2014年2月2日，甲公司支付1660万元取得一项股权投资作为交易性金融资产核算，支付价款中包括已宣告但尚未领取的现金股利40万元和交易费用10万元。甲公司该项交易性金融资产的入账价值为（）万元。

A:1620 B:1610 C:1660 D:1670

Text 4
The first mention of slavery in the statutes of the English colonies of North America does not occur until after 1660 -- some forty years after the importation of the first Black people. Lest we think that slavery existed in fact before it did in law, Oscar and Mary Handlin assure us that the status of Black people down to the 1660’s was that of servants. A critique of the Handlins’ interpretation of why legal slavery did not appear until the 1660’s suggests that assumptions about the relation between slavery and racial prejudice should be reexamined, and that explanations for the different treatment of Black slaves in North and South America should be expanded.
The Handlins explain the appearance of legal slavery by arguing that, during the 1660’s, the position of White servants was improving relative to that of Black servants. Thus, the Handlins contend, Black and White servants, heretofore treated Mike, each attained a different status. There are, however, important objections to this argument. First, the Handlins cannot adequately demonstrate that the White servant’s position was improving during and after the 1660’s; several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures indicate otherwise. Another flaw in the Handlins’ interpretation is their assumption that prior to the establishment of legal slavery there was no discrimination against Black people. It is true that before the 1660’s Black people were rarely called slaves. But this should not overshadow evidence from the 1630’s on that point to racial discrimination without using the term slavery. Such discrimination sometimes stopped short of lifetime servitude or inherited status -- the two attributes of true slavery, yet in other cases it included both. The Handlins’argument excludes the real possibility that Black people in the English colonies were never treated as the equals of White people.
The possibility has important ramifications. If from the outset Black people were discriminated against, then legal slavery should be viewed as a reflection and an extension of racial prejudice rather than, as many historians including the Handlins have argued, the cause of prejudice. In addition, the existence of discrimination before the advent of legal slavery offers a further explanation for the harsher treatment of Black slaves in North than in South America. Freyre and Tannenbaum have rightly argued that the lack of certain traditions in North America -- such as a Roman conception of slavery and a Roman Catholic emphasis on equality -- explains why the treatment of Black slaves was more severe there than in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of South America, But this cannot be the whole explanation since it is merely negative, based only on a lack of something. A more compelling explanation is that the early and sometimes extreme racial discrimination in the English colonies helped determine the particular nature of the slavery that followed.

The effects of "several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures" passed during and after the 1660's were that they（）

A:negatively affected the pre-1660’s position of Black as well as of White servants. B:had the effect of impairing rather than improving the position of White servant. C:at the very least, caused the position of White servants to remain no better than it had been before the 1660’s. D:at the very least, tended to reflect the attitudes toward Black servants that already existed before the 1660’s.

Text 4
The first mention of slavery in the statutes of the English colonies of North America does not occur until after 1660 -- some forty years after the importation of the first Black people. Lest we think that slavery existed in fact before it did in law, Oscar and Mary Handlin assure us that the status of Black people down to the 1660’s was that of servants. A critique of the Handlins’ interpretation of why legal slavery did not appear until the 1660’s suggests that assumptions about the relation between slavery and racial prejudice should be reexamined, and that explanations for the different treatment of Black slaves in North and South America should be expanded.
The Handlins explain the appearance of legal slavery by arguing that, during the 1660’s, the position of White servants was improving relative to that of Black servants. Thus, the Handlins contend, Black and White servants, heretofore treated Mike, each attained a different status. There are, however, important objections to this argument. First, the Handlins cannot adequately demonstrate that the White servant’s position was improving during and after the 1660’s; several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures indicate otherwise. Another flaw in the Handlins’ interpretation is their assumption that prior to the establishment of legal slavery there was no discrimination against Black people. It is true that before the 1660’s Black people were rarely called slaves. But this should not overshadow evidence from the 1630’s on that point to racial discrimination without using the term slavery. Such discrimination sometimes stopped short of lifetime servitude or inherited status -- the two attributes of true slavery, yet in other cases it included both. The Handlins’argument excludes the real possibility that Black people in the English colonies were never treated as the equals of White people.
The possibility has important ramifications. If from the outset Black people were discriminated against, then legal slavery should be viewed as a reflection and an extension of racial prejudice rather than, as many historians including the Handlins have argued, the cause of prejudice. In addition, the existence of discrimination before the advent of legal slavery offers a further explanation for the harsher treatment of Black slaves in North than in South America. Freyre and Tannenbaum have rightly argued that the lack of certain traditions in North America -- such as a Roman conception of slavery and a Roman Catholic emphasis on equality -- explains why the treatment of Black slaves was more severe there than in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of South America, But this cannot be the whole explanation since it is merely negative, based only on a lack of something. A more compelling explanation is that the early and sometimes extreme racial discrimination in the English colonies helped determine the particular nature of the slavery that followed.

