六级考前冲刺

６级考前冲刺试题二Dogs Make Employees More Productive At WorkLeib Lurie never intended for his company, message delivery service One Call Now, to be pet-friendly. But his dog, Ivy, had other ideas.Five years ago, the German shepherd showed up unannounced at One Call Now‟s Troy, Ohio-based office—a 1.5-mile trek from Lurie‟s home. When he continued to make the trip each day he wasn‟t brought to the office, Lurie realized it was time for a change in company policy. Today, four or five employee‟s dogs, as well as a variety of fish, birds, and other caged animals join Ivy in the office daily to make One Call Now a workingman‟s menagerie (动物园).“They‟re not very good at sending voice messages,” Lurie jokes of the pets in his office. “But we‟ve gotten them down with using the computer, at least the point part.”One Call Now joins a growing force of companies across the United States to welcome pets in the workplace. While only 17 percent of U.S. employers currently allow animals in the workplace, according to a survey from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, pet-friendly, often specifically dog-friendly, environments are building steam. From major companies like Google, Zynga, and to growing start-ups, more and more canine companions are showing up to work.For many entrepreneurs, the inception of a dog-friendly environment begins long before offices enter the picture. “My dog, Blueberry, was the founding dog,” explains Randy Hetrik, founder of TRX Training. “Literally, it was him and me before any other people came in, so he takes great pride in what we‟ve accomplished.” As Hetrik built his company, he never forgot his first partner. Today, up to ten dogs wander with Blueberry through the four floors of TRX‟s San Francisco office.Many pet-friendly work environments develop as a part of the company‟s larger mission or company culture. After spending years in uptight corporate climates, Nancy Squires founded her own consulting firm, The Squires Group, with a distinctly homey atmosphere, which included her two Italian greyhounds.Marketing software company G5‟s dog-friendliness fits into the animal-friendly climate of their mountain town Bend, Oregon, as well as the company‟s own cultural backbone. “We try to have a culture that promotes freedom for the employees and helps them thrive,” says G5 CEO Dan Hobin. “If that involves bringing your dog to work, bring your dog to work.”Having dogs underfoot might seem to some like a distraction, but advocates of animals in the workplace see quite the opposite. Dogs in the office foster friendlier, more collaborative work environments. At G5, this includes dogs posing as mascots for the company‟s various divisions. “Everyone rallies around the dogs,” Hobin says.Employees surrounded by dogs also have a tendency to rally around their jobs. According to a survey of 50 small and large companies by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association in 2008, companies that allow pets in the workplace see a lower rate of employee absenteeism (旷工) and more willingness to work longer hours.“There are a lot of people who know they have to spend extra hours at work, particularly in this economic climate,”says Debrah Schnackenberg, vice president of emergency services for the American Humane Association. “People feel comfortable spending that extra hour or two at the office when they know their dog is right there with them.”Dog-friendliness may generate more loyalty for the company as a whole. In the last two years, One Call Now has seen a two or three percent turnover rate. Lurie attributes this small number in part to the office pets. “You ask someone who is in a $12-an-hour job, …W ould you work anywhere else?‟And they say, …No way.‟ Where else could I bring my dog to work?” he says.This sense of loyalty stems from a simple concept: Dogs make people happy. “They‟re always happy to see you, they‟re happy for the smallest things, and they‟re ever optimistic,”says Hetrik. “Having a dog wandering around just seems to make people smile.”In high-performance or high-stress work environments, dogs can not only spread smiles but also ease tension. Taking a walk, practicing a trick, or even absentmindedly scratching a dog behind the ear allows even the most worked-up employee to relax and reprioritize. “It‟s their cigarette,” says Squires. “The dogs are a sense of peace, gentleness, a diversion, something other than what we define as work.I think it‟s a great break.”And, a dog break is certainly healthier than a smoke break. Numerous studies have shown that having the companionship or even being in the presences of a pet, for instance in the workplace, lowers blood pressure and cortisol levels while heightening endorphins and oxytocin, the hormone linked to maternal bonding. Such an emotional connection is healthy for your dog as well. “Dogs bond to their humans and would rather be with them than not,”says Schnackenberg. “From an emotional well-being perspective, it‟s healthy for a dog to be with their owner throughout the day.”With their many attributes and benefits, dogs play a critical role in pet-friendly company‟s hiring processes. All of the aforementioned companies and many more like them use their dogs in the interview process to introduce potential employees to the corporate climate. Their reactions to the animals also serve as a compatibility test. “I‟ve never met a dog-friendly person who wasn‟t a customer-friendly person,” says Lurie. “And we hire customer-friendly people.”The dog un-friendly or the allergenic, however, need not apply.