E It’s generally believed that people act the way they do because of their personalities and attitudes. They recycle their garbage because they care about the environment. They pay $5 for a caramel brulee latte because they like expensive coffee drinks. It’s undeniable that behavior comes from our inner dispositions（性情）, but in many instances we also draw inferences about who we are, as suggested by the social psychologist Daryl Bern, by observing our own behavior. We can be strangers to ourselves. If we knew our own minds, why should we need to guess what our preferences are from our behavior If our minds were an open book, we would know exactly how much we care about the environment or like lattes. Actually, we often need to look to our behavior to figure out who we are. Moreover, we don’t just use our behavior to learn about our particular types of character --- we infer characters that weren’t there before. Our behavior is often shaped by little pressures around us, which we fail to recognize. Maybe we recycle because our wives and neighbors would disapprove if we didn’t. Maybe we buy lattes in order to impress the people around us. We should not mistakenly believe that we always behave as a result of some inner disposition. Whatever pressures there can be or inferences one can make, people become what they do, though it may not be in compliance（符合）with their true desires. Therefore, we should all bear in mind Kurt Vonnegut’s advice: “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” What does the author mainly discusses in the passage

A:Personalities and attitudes. B:Preferences and habits. C:Behavior and personalities. D:Attitudes and preferences.

For more than two decades, U.S. courts have been limiting affirmative-action programs in universities and other areas. The legal rationale is that racial preferences are unconstitutional, even those intended to compensate for racism or intolerance. For many colleges, this means students can be admitted only on merit, not on their race or ethnicity. It has been a divisive issue across the U. S., as educators blame the prolonged reaction to affirmative-action for declines in minority admissions. Meanwhile, activists continue to battle race preferences in courts from Michigan to North Carolina.
Now chief executives of about two dozen companies have decided to plunge headfirst into this politically unsettled debate. They, together with 36 universities and 7 non-profitable organizations, formed a forum that set forth an action plan essentially designed to help colleges circumvent court-imposed restrictions on affirmative action. The CEOs’ motive: "Our audience is growing more diverse, so the communities we serve benefit if our employees are racially and ethnically diverse" as well, says one CEO of a company that owns nine television stations.
Among the steps the form is pushing: finding creative yet legal ways to boost minority enrollment through new admissions policies; promoting admissions decisions that look at more than test scores; and encouraging universities to step up their minority outreach and financial aid. And to counter accusations by critics to challenge these tactics in court, the group says it will give legal assistance to colleges sued for trying them. "Diversity diminished by the court must be made up for in other legitimate, legal ways," says a forum member.
One of the more controversial methods advocated is the so-called 10% rule. The idea is for public universities--which educate three-quarters of all U. S. undergraduates--to admit students Who are in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. Doing so allows colleges to take minorities who excel in average urban schools, even if they wouldn’t have made the cut under the current statewide ranking many universities use.
U.S. court restrictions on affirmative-action signify that

A:minorities no longer hold the once favored status. B:the quality of American colleges has improved. C:racial preferences has replaced racial prejudice. D:the minority is on an equal footing with the majority.

For more than two decades, U.S. courts have been limiting affirmative-action programs in universities and other areas. The legal rationale is that racial preferences are unconstitutional, even those intended to compensate for racism or intolerance. For many colleges, this means students can be admitted only on merit, not on their race or ethnicity. It has been a divisive issue across the U. S., as educators blame the prolonged reaction to affirmative-action for declines in minority admissions. Meanwhile, activists continue to battle race preferences in courts from Michigan to North Carolina.
Now chief executives of about two dozen companies have decided to plunge headfirst into this politically unsettled debate. They, together with 36 universities and 7 non-profitable organizations, formed a forum that set forth an action plan essentially designed to help colleges circumvent court-imposed restrictions on affirmative action. The CEOs’ motive: "Our audience is growing more diverse, so the communities we serve benefit if our employees are racially and ethnically diverse" as well, says one CEO of a company that owns nine television stations.
Among the steps the form is pushing: finding creative yet legal ways to boost minority enrollment through new admissions policies; promoting admissions decisions that look at more than test scores; and encouraging universities to step up their minority outreach and financial aid. And to counter accusations by critics to challenge these tactics in court, the group says it will give legal assistance to colleges sued for trying them. "Diversity diminished by the court must be made up for in other legitimate, legal ways," says a forum member.
One of the more controversial methods advocated is the so-called 10% rule. The idea is for public universities--which educate three-quarters of all U. S. undergraduates--to admit students Who are in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. Doing so allows colleges to take minorities who excel in average urban schools, even if they wouldn’t have made the cut under the current statewide ranking many universities use.
The major tactic the forum uses is to

A:battle the racial preferences in court. B:support colleges involved in lawsuits of racism C:strive to settle this political debate nationwide. D:find legally viable ways to ensure minority admissions.

