2018年10月自考英语(二)阅读强化辅导【1-4】

2018-05-04 12:08 来源:网络综合
自考网免费发布2018年10月自考英语(二)阅读强化辅导【1-4】,更多2018年10月自考英语(二)阅读强化辅导【1-4】相关信息请访问自考网。

【导语】天空吸引你展翅飞翔,海洋召唤你扬帆启航,高山激励你奋勇攀登,平原等待你信马由缰……出发吧,愿你前程无量,努力备考,考入理想院校!以下是无忧考网为大家整理的 《2018年10月自考英语(二)阅读强化辅导【1-4】》供您查阅。

107.jpg

【篇一】

What Is a Decision?

  A decision is a choice made from among alternative courses of action that are available. The purpose of making a decision is to establish and achieve organizational goals and objectives. The reason for making a decision is that a problem exists, goals or objectives are wrong, or something is standing in the way of accomplishing them.

  Thus the decision-making process is fundamental to management. Almost everything a manager does involves decisions, indeed, some suggest that the management process is decision making. Although managers cannot predict the future, many of their decisions require that they consider possible future events. Often managers must make a best guess at that the future will be and try to leave as little as possible to chance, but since uncertainty is always there, risk accompanies decisions. Sometimes the consequences of a poor decision are slight; at other times they are serious.Choice is the opportunity to select among alternatives. If there is no choice, there is no decision to be made. Decision making is the process of choosing, and many decisions have a broad range of choice.

  For example, a student may be able to choose among a number of different courses in order to implement the decision to obtain a college degree. Fox managers, every decision has constraints based on policies, procedures, laws, precedents, and the like. These constraints exist at all levels of the organization.

  Alternatives are the possible courses of action from which choices can be made. If there are no alternatives, there is no choice and, therefore, no decision. If no alternatives are seen, often it means that a thorough job of examining the problems has not been done.

  For example, managers sometimes treat problems in an eigher/or fashion; this is their way of simplifying complex problems. But the tendency to simplify blinds them to other alternatives.

  At the managerial level, decision making includes limiting alternatives as well as identifying them, and the range is from highly limited to practically unlimited.

  Decision makers must have some way of determining which of several alternatives is best - that is, which contributes the most to the achievement of organizational goals. An organizational goal is an end or a state of affairs the organization seeks to reach. Because individuals (and organizations) frequently have different ideas about how to attain the goals, the best choice may depend on who makes the decision. Frequently, departments or units within an organization make decisions that are good for them individually but that are less than optimal for the larger organization. Called suboptimization, this is a trade-off that increases the advantages to one unit or function but decreases the advantages to another unit or function. For example, the marketing manager may argue effectively for an increased advertising budget. In the larger scheme of things, however, increased funding for research to improve the products might be more beneficial to the organization.

  These trade-offs occur because there are many objectives that organizations wish to attain simultaneously. Some of these objectives are more important than others, but the order and degree of importance often vary from person to person and from department to department.

  Different managers define the same problem in different terms. When presented with a common case, sales managers tend to see sales problems, production managers see production problems, and so on.

  The ordering and importance of multiple objectives is also based, in part, on the values of the decision maker. Such values are personal; they are hard to understand, even by the individual, because they are so dynamic and complex. In many business situations different people's values about acceptable degrees of risk and profitability cause disagreement about the correctness of decisions.

  People often assume that a decision is an isolated phenomenon. But from a systems point of view, problems have multiple causes, and decisions have intended and unintended consequences. An organization is an ongoing entity, and a decision made today may have consequences far into the future. Thus the skilled manager looks toward the future

  consequences of current decisions.

  什么是决策?

  决策是从可供挑选的行动方向中作选择。决策的目的是建立并实现一个机构的目的和目标。之所以要决策是因为有问题存在,目标或目的的不适当,或者有某种东西妨碍了目标或目的的实现。

  因此,决策过程对于管理非常重要。一个管理者做的差不多所有事情都离不开决策。有人甚至提出管理就是决策。虽然管理者不能预见未来,但是他们要做的很多决策需要他们考虑将来可能发生的情况。管理者常常必须对未来的情况作出的猜测,使偶然性尽可能少地发生。但是因为总是在不确定的因素,所以决策往往伴随着风险。一个不当的决策的后果有时不严重而有时严重。

