To make sure you get into the right ________while driving on a motorway, you must notice the road signs.

The scientists have made an _______study of the virus that causes the disease.

Sally was a bit shy, but her teacher found her quite______ discussing a recent film with others.

Men differ from animals ______ they can think and speak.

The future of that country is hard to predict________ the economic system is reformed.

It is necessary that he____ the assignment without delay.

The letter“you”in the sentence "It doesn't fit you.”is pronounced as____

Which of the following shows the correct word stress for"encyclopedia”?

You are greeting an acquaintance with "Hello" to perform the____function of language.

Which of the following is the smallest unit of speech that can be used to differ one word from another?

When teaching such words as "left" and "right"', a teacher asks his/her students to touch their left arms and then touch their right eyes.What does this kind of activity exemplify?

What activities are not appropriate for developing the skill of reading for gist?

Which of the following refers to a process in which a teacher asks his/her students to analyzing sentences in a passage and then work out their structures?

Which of following is the most controlled activity?

In students learn the idiomatic use of English,teachers need to draw students' attention to_________.

Which of the following exercises is intended to practice the communicative use of "Do you have….?" and "I have ....."'

A teacher asks students to write reflective journals about their English learning. The major purpose is to develop students'_____?

When a teacher says "I don't quite understand. What do you mean by saying that?" what dose he/she intend to do?

At what stage will a teacher initiate a discussion with the students on certain topic their prior knowledge?

Which of the following is most appropriate for developing a learner's integrated language skills?

Passage 1 Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.  It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.  We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War 2, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the Publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviews who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. "So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism," Newman wrote, "that I am tempted to define ’journalism’ as ’a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are’."  Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, and a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.  Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.  What is true about the current major English-language newspapers according to the first paragraphs?

Passage 1 Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.  It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.  We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War 2, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the Publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviews who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. "So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism," Newman wrote, "that I am tempted to define ’journalism’ as ’a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are’."  Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, and a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.  Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.  Which of the following characterizes newspaper reviews in England during the World War II?

Passage 1 Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.  It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.  We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War 2, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the Publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviews who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. "So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism," Newman wrote, "that I am tempted to define ’journalism’ as ’a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are’."  Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, and a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.  Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.  Which in the following could be Newman's view?

Passage 1 Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.  It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.  We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War 2, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the Publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviews who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. "So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism," Newman wrote, "that I am tempted to define ’journalism’ as ’a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are’."  Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, and a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.  Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.  What can be Cardus according to the last two paragraphs?

Passage 1 Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.  It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.  We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War 2, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the Publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviews who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. "So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism," Newman wrote, "that I am tempted to define ’journalism’ as ’a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are’."  Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, and a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.  Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.  Which of the following be the best title for the passage?

Passage 2 Americans today don't place a very high value on intellect. Our heroes are  athletes, enter trainers, and entrepreneurs, not scholars. Even our schools are where we send  our children to get a practical education—not to pursue knowledge for the sake  of knowledge. Symptoms of pervasive anti-intellectualism in our schools aren't  difficult to find. "Schools have always been in a society where practical is more important than  intellectual," says education writer Diane Ravitch. "Schools could be a  counterbalance." Ravitch's latest book, Left Back. A Century of Failed School  Reforms, traces the roots of anti-intellectualism in our schools, concluding  they are anything but a counterbalance to the American distaste for intellectual  pursuits. But they could and should be. Encouraging kids to reject the life of the mind  leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and control. Without the ability to think  critically, to defend their ideas and understand the ideas of others, they  cannot fully participate in our democracy. Continuing along this path, says  writer Earl Shorris, "We will become a second-rate country. We will have a less  civil society." "Intellect is resented as a form. of power or privilege," writes historian  and professor Richard Hofstadter in Anti-Intellectualism in American life, a  Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of anti-intellectualism in US politics,  religion, and education. From the beginning of our history, says Hofstadter, our  democratic and populist urges have driven us to reject anything that smells of  elitism. Practicality, common sense, and native intelligence have been  considered more noble qualities than anything you could learn from a book. Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought  schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children: "We  are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for 10 or 15 years and come  out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing." Mark Twain's  Huckleberry Finn exemplified American anti-intellectualism. Its hero avoids  being civilized—going to school and learning to read—so he can preserve his  innate goodness. Intellect, according to Hofstadter, is different from native intelligence, a  quality we reluctantly admire. Intellect is the critical, creative, and  contemplative side of the mind. Intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate,  re-order, and adjust, while intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes,  criticizes and imagines. School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted. Hofstadter says our  country's educational system is in the grips of people who "joyfully and  militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify  with children who show the least intellectual promise". What do American parents expect their children to acquire in school?

