Advertising does more for the material benefit of the community than any other force I can think of. There is one more point I feel I ought to touch on. Recently I heard a well-known television personality declared that he was against advertising because it persuades rather than informs. He was drawing excessively fine distinctions. Of course advertising seeks to persuade.
If its message were confined merely to information—and that in itself would be difficult if not impossible to achieve，for even a detail such as the choice of the color of a shirt is subtly persuasive—advertising would be so boring that no one would pay any attention. But perhaps that is what the well-known television personality wants.
53.The author deems that the well-known TV personality is .
A. very precise in passing his judgment on advertising
B. interested in nothing but the buyers’ attention
C. correct in telling the difference between persuasion and information
D. obviously partial in his views on advertising
54.In the author’s opinion,
A. advertising can seldom bring material benefit to man by providing information
B. advertising informs people of new ideas rather than wins them over
C. there is nothing wrong with advertising in persuading the buyer
D. the buyer is not interested in getting information from an advertisement
2.
……………………………..
In this world of change and complexity，the need for information is of greatest importance. Those people who have accurate，reliable up-to-date information to solve the day-to-day problems，the critical problems of their business，social and family life，will survive and succeed. “Knowledge is power” may well be the truest saying and access to information may be the most critical requirement of all people.
62.We can learn from the last paragraph that .
A. it is necessary to obtain as much knowledge as possible
B. people should make the best use of the information accessible
C. we should realize the importance of accumulating information
D.it is of vital importance to acquire needed information efficiently
The growth of the limited liability company and municipal business had important consequences. Such large，impersonal manipulation of capital and industry greatly increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class，an element in national life representing irresponsible wealth detached from the land and the duties of the landowners; and almost equally detached from the responsible management of business. All through the nineteenth century，America，Africa，India，Australia and parts of Europe were being developed by British capital，and British shareholders were thus enriched by the world’s movement towards industrialization. Towns like Bournemouth and Eastbourne sprang up to house large “comfortable” classes who had retired on their incomes，and who had no relation to the rest of the community except that of drawing dividends and occasionally attending a shareholders meeting to dictate their orders to the management. On the other hand “shareholding” meant leisure and freedom which was used by many of the later Victorians for the highest purpose of a great civilization.
60. The growth of limited liability companies resulted in .
A. the separation of capital from management
B. the ownership of capital by managers
C. the emergence of capital and labor as two classes
D. the participation of shareholders in municipal business
At the core of this debate is Chairman Gerald Levin，56，who took over for the late Steve Ross in1992.On the financial front，Levin is under pressure to raise the stock price and reduce the company’s mountainous debt，which will increase to＄17.3billion after two new cable deals close. He has promised to sell off some of the property and restructure the company，but investors are waiting impatiently. The flap over rap is not making life any easier for him. Levin has consistently defended the company s rap music on the grounds of expression.In1992，when Time Warner was under fire for releasing Ice-T’s violent rap song Cop Killer，Levin described rap as a lawful expression of street culture，which deserves an outlet. “The test of any democratic society，”he wrote in a Wall Street Journal column，“lies not in how well it can control expression but in whether it gives freedom of thought and expression the widest possible latitude，however disputable or irritating the results may sometimes be. We won t retreat in the face of any threats.”
批注：
At the core of this debate is Chairman Gerald Levin，56，who took over(接管) for the late(已故的) Steve Ross in1992.(1)On the financial front(在财经战场方面)，Levin is under pressure to raise the stock(=share股份；bond有息债卷) price and reduce the company’s mountainous debt，which will increase to＄17.3billion after two new cable deals(有线交易) close. He has promised to sell off some of the property and restructure the company，but investors are waiting impatiently. (2)The flap帽檐；拍打；慌乱不安 over rap(说唱音乐) is not making life any easier for him. Levin has consistently defended the company’s rap music on the grounds of expression(依据言论自由为公司辩护). In1992，when Time Warner was under fire for releasing Ice-T’s violent rap song Cop Killer，Levin described rap as a lawful expression of street culture，which deserves an outlet出口、排遣. “The test of any democratic society，”he wrote in a Wall Street Journal column，“lies not in how well it can control expression but in whether it gives freedom of thought and expression the widest possible latitude纬度；(思想行动)自由，however disputable or irritating the results may sometimes be. We won’t retreat in the face of any threats.”
Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. Think of Gallileo’s17th-century trial for his rebelling belief before the Catholic Church of poet William Blake’s harsh remarks against the mechanistic worldview of Isaac Newton. The schism between science and the humanities has，if anything，deepened in this century.
Until recently，the scientific community was so powerful that it could afford to ignore its critics but no longer. As funding for science has declined，scientists have attacked “antiscience” in several books，notably Higher Superstition，by Paul R.Gross，a biologist at the University of Virginia，and Norman Levitt，a mathematician at Rutgers University; and The Demon-Haunted World，by Car Sagan of Cornell University.
Defenders of science have also voiced their concerns at meetings such as “The Flight from Science and Reason，”held in New York City in1995，and “Science in the Age of(Mis)information，”which assembled last June near Buffalo.
Antiscience clearly means different things to different people. Gross and Levitt find fault primarily with sociologists，philosophers and other academics who have questioned science’s objectivity. Sagan is more concerned with those who believe in ghosts，creationism and other phenomena that contradict the scientific worldview.
A survey of news stories in1996reveals that the antiscience tag has been attached to many other groups as well，from authorities who advocated the elimination of the last remaining stocks of smallpox virus to Republicans who advocated decreased funding for basic research.
Few would dispute that the term applies to the Unabomber，whose manifesto，published in1995，scorns science and longs for return to a pretechnological utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are antiscience，as an essay in US News & World Report last May seemed to suggest.
The environmentalists，inevitably，respond to such critics. The true enemies of science，argues Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University，a pioneer of environmental studies，are those who question the evidence supporting global warming，the depletion of the ozone layer and other consequences of industrial growth. Indeed，some observers fear that the antiscience epithet is in danger of becoming meaningless. “The term ‘antiscience’ can lump together too many，quite different things，”notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his1993work Science and Anti-Science. “They have in common only one thing that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened.”
62.The author’s attitude toward the issue of “science vs. antiscience” is .
收藏
点赞!
反对!