  选择就是从多个选项中进行挑选的机会。没有选择就没有决策。决策本身就是一个选择的过程。很多决策有很宽的选择范围。例如,一个学生为了自己获得学位的志向,可以在许多不同的课程里作选择。对管理者来说,每一个决策都受着政策、程序、法律、先例等方面的制约。这些制约在一个机构的各个阶层都存在。选择项就是可供选择、可能的行动方向;没有选择项,就没有选择,也就没有了决策。如果看不到有不同的选择项,说明对问题还没有进行全面的研究。一些管理者有时用非此即彼的方式处理问题,这虽然是他们简化复杂问题的方法,但是习惯了简化常使他们看不到别的解决办法。在管理这个层次上,决策包括识别选择项和减少选择项两个步骤;其范围可以从极为有限的几个选择项到几乎无限多的选择项。

  决策者必须有办法能从多种选择里确定一种为,也就是说哪个对实现机构目标帮助,机构的目标也就是此机构所寻求的事态的结果。如何实现目标,个人和组织都有不同的看法。因此,选择可能就取决于决策人了。通常一个组织内的单位或部门作出的决策可能有利于本部门、本单位,但对比它们大的机构来说就不是选择了。这就是所谓的局部优化:增加对一单位或部门的便利同时减少对另一个单位或部门的便利,这是在两利不能兼顾的情况下所做的取舍。例如,经理可以把增加广告预算的必要性讲得头头是道,但是从总的布局看,增加改进产品的科研费用也许对这个组织更有好处。

  因为一个组织希望同时达到的目标很多,所以就要进行权衡,虽然有些目标比另一些重要,但重要程度和次序则常常因人而异,因部门而异。管理者不同对同一问题所做的解说也是不同的。把同样一种情况摆在他们面前,销售经理看的是销售问题,生产经理看的是生产问题,如此等等。

  多个目标的排序和重要性在某种程度上是以决策者的价值观为依据的。这些价值观念是个性的,很难捉摸,甚至抱有这种观念的人自己也很难弄清楚;这是因为价值观不断变化,也很复杂。很多商业活动中,不同的人对于风险和收益的可接受程度的价值观不一样,这就导致了他们对决策正确与否的看法也不同。

  人们常以为决策是一个孤立的现象,但从系统的观念看,问题的产生有多种原因,所以决策既有意料中的结果,又有意料外的结果。一个组织是一个发展的实体,所以今天所做的决策对未来可能产生意义深远的影响。因此一个老练的管理者常要考虑当前决策在将来产生的结果。

【篇二】

Secrets of Success at an Interview

  The subject of today's talk is interviews.

  The key words here are preparation and confidence, which will carry you far.

  Do your homework first.

  Find out all you can about the job you are applying for and the organization you hope to work for.

  Many of the employers I interviewed made the same criticism of candidates. "They have no idea what the day to day work of the job brings about. They have vague notions of 'furthering the company's prospects' or of 'serving the community', but have never taken the trouble to find out the actual tasks they will be required to do."

  Do not let this be said of you. It shows an unattractive indifference to your employer and to your job.

  Take the time to put yourself into the interviewer's place. He wants somebody who is hard-working with a pleasant personality and a real interest in the job.

  Anything that you find out about the prospective employer can be used to your advantage during the interview to show that you have bothered to master some facts about the people who you hope to work for.

  Write down (and remember) the questions you want to ask the interviewer(s) so that you are not speechless when they invite your questions. Make sure that holidays and pay are not the first things you ask about. If all your questions have been answered during the interview, replay: "I did have several questions, but you have already

  answered them all."

  Do not be afraid to ask for clarification of something that has been said during the interview if you want to be sure what was implied, but do be polite.

  Just before you go to the interview, look again at the original advertisement that you answered, any correspondence from your prospective employer, photocopies of your letter of application or application form and your resume.

  Then you will remember what you said and what they want. This is very important if you have applied for many jobs in a short time as it is easy to become confused and give an impression of inefficiency.

  Make sure you know where and when you have to report for the interview. Go to the building (but not inside the office) a day or two before, if necessary, to find out how long the journey takes and where exactly the place is.

  Aim to arrive five or ten minutes early for the actual interview, then you will have a little time in hand and you will not panic if you are delayed. You start at a disadvantage if you arrive worried and ten minutes late.

  Dress in clean, neat, conservative clothes. Now is NOT the time to experiment with the punk look or (girls) to wear low-cut dresses with miniskirts. Make sure that your shoes, hands and hair (and teeth) are clean and neat.

  Have the letter inviting you for an interview ready to show in case there is any difficulty in communication.

  You may find yourself facing one interviewer or a panel. The latter is far more intimidating, but do not let it worry you too much.

  The interviewer will probably have a table in front of him/her. Do not put your things or arms on it.

  If you have a bag or a case, put it on the floor beside your chair. Do not clutch it nervously or, worse still, drop it, spilling everything.

