12-22 Trace a sample of shipping documents to entry in the sales journal. （a) Identidy whether it is a test of control or a substantive test of transaction. （b) Identidy the transaction-related audit

根据下列短文，回答下列各题。 In the college-admissions wars, we parents are the true fighters. Were pushing our kids to get good grades, take SAT preparatory courses and build resunes so they can get into the college of our first choice. Fee twice been to the wars, and as I survey the battlefield, something different is happening. We see our kids college background as a prize demonstrating how well weve raised them. But we cant acknowledge that our obsession (痴迷) is more about us than them. So weve contrived various justifications that turn out to be half-truths, prejudices or myths. It actually doesnt matter much whether Aaron and Nicole go to Stanford. We have a full-blown prestige panic; we worry that there wont be enough prizes to go around. Fearful parents urge their children to apply to more schools than ever. Underlying the hysteria (歇斯底里) is the belief that scarce elite degrees must be highly valuable. Their graduates must enjoy more success because they get a better education and develop better contacts. All that is plausible-and mostly wrong. We havent found any convincing evidence that selectivity or prestige matters. Selective schools dont systematically employ better instructional approaches than less selective schools. On two measures---professors feedback and the number of essay exams---selective schools do slightly worse. By some studies, "selective schools do enhance their graduates lifetime earnings. The gain is reckoned at 2-4% for every 100-point increase in a schools average SAT scores. But even this advantage is probably a statistical fluke (偶然). A well-known study examined students who got into highly selective schools and then went elsewhere. They earned just as much as graduates from higher-status schools. Kids count more than their colleges. Getting into Yale may signify intelligence, talent and ambition. But its not the only indicator and, paradoxically, its significance is declining. The reason: so many similar people go elsewhere. Getting into college isnt lifes only competition. In the next competition---the job market and graduate school--the results may change. Old-boy networks are breaking down. Princeton economist Alan Krueger studied admissions to one top Ph.D. program. High scores on the GRE helped explain who got in; degrees of prestigious universities didnt. So, parents, lighten up. The stakes have been vastly exaggerated. Up to a point, we can rationalize our pushiness. America is a competitive society; our kids need to adjust to that. But too much pushiness can be destructive. The very ambition we impose on our children may get some into Harvard but may also set them up for disappointment. One study found that, other things being equal, graduates of highly selective schools experienced more job dissatisfaction. They may have been so conditioned to being on top that anything less disappoints. Why does the author say that parents are the true fighters in the college-admissions wars?

A.They have the final say in which university their children are to attend.

B.They know best which universities are most suitable for their children.

C.They have to carry out intensive surveys of colleges before children make an application.

D.They care more about which college their children go to than the children themselves.

Passage Two

Questions 57 to 61 are based on the following passage.

In the college-admissions wars, we parents are the true fights. We are pushing our kids to get good grades, take SAT preparatory courses and build resumes so they can get into the college of our first choice. I’ve twice been to the wars, and as I survey the battlefield, something different is happening. We see our kids’ college background as e prize demonstrating how well we’ve raised them. But we can’t acknowledge that our obsession(痴迷) is more about us than them. So we’ve contrived various justifications that turn out to be half-truths, prejudices or myths. It actually doesn’t matter much whether Aaron and Nicole go to Stanford.

We have a full-blown prestige panic; we worry that there won’t be enough prizes to go around. Fearful parents urge their children to apply to more schools than ever. Underlying the hysteria(歇斯底里) is the belief that scarce elite degrees must be highly valuable. Their graduates must enjoy more success because they get a better education and develop better contacts. All that is plausible——and mostly wrong. We haven’t found any convincing evidence that selectivity or prestige matters. Selective schools don’t systematically employ better instructional approaches than less selective schools. On two measures——professors’ feedback and the number of essay exams——selective schools do slightly worse.

By some studies, selective schools do enhance their graduates’ lifetime earnings. The gain is reckoned at 2-4% for every 100-poinnt increase in a school’s average SAT scores. But even this advantage is probably a statistical fluke(偶然). A well-known study examined students who got into highly selective schools and then went elsewhere. They earned just as much as graduates from higher-status schools.

Kids count more than their colleges. Getting into yale may signify intellgence, talent and

Ambition. But it’s not the only indicator and, paradoxically, its significance is declining. The reason: so many similar people go elsewhere. Getting into college is not life only competiton. Old-boy networks are breaking down. princeton economist Alan Krueger studied admissions to one top Ph.D. program. High scores on the GRE helpd explain who got in; degrees of prestigious universities didn’t.

So, parents, lighten up. the stakes have been vastly exaggerated. up to a point, we can rationalize our pushiness. America is a competitive society; our kids need to adjust to that. but too much pushiness can be destructive. the very ambition we impose on our children may get some into Harvard but may also set them up for disappointment. one study found that, other things being equal, graduates of highly selective schools experienced more job dissatisfaction. They may have been so conditioned to deing on top that anything less disappoints.