“You try to build a company of people who can rally around a vision, and dogs play a part of that,” Hetrik says. “People who look at that and say how stinky or hairy or whatever probably aren‟t people that are going to mold well into the casual, rough and tumble, work hard, play hard work environment that I‟ve created.”The Squires Group maintains a similar mantra (口号). “If people don‟t do dogs, there may be another part of the company they don‟t do,” Squires says. “I‟m not saying they‟re bad people or that they wouldn‟t be great for other companies, but they wouldn‟t fit our company greatly.”Companies considering introducing a dog-friendly work environment should consider adopting a pet policy. When advising companies in this transition, the American Human Association suggests highlighting clear rules about when you can bring your dog in, what behavior is expected, and what happens when the pet or person does not conform to those rules.Many small companies adopt these advised policies, but govern their pets in a more ad hoc (非正式的) manner. After a few minor “accidents,” G5‟s HR Department developed a detailed pet policy to include in the company handbook. “I don‟t think I actually ever read it,”admits Hobin. “In short, though, the policy is to be responsible and respectful.”At TRX, dogs are under the same considerations as people. “You wouldn‟t tolerate a lot of barking, snapping and snarling from the people you work with,”Hetrik says. “Neither should you tolerate it from the canine pals they bring to work. We‟re pretty clear on all that.” Growing companies should also be flexible to changing the stipulations in their policy as they develop.Adjustments to the TRX pet policy are under consideration as the company intends to expand its workforce from 120 to 300 employees. The company may introduce a sign-up, limiting the total number of dogs to the current two to three per floor. No matter the changes, though, dogs will remain a fixture in the company.“Dogs were part of the fabric from the very beginning,” says Hetrik. “And they‟ll be here until the very end. I like having these pups around.”1. Leib Lurie realized he should change the company to be pet-friendly when _______.A) employees brought their pets to the officeB) his pet dog showed up in the office dailyC) he found dogs make employees more productiveD) his company moved to the office in the suburban2. What do we learn from the study by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association?A) Living environments for pet dogs have improved.B) Small companies tend to adopt dog-friendly policy.C) More businesses welcome pets in the workplace.D) Employees show a growing interest in raising pets.3. According to G5 CEO Dan Hobin, employees can bring their dogs to work as long as _______.A) they thrive with their dogs‟ company C) their dogs are friendly to customersB) they can keep the dogs from barking D) the office is located at a mountain town4. According to advocates of animals in the workplaces, dogs in the office _______.A) can attract employees‟ attention sometimesB) won‟t distract employees from their workC) force inefficient employees to work harderD) seldom pose a threat to other employees5. To some degree, the low turnover rate of One Call Now was attributed to _______.A) the relatively high pay C) its excellent conditionsB) the economic recession D) its pet-friendly policy6. What does Schnackenberg say about dogs‟ being with their owners throughout the day?A) It does great harm to their owners‟ health.B) It benefits dogs more than their owners.C) It is unrealistic in this economic climate.D) It is good for dogs‟ emotional well-being.7. Lurie believes that a dog-friendly person _______.A) is less likely to work efficiently C) is welcome in all companiesB) is a customer-friendly person D) is usually disloyal to the company8. According to Squires, people who don‟t like dogs are not ______________________________ for her company The Squires Group.9. The American Human Association advises companies to make and highlight ______________________________ in their transition to dog-friendly companies.10. TRX is considering ______________________________ its pet policy as it intends to increase thenumber of its employees.Section BPassage One Questions 52 to 56 are based on the following passage.We tend to think of the decades immediately following World War II as a time of prosperity and growth, with soldiers returning home by the millions, going off to college on the G.I. Bill and lining up at the marriage bureaus.But when it came to their houses, it was a time of common sense and a belief that less truly could be more. During the Depression and the war, Americans had learned to live with less, and that restraint, in combination with the postwar confidence in the future, made small, efficient housing positively stylish.Economic condition was only one stimulus for the trend toward efficient living. The phrase “less is more” was actually first popularized