Passage 2 Americans today don't place a very high value on intellect. Our heroes are  athletes, enter trainers, and entrepreneurs, not scholars. Even our schools are where we send  our children to get a practical education—not to pursue knowledge for the sake  of knowledge. Symptoms of pervasive anti-intellectualism in our schools aren't  difficult to find. "Schools have always been in a society where practical is more important than  intellectual," says education writer Diane Ravitch. "Schools could be a  counterbalance." Ravitch's latest book, Left Back. A Century of Failed School  Reforms, traces the roots of anti-intellectualism in our schools, concluding  they are anything but a counterbalance to the American distaste for intellectual  pursuits. But they could and should be. Encouraging kids to reject the life of the mind  leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and control. Without the ability to think  critically, to defend their ideas and understand the ideas of others, they  cannot fully participate in our democracy. Continuing along this path, says  writer Earl Shorris, "We will become a second-rate country. We will have a less  civil society." "Intellect is resented as a form. of power or privilege," writes historian  and professor Richard Hofstadter in Anti-Intellectualism in American life, a  Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of anti-intellectualism in US politics,  religion, and education. From the beginning of our history, says Hofstadter, our  democratic and populist urges have driven us to reject anything that smells of  elitism. Practicality, common sense, and native intelligence have been  considered more noble qualities than anything you could learn from a book. Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought  schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children: "We  are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for 10 or 15 years and come  out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing." Mark Twain's  Huckleberry Finn exemplified American anti-intellectualism. Its hero avoids  being civilized—going to school and learning to read—so he can preserve his  innate goodness. Intellect, according to Hofstadter, is different from native intelligence, a  quality we reluctantly admire. Intellect is the critical, creative, and  contemplative side of the mind. Intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate,  re-order, and adjust, while intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes,  criticizes and imagines. School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted. Hofstadter says our  country's educational system is in the grips of people who "joyfully and  militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify  with children who show the least intellectual promise". Why does the author insist that schools should be a counter balance to the American distaste for intellectual pursuit？

Passage 2 Americans today don't place a very high value on intellect. Our heroes are  athletes, enter trainers, and entrepreneurs, not scholars. Even our schools are where we send  our children to get a practical education—not to pursue knowledge for the sake  of knowledge. Symptoms of pervasive anti-intellectualism in our schools aren't  difficult to find. "Schools have always been in a society where practical is more important than  intellectual," says education writer Diane Ravitch. "Schools could be a  counterbalance." Ravitch's latest book, Left Back. A Century of Failed School  Reforms, traces the roots of anti-intellectualism in our schools, concluding  they are anything but a counterbalance to the American distaste for intellectual  pursuits. But they could and should be. Encouraging kids to reject the life of the mind  leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and control. Without the ability to think  critically, to defend their ideas and understand the ideas of others, they  cannot fully participate in our democracy. Continuing along this path, says  writer Earl Shorris, "We will become a second-rate country. We will have a less  civil society." "Intellect is resented as a form. of power or privilege," writes historian  and professor Richard Hofstadter in Anti-Intellectualism in American life, a  Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of anti-intellectualism in US politics,  religion, and education. From the beginning of our history, says Hofstadter, our  democratic and populist urges have driven us to reject anything that smells of  elitism. Practicality, common sense, and native intelligence have been  considered more noble qualities than anything you could learn from a book. Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought  schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children: "We  are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for 10 or 15 years and come  out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing." Mark Twain's  Huckleberry Finn exemplified American anti-intellectualism. Its hero avoids  being civilized—going to school and learning to read—so he can preserve his  innate goodness. Intellect, according to Hofstadter, is different from native intelligence, a  quality we reluctantly admire. Intellect is the critical, creative, and  contemplative side of the mind. Intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate,  re-order, and adjust, while intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes,  criticizes and imagines. School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted. Hofstadter says our  country's educational system is in the grips of people who "joyfully and  militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify  with children who show the least intellectual promise". Why dose Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn cited by the author?