注意此部分试题请在答题卡2上作答。

57.Why dose the author say that parents are the true fighters in the college-admissions wars?

A. They have the final say in which university their children are to attend.

B. They know best which universities are most suitable for their children.

C. they have to carry out intensive surveys of colleges before children make an application.

D. they care more about which college their children go to than the children themselves.

Questions are based on the following passage．

In the 1960s and 1970s， classic social psychological studies were conducted thatprovided evidence that even normal， decent people can engage in acts of extreme crueltywhen instructed to do so by others. However， in an essay published November 20 in theopen access journal PLOS Biology， Professors Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher revisitthese studies" conclusions and explain how awful acts involve not just obedience， butenthusiasm too——-challenging the long-held belief that human beings are "programmed"for conformity.

This belief can be traced back to two landmark empirical research （ 实证研究 ）programs conducted by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo in the 1960s and early1970s. Milgram"s "Obedience to Authority" research is widely believed to show thatpeople blindly conform. to the instructions of an authority figure， and Zimbardo"sStanfordPrison Experiment （SPE） is commonly understood to show that people will take onabusive roles uncritically.

However， Professor Haslam， from the University of Queensland， argues that tyrannydoes not result from blind conformity to rules and roles. Rather， it is a creative act offollowership， resulting from identifying with authorities who represent vicious （恶意的 ）acts as virtuous （ 善良的 ） .

"Decent people participate in horrific acts not because they become passive，mindless functionaries （公职人员 ） who do not know what they are doing， but ratherbecause they come to believe——typically under the influence of those in authority——thatwhat they are doing is right，" Professor Haslam explained.

Professor Reicher， of the University of St Andrews， added that it is not that theywere blind to the evil acts they were committing， but rather that they knew what they weredoing， and believed it to be right.

These conclusions were partly informed by Professors Haslam and Reicher"s ownprison experiment， conducted in 2002 in collaboration with the BBC. The study generatedthree findings. First， participants did not conform. automatically to their assigned role;second， they only acted in terms of group membership to the extent that they identifiedwith the group; and finally， group identity did not mean that people simply accepted theirassigned position——it also empowered them to resist it.

Although Zimbardo and Milgram"s findings remain highly influential， ProfessorHaslam argues that their conclusions do not hold up well under close empirical scrutiny.

Professor Reicher concludes that tyranny does not flourish because offendersare helpless and ignorant; it flourishes because they are convinced that they are doingsomething worthy.

What does the author mean by saying "human beings are ‘programmed‘for conformity" （Line 6， Para. I）? 查看材料

A.Human beings are designed to defy the instructions of others.

B.Human beings are forced to listen to the advice of others.

C.Human beings are ordered to take advice of others.

D.Human beings are made to be obedient to others.

In his job as sales support associate , Cal helps four busy salespeople at a company that sells flooring , wallpaper ,

and countertop materials for kitchens and bathrooms. The

company , Floors &. More , has four locations , each in a different city.

All the salespeople have cubicles , though they spend most of their time madding sales presentations in people's homes. Cal's job is to process the salespeople's orders. When a

problem - such as a back order - comes up. he puts his paperwork back on the appropriate person' s desk. Cal has anyone suggested that he do so. He sometimes runs out of things to do. When that happens , he waits in a cubicle until something comes up.

In the showroom , the receptionist. Angelica. also has a cubicle. Angelica answers all incoming calls. The phone rings 10 to 20 times per hour. Most calls are for the salespeople. Angelica takes messages (usually just a name and number) for the absent salespeople. If showroom customers have a question. they often must wait until angelica is between phone calls. Sometimes. if a caller isn't someone she knows , she puts the call on hold and answers

a question with the phone resting on her shoulder.

Occasionally customers in the showroom approach Cal with a question. Sometimes he just says , "I' m not a salesperson; I can't help you." At other times. Cal tells them they'll have to wait for Angelica or make an appointment with one of the salespeople. The salespeople , however ， do not have telephones with them when they are out of the

showroom , and Angelica does not schedule appointments for them.

26. What does Cal do as a sales support associate?

A. He sells materials to salespeople.

B. He processes the salespeople' s orders.

C. He makes arrangements with customers.

27. Which of the following is true about Cal?

A. He helps dozens of salespeople.

B. He offers rewards to salespeople.

C. He presents the problem to the appropriate people.

28. Which of the following is NOT Angelica' s job?

A. Answering calls.

B. Leaving messages.

C. scheduling appointments.

29. Customers in the showroom Cal.

A. sometimes inquire

B. always meet

C. never talk to

30. Cal is Angelica's ( ).

A. external customer

B. internal customer

C.service provider