by a German, the architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, who like other people associated with the Bauhaus, a school of design, emigrated to the United States before World War II and took up posts at American architecture schools. These designers, including Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer, came to exert enormous influence on the course of American architecture, but none more so than Mies.Mies‟s signature phrase means that less decoration, properly deployed, has more impact than a lot. Elegance, he believed, did not derive from abundance. Like other modern architects, he employed metal, glass and laminated wood (胶合板)—materials that we take for granted today but that in the 1940s symbolized the future. Mies‟s sophisticated presentation masked the fact that the spaces he designed were small and efficient, rather than big and often empty.The apartments in the elegant towers Mies built on Chicago‟s Lake Shore Drive, for example, were smaller—two-bedroom units under 1,000 square feet—than those in their older neighbors along the city‟s Gold Coast. But they were popular because of their airy glass walls, the views they afforded and the elegance of the buildings‟ details and proportions, the architectural equivalent of the abstract art so popular at the time.The trend toward “less”was not entirely foreign. In the 1930s Frank Lloyd Wright started building more modest and efficient houses—usually around 1,200 square feet—than the sprawling two-story ones he had designed in the 1890s and the early 20th century.The “Case Study Houses” commissioned from talented modern architects by California Arts & Architecture magazine between 1945 and 1962 were yet another homegrown influence on the “less is more” trend. Aesthetic effect came from the landscape, new materials and forthright detailing. In his Case Study House, Ralph Rapson may have mispredicted just how the mechanical revolution would impact everyday life—few American families acquired helicopters, though most eventually got clothes dryers—but his belief that self-sufficiency was both desirable and inevitable was widely shared.52. The postwar American housing style largely reflected the Americans‟.A) efficiency and practicality C) restraint and confidenceB) prosperity and growth D) pride and faithfulness53. What can be inferred about Bauhaus from the third paragraph?A) It was founded by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.B) It had a great influence upon American architecture.C) Its designing concept was affected by World War II.D) Most American architects used to be associated with it.54. According to Mies, elegance of architectural design .A) was related to large space C) was identified with emptinessB) was not associated with efficiency D) was not reliant on abundant decoratio55. According to the passage, the apartments Mies built on Chicago‟s Lake Shore Drive .A) ignored details and proportionsB) were built with materials popular at that timeC) were more spacious than neighboring buildingsD) shared some characteristics of abstract art56. What do we learn about the design of the “Case Study House”?A) Natural scenes were taken into consideration.B) Mechanical devices were widely used.C) Details were sacrificed for the overall effect.D) Eco-friendly materials were employed.Passage TwoQuestions 57 to 61 are based on the following passage.Will the European Union make it? The question would have sounded strange not long ago. Now even the project‟s greatest cheerleaders talk of a continent facing a “Bermuda triangle”of debt, demographic decline and lower growth.As well as those chronic problems, the EU faces an acute crisis in its economic core, the 16 countries that use the single currency. Markets have lost faith that the euro zone‟s economies, weaker or stronger, will one day converge thanks to the discipline of sharing a single currency, which denies uncompetitive members the quick fix of devaluation.Yet the debate about how to save Europe‟s single currency from disintegration is stuck. It is stuck because the euro zone‟s dominant powers, France and Germany, agree on the need for greater harmonisation within the euro zone, but disagree about what to harmonise.Germany thinks the euro must be saved by stricter rules on borrowing, spending and competitiveness, backed by quasi-automatic (半自动的) sanctions for governments that stray. These might include threats to freeze EU funds for poorer regions and EU mega-projects, and even the suspension of a country‟s voting rights in EU ministerial councils. It insists that economic co-ordination should involve all 27 members of the EU club, among whom there is a small majority for free-market liberalism and economic rigour; in the inner core alone, Germany fears, a small majority favour French interference.A “southern”camp headed by France wants something different: “European economic government”within an inner core of euro-zone members. Translated, that means politiciansintervening in monetary policy and a system of redistribution from richer to poorer members, via cheaper borrowing for governments through common Eurobonds or complete fiscal transfers. Finally, figures close to the French government have murmured, euro-zone members should agree to some fiscal