填空题David Schkade notes that jobs can be better on the condition that we positively get involved in our work.____

We need to follow the lead of Britain's families and put in the hard work to renew the contract between the generations.You don't get a better Britain by chance-you have to build it.Nor are we likely to overcome the divides facing our country by accident-we have to unify it.But when it comes to ensuring that Britain works for all generations,young and old,as a society we too often leave il to chance,something families would never do.The giving and taking of the generational contract,in which we support young and old,feels like the natural order of things.Cont.ributing when we can and being looked after when in need is what we do every day as 14 million parents bring up their children.And just as that contract underpins our families,it has long underpinned our socieLy and welfare state.But this intergeneraLional conLiact is under pressure.We are already failing to provide the social care our older generations deserve,need and expect.And this is before the real pressures,and a~24bn bill,from delivering on our health and care obligations in an ageing society arrive in the next decade.Solution after solution has been panned,binned or pushed into the long grass by government after government.The need co renew our intergenerational conLract is clear and urgenl,bul doing so is far from easy.It requires new thinking and tough trade-offsPfrom how we deal wich the fiscal pressures of an ageing society in a way that is generationally fair,to how we deliver the housing young people need while respecting the communities everyone values.And the polit,ics are far from straightforward.Renewal should involve an agenda appealing to all generations,but voters'party preferences have never been so starkly divided by age.This state of affairs-with the Conservatives reliant on older people who are most likely to vote,and Labour sitting on a lead amongst younger generations who represent the fucure of British elections-is not desirable for the parties themselves or our counlry as a whole.We need our political leaders co rise to this challenge with an appeal to all generations.It can be done,as the forthcoming final report of the Incergenerational Comm]ssion will lay out.We can deliver the health and care older generations deserve,withoul simply asking younger workers to bear all the costs.We can do more to promote educacion and skills,especially for those who have not chosen on the university route.We can provide more security for yoimg people,from the jobs they do to the homes they renL.And we can show younger generations thal owning a home is a realit,y not a dislanl prospect in 21st-century Britain.Such an appeal across generations is che route to building a better Bricain-and a more united one,too.
Which of the following could be a proper tide for the passage?

A.How to Fix Intergenerational Unfairness in Britain
B.The Old in Britain are Facing a Cloomy Future
C.The Aging Society Blings Challenges to Britain
D.Young and Old Need a New Social Contract

Many experts believe that in the new world of artificial intelligence（AI）human beings will still be needed to do the jobs that require higher-order critical,creative,and innovative thinking and the jobs that require high emotional engagement to meet the needs of other human beings.The 1 for many of us is that we do not excel at those skills because of our natural cognitive and emotional tendencies:We are confirmation-seeking thinkers and ego-affirmation-seeking defensive reasoners.We will need to overcome those tendencies 2 take our thinking,listening,relating,and collaborating skills to a much higher level.This process of_3 begins with changing our definition of what it means to"be smart."4.many of us have achieved success 5 being"smarter"than other people as 6 by grades and test scores,beginning in our early days in school.AI will change that because there is no 7 any human being can outsmart,8.,lBM's Watson,at least without augmentation.Smart machines can process,9,and recall information faster and better than we humans.10,AI can pattern-match faster and produce a wider array of alternatives than we can.AI can even learn fasrer.In an age of smart machines,our old definition of what makes a person smart doesn't 11.What is needed is a new definition of being smart,one that 12 higher levels of human thinking and emotional engagement.The new smart will be determined not by what or how you know 13 by the quality of your thinking,listening,relating,collaborating,and learning.Quantity is 14 by quality.We will spend more time training to be open-minded and learning to update our beliefs in 15 to new data.We will practice 16 after our mistakes,and we will invest more in the skills traditionally 17 with emotional intelligence.The new smart will be about trying to overcome the two big 18 0f critical thinking and team collaboration:our ego and our fears.Doing so will make it easier to perceive reality as it is,rather than as we 19 it to be.In short,we will embrace humility.That is 20 we humans will add value in a world of smart technology,13选？