  Shake hands if the interviewer offers his hand first. There is little likelihood that a panel of five wants to go though the process of all shaking hands with you in turn. So you do not be upset if no one offers.

  Shake hands firmly - a weak hand suggests a weak personality, and a crushing grip is obviously painful. Do not drop the hand as soon as yours has touched it as this will seem to show you do not like the other person.

  Speak politely and naturally even if you are feeling shy. Think before you answer any questions.

  If you cannot understand, ask: "Would you mind rephrasing the question, please?" The question will then be repeated in different words.

  If you are not definitely accepted or turned down on the spot, ask: "When may I expect to hear the results of this interview?"

  If you do receive a letter offering you the job, you must reply by letter (keep a photocopy) as soon as possible.

  Good luck!

  面试成功的决窍

  我们今天的话题是面试。

  这里送你一句话:有备而往,信心当强。相信这句话会让你受益匪浅。

  首先要做好面试之外的工作。

  尽可能地了解你所申请的工作和希望为之工作的机构的情况。

  我所采访的许多雇主对应聘人做了相同的批评:"他们对这项工作的日常事务会带来什么一无所知。他们对'拓展公司的前景'、'进行社会服务'只有模模糊 糊的认识,但从不下工夫对他们要做的实际工作作深入的了解。"

  不要让人这样评价自己;那样的话,说明你对雇主和工作太不在乎,这可不是个好印象。

  不妨设身处地替雇主和工作太不在乎,他要的是勤奋的、性格让人喜欢的雇员,而且对所做的工作真正感兴趣。

  对未来的老板所做的任何了解都可以用于面试上,这对你有利。表明你对希望为之效力的雇主的情况曾下过一番功夫了解。

  把要询问考官的问题写下来或记住,这样当他要你提问时不至于无话可说。不要上去就问假期如何,工资如何。如果你准备的所有问题在面试过程中都已 得到了回答,你可以说:"我刚才确实有一些什么问题要问,但您现在已全部解 答过了。"

  如果面试中你想弄明白对方所说的某些话有什么隐含意思,就要请对方说明,不必畏缩,但一定要有礼貌。

  去面试前,你应把征聘的广告的原件、未来雇主给你的复信、求职书或申请表及个人简历的复印件再看一遍。

  然后记住你讲过的话和对方要求什么条件。如果你在短时间内应聘好几个工作,这样做就很重要,因为应聘一多就容易搞混,这就给人家留下了工作能力低的印象。

  一定要弄清楚何时何地前去面试。如有必要,可以面试前一两天去看看办公楼,看看要走多远的路程,详细地址在哪儿。

  真正面试时,提前五至十分钟赶到;这样中间你就有点时间,万一有所耽搁,也不至恐慌,如果慌里慌张地赶去面试,或者迟到了十分钟,那么一开始你就处于不利的境地。着装要整洁、传统一些;面试可不是尝试朋克式打扮的时候,也不是上穿袒胸上衣,下身穿超短裙的时候,另外鞋子和头发一定要干干净净。

  带上约你去面试的信,以备双方交流方面有问题时用。

  面试时面前可能是一个雇主或是一个面试小组。几个人一同来考你的确比单独的一个人考试你叫人害怕,但也不过分担心。

  主考官可能在他的对面放一张桌子,但你可不要把东西或手臂放上去。

  如果你带有手提包或手提箱,就把它放到桌椅旁的地上,不要紧张得抓着不放,更糟糕的是把包或箱子摔在地上,让东西撒了一地。

  对方先伸出手可以和他握手。如果有五个考官一起面试你,一般不会逐个跟你握手,所以没人与你握手也不必感到不安。

  握手时要有力――没有力量的手让人感觉没有个性,但用力太猛让人感到疼痛;也不要一触到对方的手就马下放下,那样的话似乎让人感到你对对方没有好感。

  就是自己感到不好意思,说话也要礼貌、自然。对任何问题都要先想后答。

  如果你听不懂对方的提问,就说:"对不起,您刚才的问题能再说一遍吗? "一般对方会换一套说法把问题重复一遍。

  如果对方当时既没有明确接受你,也没有回绝你,你可以问:"请问我什么 时候能知道面试的结果?"

  如果你真的收到一封信,让你去工作,你应该赶快写封回信。

  祝你好运!

【篇三】

Euthanasia: For and Against

  "We mustn't delay any longer … swallowing is difficult … and breathing, that's also difficult. Those muscles are weakening too … we mustn't delay any longer."These were the words of Dutchman Cees van Wendel de Joode asking his doctor to help him die. Affected with a serious disease, van Wendel was no longer able to speak clearly and he knew there was no hope of recovery and that his condition was rapidly deteriorating.