Regarding the reason for the introduction of legal slavery, the author might agree that the introduction is more likely to be explained by reference to（）

A:the origins of slavery, before the 1660’s, in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies. B:a growing consensus beginning in the 1630’s about what were the attributes of true slavery. C:the position of Black servants in the colonies in the 1630’s than by reference to their posi- tion in 1640's and 1650’s. D:the history of Black people in the colonies before 1660 than by reference to the improving position of White servants during and after the 1660’s.

Text 4 The first mention of slavery in the statutes of the English colonies of North America does not occur until after 1660 -- some forty years after the importation of the first Black people. Lest we think that slavery existed in fact before it did in law, Oscar and Mary Handlin assure us that the status of Black people down to the 1660’s was that of servants. A critique of the Handlins’ interpretation of why legal slavery did not appear until the 1660’s suggests that assumptions about the relation between slavery and racial prejudice should be reexamined, and that explanations for the different treatment of Black slaves in North and South America should be expanded. The Handlins explain the appearance of legal slavery by arguing that, during the 1660’s, the position of White servants was improving relative to that of Black servants. Thus, the Handlins contend, Black and White servants, heretofore treated Mike, each attained a different status. There are, however, important objections to this argument. First, the Handlins cannot adequately demonstrate that the White servant’s position was improving during and after the 1660’s; several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures indicate otherwise. Another flaw in the Handlins’ interpretation is their assumption that prior to the establishment of legal slavery there was no discrimination against Black people. It is true that before the 1660’s Black people were rarely called slaves. But this should not overshadow evidence from the 1630’s on that point to racial discrimination without using the term slavery. Such discrimination sometimes stopped short of lifetime servitude or inherited status -- the two attributes of true slavery, yet in other cases it included both. The Handlins’argument excludes the real possibility that Black people in the English colonies were never treated as the equals of White people. The possibility has important ramifications. If from the outset Black people were discriminated against, then legal slavery should be viewed as a reflection and an extension of racial prejudice rather than, as many historians including the Handlins have argued, the cause of prejudice. In addition, the existence of discrimination before the advent of legal slavery offers a further explanation for the harsher treatment of Black slaves in North than in South America. Freyre and Tannenbaum have rightly argued that the lack of certain traditions in North America -- such as a Roman conception of slavery and a Roman Catholic emphasis on equality -- explains why the treatment of Black slaves was more severe there than in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of South America, But this cannot be the whole explanation since it is merely negative, based only on a lack of something. A more compelling explanation is that the early and sometimes extreme racial discrimination in the English colonies helped determine the particular nature of the slavery that followed.

The effects of "several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures" passed during and after the 1660's were that they（）

A:negatively affected the pre-1660’s position of Black as well as of White servants. B:had the effect of impairing rather than improving the position of White servant. C:at the very least, caused the position of White servants to remain no better than it had been before the 1660’s. D:at the very least, tended to reflect the attitudes toward Black servants that already existed before the 1660’s.

Text 4 The first mention of slavery in the statutes of the English colonies of North America does not occur until after 1660 -- some forty years after the importation of the first Black people. Lest we think that slavery existed in fact before it did in law, Oscar and Mary Handlin assure us that the status of Black people down to the 1660’s was that of servants. A critique of the Handlins’ interpretation of why legal slavery did not appear until the 1660’s suggests that assumptions about the relation between slavery and racial prejudice should be reexamined, and that explanations for the different treatment of Black slaves in North and South America should be expanded. The Handlins explain the appearance of legal slavery by arguing that, during the 1660’s, the position of White servants was improving relative to that of Black servants. Thus, the Handlins contend, Black and White servants, heretofore treated Mike, each attained a different status. There are, however, important objections to this argument. First, the Handlins cannot adequately demonstrate that the White servant’s position was improving during and after the 1660’s; several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures indicate otherwise. Another flaw in the Handlins’ interpretation is their assumption that prior to the establishment of legal slavery there was no discrimination against Black people. It is true that before the 1660’s Black people were rarely called slaves. But this should not overshadow evidence from the 1630’s on that point to racial discrimination without using the term slavery. Such discrimination sometimes stopped short of lifetime servitude or inherited status -- the two attributes of true slavery, yet in other cases it included both. The Handlins’argument excludes the real possibility that Black people in the English colonies were never treated as the equals of White people. The possibility has important ramifications. If from the outset Black people were discriminated against, then legal slavery should be viewed as a reflection and an extension of racial prejudice rather than, as many historians including the Handlins have argued, the cause of prejudice. In addition, the existence of discrimination before the advent of legal slavery offers a further explanation for the harsher treatment of Black slaves in North than in South America. Freyre and Tannenbaum have rightly argued that the lack of certain traditions in North America -- such as a Roman conception of slavery and a Roman Catholic emphasis on equality -- explains why the treatment of Black slaves was more severe there than in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of South America, But this cannot be the whole explanation since it is merely negative, based only on a lack of something. A more compelling explanation is that the early and sometimes extreme racial discrimination in the English colonies helped determine the particular nature of the slavery that followed.