and social harmonisation: e.g., curbing competition in corporate-tax rates or labour costs.It is too soon to write off the EU. It remains the world‟s largest trading block. At its best, the European project is remarkably liberal: built around a single market of 27 rich and poor countries, its internal borders are far more open to goods, capital and labour than any comparable trading area. It is an ambitious attempt to blunt the sharpest edges of globalisation, and make capitalism kind and gentle.The problem is that the “European social model” has become, too often, a synonym (同义词) for a very expensive way of doing things. It has also become an end in itself, with some EU leaders calling for Europe to grow purely in order to maintain its social-welfare systems. That is a pretty depressing call to arms: become more dynamic so Europe can still afford old-age pensions and unemployment benefits.57. The EU is faced with so many problems that .A) it has more or less lost faith in marketsB) even its supporters begin to feel concernedC) some of its member countries start to abandon euroD) it intends to deny the possibility of devaluation58. The debate over the EU‟s single currency is stuck because the dominant powers .A) are competing for the leading positionB) are busy handling their own crisesC) fail to reach an agreement on harmonizationD) disagree on the steps towards disintegration59. To solve the euro problem, Germany proposes that .A) EU funds for poor regions be increasedB) stricter regulations be imposedC) only core members be involved in economic co-ordinationD) voting rights of the EU members be guaranteed60. The French proposal of handling the crisis implies that .A) poor countries are more likely to get fundsB) strict monetary policy will be applied to poor countriesC) loans will be readily available to rich countriesD) rich countries will basically control Eurobonds61. What does the author say about the “European social model”?A) It will come to an end very soon. C) It has been followed by many countries.B) It is supported by most EU leaders. D) It has become an expensive system.Part V Cloze (15 minutes)Despite the scandals over leaked e-mails, the scientific evidence for global warming remains strong. The question, then, is to what 62 have the controversies eroded(削弱) the public‟s trust in climate science or, worse, in the scientists themselves?There has 63 been some decline.64 , a closer look at the data across multiple polls shows that, broadly speaking, the public trusts scientists, believes in global warming and wants governments to do something about it. The public seems to have done what the mainstream media could not: it has kept 62. A) extent C) rangeB) level D) scope63. A) delightfully C) unreasonablyB) undoubtedly D) mysteriously64. A) However C) SimilarlyB) Anyway D) Instead65. A) impression C) consensusB) perspective D) retrospect66. A) with C) onB) to D) of67. A) informative C) exceptionalB) decisive D) relative68. A) function C) reflectthe scandals in 65 . The harsh verbal attacks 66 climate science and scientists are actually coming from a 67 handful of critics, and they do not 68 a broader revival of skepticism.Yet few climate scientists are likely to take 69 in this news. For them, the real70 of public trust is the level of political71 on global warming: if people truly believe the science, 72 why have so few of them demanded action of their governments? The problem is that people assess information from any number of 73 , not just scientists. And people make decisions on the 74 of self-interest and their own hopes, fears and values, which will not necessarily 75 what many researchers deem self-evident.The scientific community must recognize that the 76 surrounding climate change can produce responses in the public and politicians on many different levels. Facts 77 matter. Scientists must continue to engage the public in plain language, 78 the evidence for climate change in a clear and 79 way. And they must provide policy-makers with accurate, credible and 80 information. Scientists will be only as persuasive as they are trusted, which means that cultivating the public‟s trust must be the scientific community‟s top 81 .B) indicate D) reveal69. A) account C) noticeB) advantage D) satisfaction70. A) balance C) conceptB) measure D) estimate71. A) engagement C) interferenceB) agreement D) judgment72. A) even C) thenB) but D) or73. A) origins C) samplesB) resources D) sources74. A) basis C) spurB) threshold D) point75. A) embody C) matchB) correspond D) mingle76. A) incidents C) inferencesB) issues D) conflicts77. A) take C) carryB) get D) do78. A) lay over C) lay outB) lay aside D) lay down79. A) obliged C) compulsoryB) tempting D) compelling80. A) timely C) punctualB) simultaneous D) instant81. A) superiority C) urgencyB) priority D) prestigePart VI Translation (5 minutes) 82. She took a taxi to the station for fear that she __________ ________ _________ (错过去目的地城市的火车83. It is amazing that so many people ___________ __________ ______ (愿为社区的利益做义务工作).84. Here we should mention ______________________ _____ (他是否辞职没有太大影响).85. No one in the conference is against the suggestion ________________ _____ ______ (我们应该重视信息科技).86. I am writing to you to ______________ __________ (因让你失望而致歉).。