1. The lady staring a job to Australia
2. A short period of time
3. The lady use an address of her friend
4. It is free for initial 2 months
5. Jennifer Simmons
6. Address is :16 ocean drive
7. Post code: 17683213
8. 22 September
9. what does the woman want to send
10. A files D diving equipment
11. Tall ships
13. Live music
14. Meeting point
15. Silver winner of Olympic sailing will attend
16. Ships fromIndia
17. Air-sea rescue by police helicopters
18. Live music you can listen to the sailors’songs
19. Every 40 minutes
20. The impact of modern biological fishing
||单选 5 ，配对 5
21.what has ivory recently done? C spend a long time in lab
22.what’s the bill’s attitude of kin? A grateful to his contribution terrific
23.B not enough keeping in touch Kim
24.attitude to other members ? C project nearly finished
25.why Jen was invited to the project ? B she always finish reading her assignment
E literature review
31. Birds which are protected in cities
32. Method: we need to estimate
33. Methodology: mapping
34. Decide the trend for a time
38. Take recordings
39. In great distance
40. Wind farm
||段落信息配对题5 ,判断题5 , 选择题2
8. NOT GIVEN
10. NOT GIVEN
||段落大意7 ,摘要填空 2 ,配对题4
For hundreds of years, the mists and fogs of Britain’s major cities were all too often polluted and noxious, with London especially badly affected. The fogs endangered health and also posed a threat to travellers who lost their way and thus became an easy prey to robbers. Around 1807, the smoke-laden fog of the capital came to be known as a ‘London particular’, i.e. a London characteristic. Charles Dickens used the term in Bleak House (published in 1853) and provided graphic descriptions of London’s fogs in this and other novels.
The smoke-laden fog that shrouded the capital from Friday 5 December to Tuesday 9 December 1952 brought premature death to thousands and inconvenience to millions. An estimated 4,000 people died because of it, and cattle at Smithfield, were, the press reported, asphyxiated. Road, rail and air transport were almost brought to a standstill and a performance at the Sadler’s Wells Theatre had to be suspended when fog in the auditorium made conditions intolerable for the audience and performers. The death toll of about 4,000 was not disputed by the medical and other authorities, but exactly how many people perished as a direct result of the fog will never be known. Many who died already suffered from chronic respiratory or cardiovascular complaints. Without the fog, they might not have died when they did. The total number of deaths in Greater London in the week ending 6 December 1952 was 2,062, which was close to normal for the time of year. The following week, the number was 4,703. The death rate peaked at 900 per day on the 8th and 9th and remained above average until just before Christmas. Mortality from bronchitis and pneumonia increased more than sevenfold as a result of the fog. The fog of December 1952 was by no means the first to bring death and inconvenience to the capital.
On 27 December 1813 fog was so dense that the Prince Regent, having set out for Hatfield House, was forced to turn back at Kentish Town. The fog persisted for almost a week and on one day was so thick that the mail coach from London to Birmingham took seven hours to reach Uxbridge. Contemporary accounts tell of the fog being so thick that the other side of the street could not be seen. They also tell of the fog bearing a distinct smell of coal tar. After a similar fog during the week of 7-13 December 1873, the death rate in the Administrative County of London increased to 40 per cent above normal. Marked increases in death rate occurred, too, after the notable fogs of January 1880, February 1882, December 1891, December 1892 and November 1948. The worst affected area of London was usually the East End, where the density of factories and domestic dwellings was greater than almost anywhere else in the capital. The area was also low-lying, which inhibited fog dispersal.
In early December 1952, the weather was cold, as it had been for some weeks. The weather of November 1952 had been considerably colder than average, with heavy falls of snow in southern England towards the end of the month. To keep warm, the people of London were burning large quantities of coal in their grates. Smoke was pouring from the chimneys of their houses and becoming trapped beneath the inversion of an anticyclone that had developed over southern parts of the British Isles during the first week of December. Trapped, too, beneath this inversion were particles and gases emitted from factory chimneys in the London area, along with pollution which the winds from the east had brought from industrial areas on the continent. Early on 5 December in the London area, the sky was clear, winds were light and the air near the ground was moist. Accordingly, conditions were ideal for the formation of radiation fog. The sky was clear, so a net loss of long-wave radiation occurred and the ground cooled. The moist air in contact with the ground cooled to its dew-point temperature and condensation occurred.