A.but
B.or
C.rather
D.and

Text 3 The concept of man versus machine is at least as old as the industrial revolution,but this phenomenon tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries.And yet,it would be a mistake to think we are right now simply experiencing the painful side of a boom and bust cycle.Certain jobs have gone away for good,outmoded by machines.Since technology has such an insatiable appetite for eating up human jobs,this phenomenon will continue to restructure our economy in ways we can't immediately foresee.When there is rapid improvement in the price and performance of technology,jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened.This argument has attracted a lot of attention,via the success of the book Race Against the Machine,by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee,who both hail from MIT's Center for Digital Business.This is a powerful argument,and a scary one.And yet,John Hagel,author of The Power of Pull and other books,says Brynjolfsson and McAfee miss the reason why these jobs are so vulnerable to technology in the first place.Hagel says we have designed jobs in the U.S.that tend to be“tightly scripted”and“highly standardized”ones that leave no room for“individual initiative or creativity.”In short,these are the types of jobs that machines can perform much better at than human beings.That is how we have put a giant target sign on the backs of American workers,Hagel says.It's time to reinvent the formula for how work is conducted,since we are still relying ona very 20th century notion of work,Hagel says.In our rapidly changing economy,we more than ever need people in the workplace who can take initiative and exercise their imagination“to respond to unexpected events.”That's not something machines are good at.They are designed to perform very predictable activities.As Hagel notes,Brynjolfsson and McAfee indeed touched on this point in their book.We need to reframe race against the machine as race with the machine.In other words,we need to look at the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it.So then the problem is not really about technology,but rather,“how do we innovate our institutions and our work practices?”
Which of the following could be the most appropriate title for the text?

A.How to Innovate Our Work Practices?
B.Machines will Replace Human Labor
C.Can We Win the Race Against Machines?
D.Economic Downturns Stimulate Innovations

Text 3 The concept of man versus machine is at least as old as the industrial revolution,but this phenomenon tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries.And yet,it would be a mistake to think we are right now simply experiencing the painful side of a boom and bust cycle.Certain jobs have gone away for good,outmoded by machines.Since technology has such an insatiable appetite for eating up human jobs,this phenomenon will continue to restructure our economy in ways we can't immediately foresee.When there is rapid improvement in the price and performance of technology,jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened.This argument has attracted a lot of attention,via the success of the book Race Against the Machine,by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee,who both hail from MIT's Center for Digital Business.This is a powerful argument,and a scary one.And yet,John Hagel,author of The Power of Pull and other books,says Brynjolfsson and McAfee miss the reason why these jobs are so vulnerable to technology in the first place.Hagel says we have designed jobs in the U.S.that tend to be“tightly scripted”and“highly standardized”ones that leave no room for“individual initiative or creativity.”In short,these are the types of jobs that machines can perform much better at than human beings.That is how we have put a giant target sign on the backs of American workers,Hagel says.It's time to reinvent the formula for how work is conducted,since we are still relying ona very 20th century notion of work,Hagel says.In our rapidly changing economy,we more than ever need people in the workplace who can take initiative and exercise their imagination“to respond to unexpected events.”That's not something machines are good at.They are designed to perform very predictable activities.As Hagel notes,Brynjolfsson and McAfee indeed touched on this point in their book.We need to reframe race against the machine as race with the machine.In other words,we need to look at the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it.So then the problem is not really about technology,but rather,“how do we innovate our institutions and our work practices?”
The authors of Race Against the Machine argue that____

A.technology is diminishing man's job opportunities
B.automation is accelerating technological development
C.certain jobs will remain intact after automation
D.man will finally win the race against machine

In Money Everything
I don’t think money is everything,but we can’t do without it.Fox example,money can’t buy us happiness and a good education.And for another example,money can’t buy us good health and a long life.But we can not live without money.We need it for our daily necessities such as food,clothes and transportation.What’s more,we need it to live a better life.In short,we should learn the value of money and make the most of its advantages.

Only when the CIA Director David was forced to resignthat it's hard to keep our e-mail secret.

A．we realized
B．realized we
C．did we realize
D．we did realize

When we grow older enough to earn a living,it does not surprise us to discover that success is measured in terms of the money we earn.We spend the whole of our lives keeping up with our neighbors,the Joneses.If we buy a new television set,Jones is（ ）to buy a bigger and better one.if we buy a new car,we can be sure that jones will go one better and get two new cars:one for his wife and one for himself.

