44.He has made it clear ()he will never go back on his word.

3. Passage ElevenDoctors say anger can be an extremely damaging emotion， unless you learn how to deal with it.They warn that anger can lead to heart disease， stomach problems， headaches， emotional problems and breast cancer.Anger is a normal emotion that we all feel from time to time.Some people express anger openly in a calm and reasonable way.Others burst with anger， screaming and yelling.But still others keep their anger inside.They cannot or will not express it.This is called (repressing)anger.For years some doctors claim that both repressing and expressing anger can be dangerous.They say that in both situations the brain of an angry person releases the same hormones (荷尔蒙).They spend the heart rate， raise blood pressure or sugar level in the blood.As a result， the angry person feels excited and is ready to react.The violent reaction may lead to high blood pressure.However， some other doctors argue that repressing anger is more dangerous to a person’s health than expressing it.They believe that those who keep their anger inside may face a greater danger of heart disease.Most doctors agree that it is important to learn how to deal with anger.They say the first step is to admit that you are angry and recognize the real cause of the anger， then decide if the cause is serious enough to get angry about.If so， you should not express your anger immediately and try to wait until your anger has cooled down， so that you are able to express yourself calmly and reasonably.They also believe that a good way to deal with anger is to find humor in the situation that has made you angry.After all， it is much healthier to laugh than to get angry.The best way to deal with anger is ().

43.The government should come up with a better solution to the problems caused by the high price of petrol.

2. Passage Thirty-FourMuch unfriendly feeling towards computers has been based on the fear of widespread unemployment resulting from their introduction.Computers are often used as part of automated (自动化的)production systems requiring a least possible number of operators， causing the loss of many jobs.This has happened， for example， in many steelworks.On the other hand， computers do create jobs.They are more skilled and better paid， though fewer in number than those they replace.Many activities could not continue in their present form without computers， no matter how many people are employed.Examples are the check clearing (交换)system of major banks and the weather forecasting system.When a firm introduces computers， a few people are usually employed in key posts (such as jobs of operations managers)while other staff are re-trained as operators， programmers， and data preparation staff.After the new system has settled down， people in non-computer jobs are not always replaced when they leave， resulting in a decrease in the number of employees.This decrease is sometimes balanced by a substantial increase in the activity of the firm， resulting from the introduction of computers.The attitudes of workers towards computers vary.There is fear of widespread unemployment and of the takeover of many jobs by computer-trained workers， making promotion for older workers not skilled in computers more difficult.On the other hand， many workers regard the trend toward wider use of computers inevitable.They realize that computers bring about greater efficiency and productivity， which will improve the condition of the whole economy， and lead to the creation of more jobs.This view was supported by the former British Prime Minister， James Callaghan in 1954， when he made the point that new technologies hold the key to increased productivity， which will benefit the economy in the long run.The word “They” in paragraph 2 refers to ().

39. Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage.Recognizing when a friend or colleague feels sad， angry or surprised is key to getting along with others.But a new study suggests that being sensitive to people’s feelings may sometimes come with an extra dose of stress.This and other research challenge the prevailing view that emotional intelligence is uniformly beneficial to its bearer.In a study， Psychologist Myriam Bechtoldt of the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management in Germany asked 166 male university students a series of question to measure their emotional intelligence.For example， they showed the students photographs of people’s faces and ask them to what extent feelings such as happiness or disgust were being expressed.The students then had to give job talks in front of judges who displayed serious facial expressions.The scientists measured concentrations of stress hormones in the students’ saliva (唾液)before and after the talk.In students who were rated more emotionally intelligent， the stress measures increased more during the experiment and took longer to go back to baseline.The findings suggest that some people may be too emotionally clever for their own good， says Bechtoldt.“Sometimes you can be so good at something that it causes trouble，” she notes.Indeed， the study adds to previous research hinting at a dark side of emotional intelligence.A study published in 2002 in Personality and Individual Differences suggested that emotionally perceptive people might be particularly influenced by feelings of depression and hopelessness.Furthermore， several studies have implied that emotional intelligence can be used to manipulate others for personal gains.
More research is needed to see how exactly the relation between emotional intelligence and stress would play out in women and in people of different ages and education levels.Nevertheless， emotional intelligence is a useful skill to have， as long as you learn to also properly cope with emotions—both others’ and your own， says Bechtoldt.For example， some sensitive individuals may assume responsibility for other people’s sadness or anger， which ultimately stresses them out.Remember， as Bechtoldt says， “you are not responsible for how other people feel.”What do we learn about emotional intelligence from a number of studies?