Cool air drained katabatically into the Thames Valley. Beneath the inversion of the anticyclone, the very light wind stirred the saturated air upwards to form a layer of fog 100-200 metres deep. Along with the water droplets of the fog, the atmosphere beneath the inversion contained the smoke from innumerable chimneys in the London area and farther afield. Elevated spots such as Hampstead Heath were above the fog and grime. From there, the hills of Surrey and Kent could be seen. During the day on 5 December, the fog was not especially dense and generally possessed a dry, smoky character. When nightfall came, however, the fog thickened. Visibility dropped to a few metres. The following day, the sun was too low in the sky to make much of an impression on the fog. That night and on the Sunday and Monday nights, the fog again thickened. In many parts of London, it was impossible at night for pedestrians to find their way, even in familiar districts. In the Isle of Dogs, the visibility was at times nil. The fog there was so thick that people could not see their own feet! Even in the drier thoroughfares of central London, the fog was exceptionally thick. Not until 9 December did it clear. In central London, the visibility remained below 500 metres continuously for 114 hours and below 50 metres continuously for 48 hours. At Heathrow Airport, visibility remained below ten metres for almost 48 hours from the morning of 6 December. Huge quantities of impurities were released into the atmosphere during the period in question. On each day during the foggy period, the following amounts of pollutants were emitted: 1,000 tonnes of smoke particles, 2,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, 140 tonnes of hydrochloric acid and 14 tonnes of fluorine compounds. In addition, and perhaps most dangerously, 370 tonnes of sulphur dioxide were converted into 800 tonnes of sulphuric acid. At London’s County Hall, the concentration of smoke in the air increased from 0.49 milligrams per cubic metre on 4 December to 4.46 on the 7th and 8th.
Legislation followed the Great Smog of 1952 in the form of the City of London (Various Powers) Act of 1954 and the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968. These Acts banned emissions of black smoke and decreed that residents of urban areas and operators of factories must convert to smokeless fuels. As these residents and operators were necessarily given time to convert, however, fogs continued to be smoky for some time after the Act of 1956 was passed. In 1962, for example, 750 Londoners died as a result of a fog, but nothing on the scale of the 1952 Great Smog has ever occurred again.
||摘要填空5 ,选择5 ,判断4
The Art of Deception
However much we may abhor it, deception comes naturally to all living things. Birds do it by feigning injury to lead hungry predators away from nesting young. Spider crabs do it by disguise: adorning themselves with strips of kelp and other debris, they pretend to be something they are not–and so escape their enemies. Nature amply rewards successful deceivers by allowing them to survive long enough to mate and reproduce. So it may come as no surprise to learn that human beings–who, according to psychologist Gerald Jellison of the University of South California, are lied to about 200 times a day, roughly one untruth every five minutes–often deceive for exactly the same reasons: to save their own skins or to get something they can’t get by other means.
But knowing how to catch deceit can be just as important a survival skill as knowing how to tell a lie and get away with it. A person able to spot falsehood quickly is unlikely to be swindled by an unscrupulous business associate or hoodwinked by a devious spouse. Luckily, nature provides more than enough clues to trap dissemblers in their own tangled webs–if you know where to look. By closely observing facial expressions, body language and tone of voice, practically anyone can recognize the telltale signs of lying. Researchers are even programming computers–like those used on Lie Detector–to get at the truth by analyzing the same physical cues available to the naked eye and ear. “With the proper training, many people can learn to reliably detect lies,” says Paul Ekman, professor of psychology at theUniversityofCalifornia,San Francisco, who has spent the past 15 years studying the secret art of deception.
In order to know what kind of lies work best, successful liars need to accurately assess other people’s emotional states. Ekman’s research shows that this same emotional intelligence is essential for good lie detectors, too. The emotional state to watch out for is stress, the conflict most liars feel between the truth and what they actually say and do.
Even high-tech lie detectors don’t detect lies as such; they merely detect the physical cues of emotions, which may or may not correspond to what the person being tested is saying. Polygraphs, for instance, measure respiration, heart rate and skin conductivity, which tend to increase when people are nervous–as they usually are when lying. Nervous people typically perspire, and the salts contained in perspiration conduct electricity. That’s why a sudden leap in skin conductivity indicates nervousness–about getting caught, perhaps?–which might, in turn, suggest that someone is being economical with the truth. On the other hand, it might also mean that the lights in the television studio are too hot–which is one reason polygraph tests are inadmissible in court. “Good lie detectors don’t rely on a single sign,” Ekman says, “but interpret clusters of verbal and nonverbal clues that suggest someone might be lying.”
Those clues are written all over the face. Because the musculature of the face is directly connected to the areas of the brain that process emotion, the countenance can be a window to the soul. Neurological studies even suggest that genuine emotions travel different pathways through the brain than insincere ones. If a patient paralyzed by stroke on one side of the face, for example, is asked to smile deliberately, only the mobile side of the mouth is raised. But tell that same person a funny joke, and the patient breaks into a full and spontaneous smile. Very few people–most notably, actors and politicians–are able to consciously control all of their facial expressions. Lies can often be caught when the liar’s true feelings briefly leak through the mask of deception. “We don’t think before we feel,” Ekman says. “Expressions tend to show up on the face before we’re even conscious of experiencing an emotion.”
One of the most difficult facial expressions to fake–or conceal, if it is genuinely felt–is sadness. When someone is truly sad, the forehead wrinkles with grief and the inner corners of the eyebrows are pulled up. Fewer than 15% of the people Ekman tested were able to produce this eyebrow movement voluntarily. By contrast, the lowering of the eyebrows associated with an angry scowl can be replicated at will by almost everybody. “If someone claims they are sad and the inner corners of their eyebrows don’t go up,” Ekman says, “the sadness is probably false.”
||The table below shows population sizes and change of rates in four different parts of the world from 1950 to 2000, and predicted sizes and change of rates from 2000 to 2050.
||Some people think having more TV channels is good because they will have more choices, while others think it is not good because programs’ quality is lower. Discuss both views and give your opinion.