The chemical bond that keeps stability of primary structure of protein is

Do other animals besides humans cry? The answer to the question is ‘Yes, and no’. All animals with mobile eyes have the ability to cry, just as we humans do. They have a tearing system that keeps their eyes wet so as to protect them from dry sand, dusts, and other elements. People often tell tales of animals such as elephants and dogs weeping when punished. However, even if such an animal does shed tears, there is no scientific evidence that the animal is expressing the tear-related emotions similar to those when humans cry. But what about when a baby chimp or ape whimpers and screams when it’s being separated from its mother, can we say with some certainty that the animal is crying? Taking away the babies does encourage care-giving such as feeding and protecting from the mother apes, but it is uncertain whether the baby apes feel the same way as baby humans do when they cry. In fact, it’s not clear that crying and other emotional displays mean exactly the same thing to all humans. For instance, there is a wide range of emotions that prompt people to cry, and some kinds of weeping, such as crying at a stranger’s wedding, seem to be cultural responses. In addition, some people are autistic. That means they prefer being alone than being with other people, especially in large crowds. These people are said to have less ability in expressing their emotions, but research also has shown that it’s more that their expressions and their reactions to the emotional expressions of others are unusual. Different. But does that mean that their sadness is different somehow? So even if apes can be said with some certainty to be feeling emotions, then there is the problem of figuring out to what extent what they feel resembles what humans feel.

10.What does the author mean by “Yes, and no” in line 1, paragraph 1?

A. Other animals besides humans cry

B. No other animals besides humans cry

C. Animals cry but do not cry like humans

D. Animals cry but humans do not cry

11.Which of the following statement is true?

A. All animals have mobile eyes

B. All animals have a tearing system

C. Tearing system keeps animals’ eyes wet

D. Animals cry when being punished

12.Baby chimps or apes cry because__________.

A. they are being separated from their mothers

B. the reason is not clear

C. they feel the same way as baby humans do

D. they need to be fed and protected

13.Why human beings cry?

A. There a wide range of reasons.

B. People cry because they attend a stranger’s wedding.

C. Crying means exactly the same thing to all humans.

D. Because of cultural responses.

14.It can be inferred from the passage that __________.

A. it is uncertain to say to what extent apes feel the same emotions as humans

B. it is sure that apes can feel emotions

C. some people prefer being alone because they’re not good at communication

D. people’s emotions are different

The Next Society

The new economy may or may not materialize, but there is no doubt that the next society will be with us shortly. In the developed world, and probably in the emerging countries as well, this new society will be a good deal more important than the new economy (if any). It will be quite different from the society of the late 20th century, and also different from what most people expect. Much of it will be unprecedented. And most of it is already here, or is rapidly emerging.

In the developed countries, the dominant factor in the next society will be something to which most people are only just beginning to pay attention: the rapid growth in the older population and the rapid shrinking of the younger generation. Politicians everywhere still promise to save the existing pension system, but they--and their constituents--know perfectly well that in another 25 years people will have to keep working until their mid-70s, health permitting.

What has not yet sunk in is that a growing number of older people--say those over 50--will not keep on working as traditional full time nine-to-five employees, but will participate in the labor force in many new and different ways: as temporaries, as part-timers, as consultants on special assignments, and so on. What used to be personnel and are now known as human resources departments still assume that those who work for an organization are full-time employees. Employment laws and regulations are based on the same assumption. Within 20 or 25 years, however, perhaps as many as half the people who work for an organization will not be employed by it, certainly not on a full-time basis. This will be especially true for older people. New ways of working with people at arm's length will increasingly become the central managerial issue of employing organizations, and not just of businesses.

The shrinking of the younger population will cause an even greater upheaval, if only because nothing like this has happened since the dying centuries of the Roman Empire. In every single developed country, but also in China and Brazil, the birth rate is now well below the replacement rate of 2.2 live births per woman of reproductive age. Politically, this means that immigration will become an important and highly divisive issue in all rich countries. It will cut across all traditional political alignments. Economically, the decline in the young population will change markets in fundamental ways. Growth in family formation has been the driving force of all domestic markets in the developed world, but the rate of family formation is certain to fall steadily unless bolstered by large-scale immigration of younger people. The homogeneous mass market that emerged in all rich countries after the Second World War has been youth-determined from the start. It will now become middle-age-determined, or perhaps more likely it will split into two: a middle-age-determined mass market and a much smaller youth-determined one. And because the supply of young people will shrink, creating new employment patterns to attract and hold the growing number of older people (especially older educated people) will become increasingly important.