A.bound
B.destined
C.doomed

Text 3 The concept of man versus machine is at least as old as the industrial revolution,but this phenomenon tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries.And yet,it would be a mistake to think we are right now simply experiencing the painful side of a boom and bust cycle.Certain jobs have gone away for good,outmoded by machines.Since technology has such an insatiable appetite for eating up human jobs,this phenomenon will continue to restructure our economy in ways we can't immediately foresee.When there is rapid improvement in the price and performance of technology,jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened.This argument has attracted a lot of attention,via the success of the book Race Against the Machine,by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee,who both hail from MIT's Center for Digital Business.This is a powerful argument,and a scary one.And yet,John Hagel,author of The Power of Pull and other books,says Brynjolfsson and McAfee miss the reason why these jobs are so vulnerable to technology in the first place.Hagel says we have designed jobs in the U.S.that tend to be“tightly scripted”and“highly standardized”ones that leave no room for“individual initiative or creativity.”In short,these are the types of jobs that machines can perform much better at than human beings.That is how we have put a giant target sign on the backs of American workers,Hagel says.It's time to reinvent the formula for how work is conducted,since we are still relying ona very 20th century notion of work,Hagel says.In our rapidly changing economy,we more than ever need people in the workplace who can take initiative and exercise their imagination“to respond to unexpected events.”That's not something machines are good at.They are designed to perform very predictable activities.As Hagel notes,Brynjolfsson and McAfee indeed touched on this point in their book.We need to reframe race against the machine as race with the machine.In other words,we need to look at the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it.So then the problem is not really about technology,but rather,“how do we innovate our institutions and our work practices?”
According to the last paragraph,Brynjolfsson and McAfee discussed_____

A.the predictability of machine behavior in practice
B.the formula for how work is conducted efficiently
C.the ways machines replace human labor in modern times D.the necessity of human involvement in the workplace

Text 3 The concept of man versus machine is at least as old as the industrial revolution,but this phenomenon tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries.And yet,it would be a mistake to think we are right now simply experiencing the painful side of a boom and bust cycle.Certain jobs have gone away for good,outmoded by machines.Since technology has such an insatiable appetite for eating up human jobs,this phenomenon will continue to restructure our economy in ways we can't immediately foresee.When there is rapid improvement in the price and performance of technology,jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened.This argument has attracted a lot of attention,via the success of the book Race Against the Machine,by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee,who both hail from MIT's Center for Digital Business.This is a powerful argument,and a scary one.And yet,John Hagel,author of The Power of Pull and other books,says Brynjolfsson and McAfee miss the reason why these jobs are so vulnerable to technology in the first place.Hagel says we have designed jobs in the U.S.that tend to be“tightly scripted”and“highly standardized”ones that leave no room for“individual initiative or creativity.”In short,these are the types of jobs that machines can perform much better at than human beings.That is how we have put a giant target sign on the backs of American workers,Hagel says.It's time to reinvent the formula for how work is conducted,since we are still relying ona very 20th century notion of work,Hagel says.In our rapidly changing economy,we more than ever need people in the workplace who can take initiative and exercise their imagination“to respond to unexpected events.”That's not something machines are good at.They are designed to perform very predictable activities.As Hagel notes,Brynjolfsson and McAfee indeed touched on this point in their book.We need to reframe race against the machine as race with the machine.In other words,we need to look at the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it.So then the problem is not really about technology,but rather,“how do we innovate our institutions and our work practices?”
Hagel argues that jobs in the U.S.are often_____

A.performed by innovative minds
B.scripted with an individual style
C.standardized without a clear target
D.designed against human creativity

Text 3 The concept of man versus machine is at least as old as the industrial revolution,but this phenomenon tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries.And yet,it would be a mistake to think we are right now simply experiencing the painful side of a boom and bust cycle.Certain jobs have gone away for good,outmoded by machines.Since technology has such an insatiable appetite for eating up human jobs,this phenomenon will continue to restructure our economy in ways we can't immediately foresee.When there is rapid improvement in the price and performance of technology,jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened.This argument has attracted a lot of attention,via the success of the book Race Against the Machine,by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee,who both hail from MIT's Center for Digital Business.This is a powerful argument,and a scary one.And yet,John Hagel,author of The Power of Pull and other books,says Brynjolfsson and McAfee miss the reason why these jobs are so vulnerable to technology in the first place.Hagel says we have designed jobs in the U.S.that tend to be“tightly scripted”and“highly standardized”ones that leave no room for“individual initiative or creativity.”In short,these are the types of jobs that machines can perform much better at than human beings.That is how we have put a giant target sign on the backs of American workers,Hagel says.It's time to reinvent the formula for how work is conducted,since we are still relying ona very 20th century notion of work,Hagel says.In our rapidly changing economy,we more than ever need people in the workplace who can take initiative and exercise their imagination“to respond to unexpected events.”That's not something machines are good at.They are designed to perform very predictable activities.As Hagel notes,Brynjolfsson and McAfee indeed touched on this point in their book.We need to reframe race against the machine as race with the machine.In other words,we need to look at the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it.So then the problem is not really about technology,but rather,“how do we innovate our institutions and our work practices?
According to the first paragraph,economic downturns would____

A.ease the competition of man vs.Machine
B.highlight machines'threat to human jobs
C.provoke a painful technological revolution
D.outmode our current economic structure