  Van Wendel's last three months of life before being given a final, lethal injection by his doctor were filmed and first shown on television last year in the Netherlands. The programme has since been bought by 20 countries and each time it is shown, it starts a nationwide debate on the subject.

  The Netherlands is the only country in Europe which permits euthanasia, although it is not technically legal there. However, doctors who carry out euthanasia under strict guidelines introduced by he Dutch Parliament two years ago are usually not prosecuted.

  The guidelines demand that the patient is experiencing extreme suffering, that there is no chance of a cure, and that the patient has made repeated requests for euthanasia. In addition to this, a second doctor must confirm that these criteria have been met and the death must be reported to the police department.

  Should doctors be allowed to take the lives of others? Dr.Wilfred van Oijen, Cees van Wendel's doctor, explains how he looks at the question:"Well, it's not as if I'm planning to murder a crowd of people with a machine gun. In that case, killing is the worst thing I can imagine. But that's entirely different from my work as a doctor. I care for people and I try to ensure that they don't suffer too much. That's a very different thing."

  Many people, though, are totally against the practice of euthanasia. Dr. Andrew Ferguson, Chairman of the organisation Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia, says that "in the vast majority of euthanasia cases, what the patient is actually asking for is something else. They may want a health professional to open up communication for them with their loved ones or family - there's nearly always another question behind the question."

  Britain also has a strong tradition of hospices - special hospitals which care only for the dying and their special needs.

  Cicely Saunders, President of the National Hospice Council and a founder member of the hospice movement, argues that euthanasia doesn't take into account that there are ways of caring for the dying. She is also concerned that allowing euthanasia would undermine the need for care and consideration of a wide range of people: "It's very easy in society now for the elderly, the disabled and the dependent to feel that they are burdens, and therefore that they ought to opt out. I think that anything that legally allows the shortening of life does make those people more vulnerable."

  Many find this prohibition of an individual's right to die paternalistic. Although they agree that life is important and should be respected, they feel that the quality of life should not be ignored. Dr. Van Oijen believes that people have the fundamental right to choose for themselves if they want to die: "What those people who oppose euthanasia are telling me is that dying people haven't the right. And that when people are very ill, we are all afraid of their death. But there are situations where death is a friend. And is those cases, why not?"

  But "why not?" is a question which might cause strong emotion. The film showing Cees van Wendel's death was both moving and sensitive. His doctor was clearly a family friend; his wife had only her husband's interests at heart. Some, however, would argue that it would be dangerous to use this particular example to support the case for euthanasia. Not all patients would receive such a high level of individual care and attention.

  安乐死:赞同还是反对

  "我们再也不能耽误了,……我难以咽下食物……呼吸也有困难……,浑身疲乏无力,……不要再拖了。"荷兰人齐斯·范·温德尔临死前请求医生帮助他一死了之时说了这番话。

  他因身患重病,说话已经不很清楚,他知道自己毫无康复的希望了,而且病情正在迅速恶化。在接受医生注射那致命的最后一针之前,范·温德康最后三个月的生活被拍成了电影,去年在荷兰的电视台首次播出。此后,有20个国家先后购买了这个电视节目,每在一国放映,都会在全国内引起一场对安乐死的议论。

  荷兰是欧洲的允许安乐死的国家。尽管安乐死在技术上还不具有合法性,但如果医生按照两年前荷兰议会制定的议案的严格指导原则实施用安乐死,但如果医生按照两年前荷兰议会制定的议案的严格指导原则实施用安乐死,通常是不会受到法律的追究的。这些指导原则规定,当病人极度痛苦,没有治愈的可能,而且一再要求的情况下才能实施安乐死。另外,还必须有第二位名医生证实已经符合上述条件,并且要向警察机关报告病人的死亡。

  能允许医生结束他人的生命吗?齐斯·范·温德尔的私人医生威尔弗雷德·冯·奥依金解释了他对这个问题的看法"哦,这种情况和我计划用机关枪杀死一大群人完全不一样。若是那样,杀人是我所能想象的最可怕的事。但我作为医生实施安乐死和用枪杀人是绝对不同的。我是关心人,我要尽量保证他们不受更多痛苦。这和那种情况完全是两码事。"

