically challenging and even damages my health." According to Li Jian from the student affairs office of Guangzhou University, feeling dizzy  happens frequently during military training and the school has received a lot of complaints from both students and parents: "But I still think military training is a good thing. Students are easier to manage after the military training. They became more positive about their new environment after the training." Although autumn is fast approaching Beijing, the noon heat burns 3300 freshmen on Tsinghua University's campus. Chu Jinjing, a freshman majoring in medicine, did feel some discomfort while training in sweaty clothes in the glaring heat, the 18-year-old still enjoyed being part of group going through strict exercises. "By going through this tough training, students bond faster and a sense of belonging to the school can be formed. I've made a lot of friends already." According to the Ministry of Education, the purpose of military training is to teach students discipline, the... According to Hou Zhengfang, it seems much more beneficial to give freshmen  _  . A) survival skills B) military training C) the spirit of teamwork and endurance D) strict exercises
A


(Question)
Believe it or not, in the near future people won't just wear a chicken feather suit at Halloween or for fancy dress. Chickens, which have long provided food for dinner, will also be used to make our clothes as well. Last Monday, a report by the University of Nebraska in the US said in the future it should be possible to use chicken feathers and rice straw to make clothes. "All those wasted agriculture products don't have to be wasted anymore," researcher Yiqi Yang said.  New technology will change these by-products into something similar to wool, linen, or cotton. Because producing synthetic fabrics   causes pollution, scientists wanted to find a cheaper and environmentally friendly replacement. They turned their eyes to the millions of tons of rice straw and chicken feathers that are widely and cheaply available worldwide. Moreover they don't cause pollution like petroleum-based fibers  .  Chicken feathers are mostly made up of the same kind of protein found in wool. A sweater made from chicken feathers would feel just like a wool sweater. It would be lighter in weight and warmer, too.     According to Yang and his team, rice straw, on the other hand, can produce a fabric that looks and feels similar to cotton or linen. The process is also environmentally friendly. The total production cost of rice fiber is about 50 cents per pound, while cotton now sells for about 60 cents a pound. Maybe some day in the future you will wear _ clothes like these. What are the main advantage of the new clothes made of chicken feathers and rice straw? A) They are mostly made up of the same kind of protein found in wool. B) The clothes will be widely used in every field in our daily life. C) The process of producing the clothes does not cheap at all. D) A sweater made of the new clothes would be lighter in weight and warmer.
(Answer)
D


Ques: Clean water is not only important for food production, but necessary for our life. However, large numbers of people in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are going without. The World Health Organization reports that almost 4,000 children die each day for dirty water or lack   of water.  Agriculture is the primary user of water at 70-85% of fresh water in the world. Industrial uses of water don't often come to mind, but you may be surprised to know that industry uses 59% of the water supply in developed countries. Home use takes up only 8% in the world. But as cities grow, the local government has to cut down on water use. Many cities are turning to privatization   of water as a method of controlling use. The poor are paying as much as a quarter of their monthly income for water in some developing countries.  In 60% of large European cities, groundwater is being used at a faster rate. People are saving water by simply using less and being careful with what they do use. Sometimes it's as simple as not throwing out water that they could use elsewhere.  In Australia overuse of water has always been a problem. The Australian government has encouraged households and industries to collect rainwater and reuse water from showers. Technology is helping householders for shower and bath water for reuse in toilets or gardens.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made a water saving program designed to encourage families and businesses to examine their water use and save more water. Good water management has been considered by scientists and the UN as the key to solving the water problem. We can all work together to protect our valuable water in our daily life. To save water, what do Australians and Europeans both choose to do? A) Find more groundwater. B) Make good use of rainwater. C) Encourage people to have fewer showers D) Recycle water for a second use.
Ans: D


Ques: Cowboy or spaceman? A dilemma for a children's party, perhaps. But also a question for economists, argued Kenneth Boulding, a British economist, in an essay published in 1966. We have run our economies, he warned, like cowboys on the open grassland: taking and using the world's resources, confident that more lies over the horizon. But the Earth is less a grassland than a spaceship--a closed system, alone in space, carrying limited supplies. We need, said Boulding, an economics that takes seriously the idea of environmental limits. In the half century since his essay, a new movement has responded to his challenge. "Ecological economists", as they call themselves, want to revolutionise its aims and assumptions. What do they say--and will their ideas achieve lift-off? To its advocators, ecological economics is neither ecology nor economics, but a mix of both. Their starting point is to recognise that the human economy is part of the natural world. Our environment, they note, is both a source of resources and a sink for wastes. But it is ignored in conventional textbooks, where neat diagrams trace the flows between firms, households and the government as though nature did not exist. That is a mistake, say ecological economists. There are two ways our economies can grow, ecological economists point out: through technological change, or through more intensive use of resources. Only the former, they say, is worth having. They are suspicious of GDP, a crude measure which does not take account of resource exhaustion, unpaid work, and countless other factors. In its place they advocate moreholistic  approaches, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), a composite index  that includes things like the cost of pollution, deforestation and car accidents. While GDP has kept growing, global GPI per person peaked in 1978: by destroying our environment we are making ourselves poorer, not richer. The solution, says Herman Daly, a former World Bank economist and eco-guru, is a "steady-state" economy, where the use of... The comparison between GDP and GPI data in 1978 has warned us that     . A) GDP is crude measure that is not worth using B) car accident should by all means include in GDP C) we are gaining material wealth by destroying nature D) resources and energy will one day be totally used up
Ans:
C