Knowledge is all

The next society will be a knowledge society. Knowledge will be its key resource, and knowledge workers will be the dominant group in its workforce. Its three main characteristics will be:

-- Borderlessness, because knowledge travels even more effortlessly than money.

-- Upward mobility, available to everyone through easily acquired formal education.

-- The potential for failure as well as success. Anyone can acquire the "means of production",

i. e, the knowledge required for the job, but not everyone can win.

Together, those three characteristics will make the knowledge society a highly competitive one, for organizations and individuals al

A．Y

B．N

C．NG

You (Li Jianhua) are the secretary of the sales manager It is your responsibility to write a letter to a customer Mr. Jack Jones. You inform. him that you have received his order for five X brand microwave stove. The product is not available at present. But you will keep him informed when the goods come onto the market. Pay attention to the format of the letter.

Advertising and Public Relations: The Pretty Package

Back in 1960, when the role of advertising and public relations in politics first became apparent, Life magazine quoted one campaign strategist as saying, "I can elect any person to office if he has $60,000, an IQ of at least 120, and can keep his mouth shut."

Since the 1896 campaign, the election of a President has been determined largely by the ability of information specialists to generate favorable publicity. In recent years that publicity has been supplanted(代替) by heavy spot buying on electronic media.

So many factors are involved in choosing a President that it is hard to say with any real empirical confidence how important any single medium is. The most talked-about medium in American politics is television. Highly publicized debates between candidates in 1960, 1976, and 1980 appear to have affected the outcomes. Richard Nixon(the early favorite) would probably not have lost to Kennedy if it were not for his poor showing on TV. Similarly, the 1976 debates probably clinched Jimmy Carter's narrow victory over Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan appeared to be the victor in the 1980 debates.

Yet there were other elections where, according to political analyst Edward Chester, no amount of TV exposure could have changed the outcome. Goldwater versus Johnson in 1964 and Nixon versus McGovern in 1972, both cases contain overwhelming winning. Television commercials seem to work best in close elections or in those where there is a large undecided vote. According to the Associated Press, Ford's TV spots during the 1976 campaign probably swung over 100,000 undecided voters a clay during the last few months of the campaign.

What effect does television have on the candidates themselves? It establishes orders of importance that are different from those of an earlier day. The physical appearance of the candidate is increasingly important. Does he or she look fit, well-rested, secure? Losing candidates like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Richard Nixon all seemed to look "bad" on TV. Nixon overcame this problem in 1972 with ads that featured longer shots of him being "presidential"—flying off to China. Close-ups were avoided.

Both John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter seemed more at time with the medium, perhaps because both were youthful, informal, and physically active outdoor types. Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson seemed to have a paternal, fatherly image on the small screen. All of the recent Presidents have learned how to use the medium to their advantage, to "stage" events so as to receive maximum favorable coverage.

Television has changed the importance of issues. It can be argued that since the 1960 presidential debates we have elected people, not platforms. This is a major departure from earlier years. Franklin Roosevelt's radio charm cannot be denied, but he came to power with great success by one issue—the Great Depression.

All the print information we now receive is simpler and more condensed than ever before. Issues and print go together. Television is images, not issues. We develop a more personal, emotional feeling about the candidates. Jimmy Carter's spectacular rise to power was a testament to this new image orientation. No one really knew what he was going to do when he took office, since his entire campaign had been geared toward developing a relationship of trust with the electorate, "Trust me," he said. "I'll never lie to you."

Another example was the election of Reagan in 1980. For some this represented the ultimate television victory. After all, what other country can claim that it has actually elected an actor President? It can be argued that Americans were tired of Carter and that Reagan simply offered an alternative. Yet throughout the campaign he offered us a media "vision" of a "shining city on a hill." And what about h

A．Y

B．N

C．NG