Passage 2 Americans today don't place a very high value on intellect. Our heroes are  athletes, enter trainers, and entrepreneurs, not scholars. Even our schools are where we send  our children to get a practical education—not to pursue knowledge for the sake  of knowledge. Symptoms of pervasive anti-intellectualism in our schools aren't  difficult to find. "Schools have always been in a society where practical is more important than  intellectual," says education writer Diane Ravitch. "Schools could be a  counterbalance." Ravitch's latest book, Left Back. A Century of Failed School  Reforms, traces the roots of anti-intellectualism in our schools, concluding  they are anything but a counterbalance to the American distaste for intellectual  pursuits. But they could and should be. Encouraging kids to reject the life of the mind  leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and control. Without the ability to think  critically, to defend their ideas and understand the ideas of others, they  cannot fully participate in our democracy. Continuing along this path, says  writer Earl Shorris, "We will become a second-rate country. We will have a less  civil society." "Intellect is resented as a form. of power or privilege," writes historian  and professor Richard Hofstadter in Anti-Intellectualism in American life, a  Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of anti-intellectualism in US politics,  religion, and education. From the beginning of our history, says Hofstadter, our  democratic and populist urges have driven us to reject anything that smells of  elitism. Practicality, common sense, and native intelligence have been  considered more noble qualities than anything you could learn from a book. Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought  schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children: "We  are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for 10 or 15 years and come  out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing." Mark Twain's  Huckleberry Finn exemplified American anti-intellectualism. Its hero avoids  being civilized—going to school and learning to read—so he can preserve his  innate goodness. Intellect, according to Hofstadter, is different from native intelligence, a  quality we reluctantly admire. Intellect is the critical, creative, and  contemplative side of the mind. Intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate,  re-order, and adjust, while intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes,  criticizes and imagines. School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted. Hofstadter says our  country's educational system is in the grips of people who "joyfully and  militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify  with children who show the least intellectual promise". According to the passage， which of following" is true about Emerson?

Passage 2 Americans today don't place a very high value on intellect. Our heroes are  athletes, enter trainers, and entrepreneurs, not scholars. Even our schools are where we send  our children to get a practical education—not to pursue knowledge for the sake  of knowledge. Symptoms of pervasive anti-intellectualism in our schools aren't  difficult to find. "Schools have always been in a society where practical is more important than  intellectual," says education writer Diane Ravitch. "Schools could be a  counterbalance." Ravitch's latest book, Left Back. A Century of Failed School  Reforms, traces the roots of anti-intellectualism in our schools, concluding  they are anything but a counterbalance to the American distaste for intellectual  pursuits. But they could and should be. Encouraging kids to reject the life of the mind  leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and control. Without the ability to think  critically, to defend their ideas and understand the ideas of others, they  cannot fully participate in our democracy. Continuing along this path, says  writer Earl Shorris, "We will become a second-rate country. We will have a less  civil society." "Intellect is resented as a form. of power or privilege," writes historian  and professor Richard Hofstadter in Anti-Intellectualism in American life, a  Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of anti-intellectualism in US politics,  religion, and education. From the beginning of our history, says Hofstadter, our  democratic and populist urges have driven us to reject anything that smells of  elitism. Practicality, common sense, and native intelligence have been  considered more noble qualities than anything you could learn from a book. Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought  schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children: "We  are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for 10 or 15 years and come  out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing." Mark Twain's  Huckleberry Finn exemplified American anti-intellectualism. Its hero avoids  being civilized—going to school and learning to read—so he can preserve his  innate goodness. Intellect, according to Hofstadter, is different from native intelligence, a  quality we reluctantly admire. Intellect is the critical, creative, and  contemplative side of the mind. Intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate,  re-order, and adjust, while intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes,  criticizes and imagines. School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted. Hofstadter says our  country's educational system is in the grips of people who "joyfully and  militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify  with children who show the least intellectual promise". Which of the following represents the author's view on intellect?