As a professor at a large American university,there is a phrase that I hear often from students:"I'm only a 1050."The unlucky students are speaking of the score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test(SAT),which is used to determine whether they will be admitted to the college or university of their choice,or even if they have a chance to get a higher education at all.The SAT score,whether it is 800,1100 or 1550,has become the focus at this time of their life. It is obvious that if students value highly their test scores,then a great amount of their self-respect is put in the number.Students who perform poorly on the exam are left feeling that it is all over.The low test score,they think,will make it impossible for them to get into a good college.And without a degree from a _ ,they fear that many of life's doors will remain forever closed. According to a study done in the 1990s,the SAT is only a reliable indicator of a student's future performance in most cases.Interestingly,it becomes much more accurate when it is set together with other indicators-like a student's high school grades.Even if standardized tests like the SAT could show a student's academic proficiency ,they will never be able to test things like confidence,efforts and willpower,and are unable to give us the full picture of a student's potentialities .This is not to suggest that we should stop using SAT scores in our college admission process.The SAT is an excellent test in many ways,and the score is still a useful means of testing students.However,it should be only one of many methods used. The purpose of the SAT is to test students'  _  . A) strong will B) academic ability C) full potentialities D) confidence in school work
B


"Joe? Is chat you?" The woman speaking to me at he baseball game looked somewhat familiar,      "Marci? "      "It IS you ! " she exclaimed, smiling broadly. "God, it's good to see you again !"       It was good to see Marci, too. Very often during the past few decades, I've wondered about her, I almost tried to reach her a few years ago after talking to a shared friend, who had indicated  that the 1990s had been pretty rough for Marci. So, running into her at the baseball game was, at the very least, just happening by chance.          We spent a few minutes talking about the business of our lives: kids and grandkids, husbands and houses, education and recreation. It's always a little upsetting to see how few words are required to summarize 32 years of living. We played a little "have you seen...?" and "did you know,..?" And we recalled the good old,  bad old days we used to spend together.          Then Marci grew quiet for a moment, looking out over the crowd walking about the marketing area at the stadium.           "You know,  Joe." she said, "I've always wanted to tell you...how...you know...how sorry I am for the way I treated you."       Hearing that, I felt I was suffering extreme embarrassment. One does not like to remember when one has been rid of by others roughly and suddenly.       "It's OK." I said. "No big deal." At least, I thought to myself, not now.       "But I was so stupid: she continued.       Yes, you were. I thought. "We were both pretty young:' I said.       "I know," she said. "But that's no excuse for..." She hesitated. then continued. "It's just always bothered me,  remembering how mean I was to you.And I've wanted to tell you that I'm sorry. So...I'm sorry."          The smile on her face was warm and sincere, and there was something in her eyes, it looked a lot like relief--  _ since she had played Wif'fle ball with my heart.          "OK:'I said. "Apology accepted!     Overcome by the sweetness of the moment. I reached an arm around her and gave her a quick hug Just then, the... Which of the following is the best title for the passage? A) Power of forgiveness B) An unexpected meeting C) Effect of sharing memories D) An enjoyable baseball game
A


Q: Babies who watch TV are more likely to show late learning development and language at 14 months, especially if they are watching programs aimed at adults and older children, according to a new study, which would probably surprise those parents who leave their babies in front of a TV set. Babies who watched 60 minutes of TV daily had developmental scores a third lower at 14 months than babies who were watching less TV. Although their developmental scores were still in the normal range, the difference may have been due to the fact that when children and parents are watching TV, they are missing the talking, playing and other communications that are important to learning and development. This new study, which appeared in the Aechives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, followed 259 lower-income families in New York, most of whom spoke Spanish as their primary language at home. Other studies of higher-income families have also come to the same conclusion: TV watching is not only non-educational, but it seems to slow down babies' development. But what about "good" TV, like Sesame Street? The researchers didn't find any difference when compared to non-educational programs designed for small children, like Spongebob SquarePants. Earlier research by some of the same scientists, most of whom are at New York University School of Medicine's Bellevue Hospital Centre, has found that parents whose children watch non-educational TV programs like Spongebob SquarePants spend less time reading to their children or teaching them. At this point, parents reading this will probably be astonished. TV is so often a parent's good friend, keeping children happily occupied so that the adults can cook dinner, answer the phone, or take a shower. But, clearly, this electronic babysitter is not an educational aid. It is best to make sure the babies are fast asleep if you have to watch TV. We can infer from the passage that  _  . A) Educational and non-educational TV have different effects on babies B) Many parents leave babies to the TV to do their own things C) Educational TV is very popular among higher-income families D) Lower-income families tend to teach their babies at home
A: B


(Q).
Women turn to online shopping Women have jumped ahead of men for the first time in using the Internet to do their holiday shopping, according to a study published last week in the US. For years men have been more likely to shop on the Internet than women, but during the 2004 holiday season, 58 percent of those making online purchases were women. "It shows how mainstream the Internet is becoming," said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project group, which carried out the study. Rainie said it was only a matter of time before women shoppers caught up with men. This is because women traditionally make decisions about spending. Users were more likely to shop online to save time. Internet users between the ages 18 and 29 were responsible for some of the most dramatic increase in the online gift-buying population this time around. However, three- quarters of the US Internet users did not buy holiday gifts online in 2004. They worried about credit card security, or just compared online prices with off-line prices, then dashed off to the shops to get the best deals. " But even if shoppers don't buy online , websites are becoming promotion tools for stores," said Dan Hess, vice president of ComScore Networks Inc. Hess said that actually most stores' websites can make customers fully believe the security of their credit card numbers. And most are able to ensure that gifts arrive on time. " It's all about making the shopping experience more efficient, more reliable and more comfortable." Hess said. According to Dan Hess, shopping online  _  . A) is unsafe B) is convenient C) is a waste of money D) is cheaper
(A).

B