  然而,仍然有很多人坚决反对使用安乐死。"反安乐死健康医疗"组织的主席安德鲁·福格森说:"在使用安乐死的大多数病例中,患者实际上需要的是其他的东西。他们可能需要在健康专家的指导下,与所爱的人或家人进行交流。"英国晚期病人收容所有着牢固的传统,一种专门护理垂危病人并满足他们特殊需要的特殊医院。国家收容所委员会主席和收容运动的发起人茜西莉·桑德斯认为,使用安乐死把护理垂危病人的其他方式都排除了。她还担心允许使用安乐死会减少很多人对于照顾和关心的要求。"在今天的社会里,这样很容易使老年人、残疾人和靠他人生活的人们感到自己是社会的负担,应该从生活中消失掉。我觉得法律上任何允许缩短人们生命和作法都会使那些人变得更容易受伤害。"

  很多人发现禁止一个人选择死亡的权利是没有道理的。尽管他们也认为生命很重要,并且应当尊重生命,但是生活的质量也不容忽视。范·奥依金医生认为如果人们想死,他们应当有选择死亡的权利:"那些反对使用安乐死的人们是在告诉我们要死亡的人没有这种权利。当他们病重时,我们害怕他们会死去。但是有的情况下死亡是人们的朋友。在那种情况下,为什么不使用安乐死呢?"

  但"为什么不呢?"是一个会引起强烈的情感的问题。那部反映齐斯·范·温德尔死亡情景的电影既感人又发人深醒。很显然,这位医生是他们一家人的朋友;温德尔的妻子也是一心为丈夫好。然而,有些人争论说用这种特殊事例来支持安乐死是危险的。再说,不是所有的病人都会受到如此周到的个别护理和关注。

【篇四】

Advantage Unfair

  According to the writer Walter Ellis, author of a book called the Oxbridge Conspiracy, Britain is still dominated by the old-boy network: it isn't what you know that matters, but who you know. He claims that at Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Oxbridge for short) a few select people start on an escalator ride which, over the years, carries them to the tops of British privilege and power. His research revealed that the top professions all continue to be dominated, if not 90 per cent, then 60 or 65 per cent, by Oxbridge graduates.

  And yet ,says Ellis, Oxbridge graduates make up only two per cent of the total number of students who graduate from Britain's universities. Other researches also seem to support his belief that Oxbridge graduates start with an unfair advantage in the employment market. In the law, a recently published report showed that out of 26 senior judges appointed to the High Court last year, all of them went to private schools and 21 of them went to Oxbridge.

  But can this be said to amount to a conspiracy? Not according to Dr. John Rae, a former headmaster of one of Britain's leading private schools, Westminster:"I would accept that there was a bias in some key areas of British life, but that bias has now gone. Some time ago - in the 60s and before - entry to Oxford and Cambridge was not entirely on merit. Now, there's absolutely no question in any objective observer's mind that entry to Oxford and Cambridge is fiercely competitive."However, many would disagree with this. For, although over three-quarters of British pupils are educated in state schools, over half the students that go to Oxbridge have been to private, or "public" schools. Is this because pupils from Britain's private schools are more intelligent than those from state schools, or are they simply better prepared?

  On average, about £5,000 a year is spent on each private school pupil, more than twice the amount spent on state school pupils. So how can the state schools be expected to compete with the private schools when they have far fewer resources? And how can they prepare their pupils for the special entrance exam to Oxford University, which requires extra preparation, and for which many public school pupils traditionally stay at school and do an additional term?

  Until recently, many blamed Oxford for this bias because of the university's special entrance exam (Cambridge abolished its entrance exam in 1986). But last February, Oxford University decided to abolish the exam to encourage more state school applicants. From autumn 1996, Oxford University applicants, like applicants to other universities, will be judged only on their A level results and on their performance at interviews, although some departments might still set special tests.

  However, some argue that there's nothing wrong in having elite places of learning, and that by their very nature, these places should not be easily accessible. Most countries are run by an elite and have centres of academic excellence from which the elite are recruited.

  Walter Ellis accepts that this is true:"But in France, for example, there are something like 40 equivalents of university, which provide this elite through a much broader base. In America you've got the Ivy League, centred on Harvard and Yale, with Princeton and Stanford and others. But again, those universities together - the elite universities - are about ten or fifteen in number, and are being pushed along from behind by other great universities like, for example, Chicago and Berkeley. So you don't have just this narrow concentration of two universities providing a constantly replicating elite."

  When it comes to Oxford and Cambridge being elitist because of the number of private school pupils they accept, Professor Stone of Oxford University argues that there is a simple fact he and his associates cannot ignore:"If certain schools do better than others then we just have to accept it. We cannot be a place for remedial education. It's not what Oxford is there to do."

  However, since academic excellence does appear to be related to the amount of money spent per pupil. This does seem to imply that Prime Minister John Major's vision of Britain as a classless society is still a long way off. And it may be worth remembering that while John Major didn't himself go to Oxbridge, most of his ministers did.