For more than two decades, U.S. courts have been limiting affirmative-action programs in universities and other areas. The legal rationale is that racial preferences are unconstitutional, even those intended to compensate for racism or intolerance. For many colleges, this means students can be admitted only on merit, not on their race or ethnicity. It has been a divisive issue across the U. S., as educators blame the prolonged reaction to affirmative-action for declines in minority admissions. Meanwhile, activists continue to battle race preferences in courts from Michigan to North Carolina.
Now chief executives of about two dozen companies have decided to plunge headfirst into this politically unsettled debate. They, together with 36 universities and 7 non-profitable organizations, formed a forum that set forth an action plan essentially designed to help colleges circumvent court-imposed restrictions on affirmative action. The CEOs’ motive: "Our audience is growing more diverse, so the communities we serve benefit if our employees are racially and ethnically diverse" as well, says one CEO of a company that owns nine television stations.
Among the steps the form is pushing: finding creative yet legal ways to boost minority enrollment through new admissions policies; promoting admissions decisions that look at more than test scores; and encouraging universities to step up their minority outreach and financial aid. And to counter accusations by critics to challenge these tactics in court, the group says it will give legal assistance to colleges sued for trying them. "Diversity diminished by the court must be made up for in other legitimate, legal ways," says a forum member.
One of the more controversial methods advocated is the so-called 10% rule. The idea is for public universities--which educate three-quarters of all U. S. undergraduates--to admit students Who are in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. Doing so allows colleges to take minorities who excel in average urban schools, even if they wouldn’t have made the cut under the current statewide ranking many universities use.

A:minorities no longer hold the once favored status. B:the quality of American colleges has improved. C:racial preferences has replaced racial prejudice. D:the minority is on an equal footing with the majority.

For more than two decades, U.S. courts have been limiting affirmative-action programs in universities and other areas. The legal rationale is that racial preferences are unconstitutional, even those intended to compensate for racism or intolerance. For many colleges, this means students can be admitted only on merit, not on their race or ethnicity. It has been a divisive issue across the U. S., as educators blame the prolonged reaction to affirmative-action for declines in minority admissions. Meanwhile, activists continue to battle race preferences in courts from Michigan to North Carolina.
Now chief executives of about two dozen companies have decided to plunge headfirst into this politically unsettled debate. They, together with 36 universities and 7 non-profitable organizations, formed a forum that set forth an action plan essentially designed to help colleges circumvent court-imposed restrictions on affirmative action. The CEOs’ motive: "Our audience is growing more diverse, so the communities we serve benefit if our employees are racially and ethnically diverse" as well, says one CEO of a company that owns nine television stations.
Among the steps the form is pushing: finding creative yet legal ways to boost minority enrollment through new admissions policies; promoting admissions decisions that look at more than test scores; and encouraging universities to step up their minority outreach and financial aid. And to counter accusations by critics to challenge these tactics in court, the group says it will give legal assistance to colleges sued for trying them. "Diversity diminished by the court must be made up for in other legitimate, legal ways," says a forum member.
One of the more controversial methods advocated is the so-called 10% rule. The idea is for public universities--which educate three-quarters of all U. S. undergraduates--to admit students Who are in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. Doing so allows colleges to take minorities who excel in average urban schools, even if they wouldn’t have made the cut under the current statewide ranking many universities use.

A:battle the racial preferences in court. B:support colleges involved in lawsuits of racism C:strive to settle this political debate nationwide. D:find legally viable ways to ensure minority admissions.

There will be a steady trend toward vegetarianism. A given quantity of ground can provide plant food for man or it can provide plant food for animals which are later killed for meat. 　　In converting the tissues of food into the tissues of the feeder, up to 90 per cent is used for reasons other than tissue maintenance and growth. This means that one hundred pounds of plant food will support ten pounds of human tissue―while one hundred pounds of plant food will support ten pounds of animal tissue, which will then support one pound of human tissue. In other words, land devoted to plant food will support ten times as many human beings as land devoted to animal food. 　　It is this (far more than food preferences or religious directions ) that forces overcrowded populations into vegetarianism. And it will be the direction in which the United States of 2001 will be moving―not by presidential order, but through the force of a steady rise in meat prices as compared with other kinds of food. 　　This, in turn, will come about because our herds will decrease as the food demand causes more and more meadow to be turned to farmland, and as land producing corn and other animal food is converted to providing food directly for man. 　　Another point is that it is not only energy that is in short supply. A shortage of oil means a shortage of plastics; a shortage of electricity means a shortage of aluminium. We are also experiencing a shortage of paper and most other raw materials. 　　This means that, for one thing, our generosity in wrapping, bagging and packaging will have to recede. There will have to be at least a partial return in supermarkets to the old days where goods were supplied in bulk and given out in bags to order. It may even become necessary to return bags, as we once returned bottles, or pay for new ones. 　　A decline in per-capita energy use will make it necessary to resort to human muscle again, so that the delivery man will make a comeback (his price added to that of the food, of course).Since energy shortages will cause unemployment in many sectors of the economy, there will be idle hands to do the manual work that will become necessary. 　　From an energy-saving standpoint, it would make far more sense to order by phone and have a single truck deliver food to many homes, than for a member of each home to drive an automobile, round-trip, to pick up a one-family food supply. 　　To be sure, it will not all be retrogression. Even assuming that Earth is in a desperate battle of survival through a crisis of still rising population and dwindling energy reserves, there should still continue to be technological advances in those directions that don’’t depend on wasteful bulk use of energy. There will be continuing advances in the direction of "sophistication", in other words. We know from the text that

A:vegetarianism is the natural result of people’’s food selection. B:present farmland produces more vegetables than animal food. C:vegetarianism is to be caused by the laws of market economy. D:people’’s food preferences conflict with supply and demand.