(Question)
According to the latest research in the United States,men and women talk such different languages that it is like people from two different cultures trying to communicate.Professor Deborah Tannen of Georgetown University has noticed the difference in the style of boys' and girls' conversations from an early age.She says that little girls' conversation is less definite than boys' and expresses more doubts.Little boys use conversations to establish status with their listeners. These differences continue into adult life,she says.In public conversations,men talk most and interrupt other speakers more.In private conversations,men and women speak in equal amounts--although they say things in a different style.Professor Tannen believes that,for women,private talking is a way to establish and test intimacy(,).For men,private talking is a way to explore the power structure of a relationship. Teaching is one job where the differences between men's and women's ways of talking show.When a man teaches a woman,says Professor Tannen,he wants to show that he has more knowledge,and hence(,)more power in conversation.When a woman teaches another woman,however,she is more likely to take a sharing approach and to encourage her student to join in. But Professor Tannen does not believe that women are naturally more helpful.She says women feel they achieve power by being able to help others.Although the research suggests men talk and interrupt people more than women,Professor Tannen says,women actually encourage this to happen because they believe it will lead to more intimacy and help to establish a relationship. Some scientists who are studying speech think that the brain is pre-programmed for language.As we are usually taught to speak by women,it seems that the brain must have a sexual bias in its programming,otherwise male speech patterns would not arise at all. There are     in little girls' conversation than in boys'. A) fewer doubts B) more demands C) more doubts D) fewer uncertainties
(Answer)
C


(Question)
Something strange was unbelievable. Take Robert for example. After the terrible car accident, his whole world had been completely dark and quiet for almost ten years. The loss of sight and hearing made him try many times to put end to his life. His family especially his wife did their best to tend and comfort him. By and by he finally regained the courage to live on. On a hot summer afternoon he was taking a walk with a stick near his house when a thunderstorm started suddenly. He stood under a large tree in order not to get himself wet. Unfortunately he was struck down to the ground by a lightning. The witnesses thought him dead but he woke up some 20 minutes later lying face down in muddy water below the tree. He felt that he was trembling badly, but when he opened his eyes ,he didn't dare to believe that he saw a plough(  )lying near the wall. When Mrs Edwards came running up to him, she shouted their neighbours for help. And he saw her and heard her voice for the first time in nearly ten years. The news of Robert's regaining his sight and hearing quickly spread in his area. And many doctors came to prove the truth of the news. Most of them said that he gained sight and hearing again obviously from the knock of lightning; none of them could give convincing reasons, however. The only reasonable explanation given by one doctor was that, since Edwards lost his sight and hearing as a result of sudden shock in a terrible accident, perhaps the only way for them to regain was by another sudden shock. What was Edwards doing when he was struck by the lightning? A) Hiding from the rain under a tree. B) Driving a car. C) Taking a walk D) lying on the ground
(Answer)
A


(Question)
Recently, an almost literal case of lifeboat ethics  occurred. On Aug. 4, Graham and Sheryl Anley, while boating off the coast of South Africa, hit a rock. As the boat threatened to sink the husband got off, but his wife was trapped in the boat. Instead of freeing his wife and getting her to shore, Graham grabbed Rosie, their pet dog. With Rosie safe and sound, Graham returned for Sheryl. All are doing fine. It's a great story, but it doesn't strike me as especially newsworthy. News is supposed to be about something fairly unique, and recent research suggests that, in the right circumstances, lots of people also would have grabbed their Rosie first. We have strange relationships with our pets. We lavish our pets with adoration and better health care than billions of people receive. We speak to pets with the same high-pitched voices that we use for babies. As an extreme example of our feelings about pets, the Nazis had strict laws that guaranteed the humane treatment of the pets of Jews being shipped to death camps. A recent paper by George Regents University demonstrates this human involvement with pets to an astonishing extent. Participants in the study were told a situation in which a bus is out of control, bearing down on a dog and a human. Which do you save? With responses from more than 500 people, the answer was that it depended: What kind of human and what kind of dog? Everyone would save a brother, grandparent or close friend rather than a strange dog. But when people considered their own dog versus people less connected with them--a distant cousin or a hometown stranger--votes in favor of saving the dog came rolling in. And an astonishing 40% of respondents, including 46% of women, voted to save their dog over a foreign tourist. What does a finding like this mean? First, that your odds aren't so good if you find yourself in another country with a bus bearing down on you and a cute dog. But it also points to something deeper: our unprecedented  attitude toward animals, which got its start with the... What does the author mainly argue for? A) Pets are of great significance to us human beings. B) We should rethink about our attitude towards animals and mankind. C) It is kind of human beings to extend humaneness to animals. D) We should be selective when showing attitude toward other human beings.
(Answer)

B