A. 　People suffering from depression are emotionally immature.

B. 　People who look at the dark side of life often feel depressed.

C. 　Some people may take advantage of it and benefit themselves.

D. 　Some people may lack it and are easily manipulated by others.

31. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What are big houses promoted to be in the United States?

A. 　A luxury for the homeless.

B. 　A reward for industriousness.

C. 　An abundant source of comforts.

D. 　An absolute necessity for happiness.

4. Passage Twenty-SixToday just as technology changed the face of industry， farmers have undergone an “agricultural revolution”.On the farm of today， machines provide all the power.One of the most important benefits will be the farm computer.A few forward-looking farmers are already using computers to help them run their farms more efficiently.The computers help them keep more accurate records， so they can make better decisions on what crops to plant， how much livestock to buy， when to sell their products， and how much profit they can expect.Many computer companies have been developing special computer programs just for farmers.Programs are being written for hog (猪)producers， grain farmers， potato farmers， and dairy farmers.In the future， farmers will be able to purchase computer programs made to their needs.Because of the growing importance of computers on the farm， students at agricultural colleges are required to take computer classes in addition to their normal agricultural courses.There can be no doubt that farmers will rely on computers even more in the future.While the old-time farm depended on horse power， and modern farms depend on machine power， farms of the future will depend on computer power.Another technological advance which is still in the experimental stage is the robot， a real “mechanized hired hand” that will be able to move and， in some ways， think like a human being.Agricultural engineers believe that computer-aided robots will make startling changes in farming before the end of the century.Unlike farmers of the present， farmers of the future will find that many day-to-day tasks will be done for them.Scientists are now developing robots that will be able to shear (修剪)sheep， drive tractors， and harvest fruit.Even complex jobs will be done by robots.For example， in order to milk their cows， farmers must first drive them into the special barn (畜棚)， then connect them to the milking machines， watch the machines， and disconnect them when they are finished.In the future， this will all be done by robots.In addition， when the milking is completed， the robots will automatically check to make sure that the milk is pure.The complete mobilization of the farm is far in the future， but engineers expect that some robots will be used before long.According to the engineers， ()will be done by robots in the near future.

34. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What kind of social system does the author think is unacceptable?

A. 　One in which the wealthy exploit the low-wage laborers building their houses.

B. 　One in which the rich purchase amenities at an increasingly unjustifiable price.

C. 　One in which the upper classes deprive the lower classes of affordable housing.

D. 　One in which the affluent enjoy a more comfortable life at the expense of the poor.

35. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What does the author advocate for people to live well?

A. 　Finding ways to turn private spaces into public ones.

B. 　Building more houses affordable to those less affluent.

C. 　More public spaces created for everyone to enjoy.

D. 　All amenities made accessible to the rich and the poor alike.

2. Passage Twenty-SevenOut of all the students who enroll in a massive open online course (MOOC)， only about 5 percent complete the course and receive a certificate of accomplishment.This statistic is often cited as evidence that MOOCs are fatally flawed (有缺陷的)and offer little educational value to most students.Yet more than 80 percent of students who fill out a post-course survey say they met their primary objective.How do we look at these two facts? We’re used to focusing on completion rates in higher education， but they’re not the only—or even the most meaningful—indicator of engagement in open online courses.With no cost to enroll， no punishment for dropping out， and little reward for actually earning a certificate， MOOCs are fundamentally different from traditional classes—and students use them in fundamentally different ways.Data from more than 1.8 million students enrolled in 36 MOOCs offered by the University of Pennsylvania show that students treat MOOCs like a buffet (自助餐)， sampling the material according to their interests and career goals.Some are curious about the subject matter and just watch one or two video lectures; others use the discussion forums to connect with their intellectual peers around the world.Of all enrolled students， nearly 60 percent watch at least one video， complete at least one assignment， or post at least once in a forum.So focusing on the tiny fraction of students who complete a MOOC is misguided.The more important number is the 60 percent engagement rate.Students may not finish a MOOC with a certificate of accomplishment， but the courses nonetheless meet the educational goals of millions.In Para.2， the author stresses ().

39.He’s English ()although he was born in France.

A. 　at birth

B. 　from birth

C. 　by birth

D. 　in a birth