Regarding the reason for the introduction of legal slavery, the author might agree that the introduction is more likely to be explained by reference to（）

A:the origins of slavery, before the 1660’s, in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies. B:a growing consensus beginning in the 1630’s about what were the attributes of true slavery. C:the position of Black servants in the colonies in the 1630’s than by reference to their posi- tion in 1640's and 1650’s. D:the history of Black people in the colonies before 1660 than by reference to the improving position of White servants during and after the 1660’s.

第三篇 　 Is the Tie a Necessity？ 　　Ties, or neckties, have been a symbol of politeness and elegance in Britain for centuries. But the casual Prime Minister Tony Blair has problems with them. Reports suggest that even the civil servants may stop wearing ties. So, are the famously formal British really going to abandon the neckties? 　　Maybe. Last week, the UK’s Cabinet Secretary Andrew Turnbull openly welcomed a tieless era. He hinted that civil servants would soon be free of the costliest 12 inches of fabric that most men ever buy in their lives. 　　In fact， Blair showed this attitude when he had his first guests to a cocktail party. Many of them were celebrities （知名人士） without ties， which would have been unimaginable even in the recent past. 　　For some more conservative British, the tie is a must for proper appearance. Earlier, Labor leader Jim Callaghan said he would have died rather than have his children seen in public without a tie. For people like Callaghan, the tic; was a sign of being complete, of showing respect. Men were supposed to wear a tie when going to church, to work in the office, to a party - almost every social occasion. 　　But today, people have begun to accept a casual style even for formal occasions. 　　The origin of the tie is tricky. It started as something called simply a "band". The term could mean anything around a man’s neck. It appeared in finer ways in the 1630s. Frenchmen showed a love of this particular fashion statement. Their neckwear （颈饰） impressed Charles II， the king of England who was exiled （流放） to France at that time. When he returned to England in 1660， he brought this new fashion item along with him. 　　It wasn’t, however, until the late 18th century that fancy young men introduced a more colorful, flowing piece of cloth that eventually became known as the tie. Then, clubs, military institutions and schools began to use colored and patterned ties to indicate the wearer’s membership in the late 19th century. After that, the tie became a necessary item of clothing for British gentlemen. 　　But now, even gentlemen are getting tired of ties. Anyway, the day feels a bit easier when you wake up without having to decide which tie suits you and your mood. When did British gentlemen begin to wear ties regularly?

A:After the late 19th century. B:In the 1630s. C:In 1660. D:In the late 18th century.

　第一篇 Is the Tie a Necessity？ 　　Ties, or neckties, have been a symbol of politeness and elegance in Britain for centuries. But the casual Prime Minister Tony Blair has problems with them. Reports suggest that even the civil servants may stop wearing ties. So, are the famously formal British really going to abandon the neckties? Maybe. Last week, the UK’s Cabinet Secretary Andrew Turnbull openly welcomed a tieless era. He hinted that civil servants would soon be tree of the costliest 12 inches of fabric that most men ever buy in their lives. 　　In fact， Blair showed this attitude when he had his first guests to a cocktail party. Many of them were celebrities （知名人士） without ties， which would have been unimaginable even in the recent past. For some more conservative British, the tie is a must for proper appearance. Earlier, Labor leader Jim Callaghan said he would have died rather than have his children seen in public without a tie. For people like Callaghan, the tile was a sign of being complete, of showing respect. Men were supposed to wear a tie when going to church, to work in the office, to a party - almost every social occasion. But today, people have begun to accept a casual style even for formal occasions. 　　The origin of the tie is tricky. It started as something called simply a "band". The term could mean anything around a man’s neck. It appeared in finer ways in the 1630s. Frenchmen showed a love of this particular fashion statement. Their neckwear （颈饰）impressed Charles II， the king of England who was exiled（流放）to France at that time. When he returned to England in 1660， he brought this new fashion item along with him. It wasn’t, however, until the late 18th century that fancy young men introduced a more colorful, flowing piece of cloth that eventually became known as the tie. Then, clubs military institutions and schools began to use colored and patterned ties to indicate the wearer’s membership in the late 19th century. After that, the tie became a necessary item of clothing for British gentlemen. 　　But now, even gentlemen are getting tired of ties. Anyway, the day feels a bit easier when you wake up without having to decide which tie suits you and your mood. When did British gentlemen begin to wear ties regularly?

A:After the late 19th century. B:In the 1630s. C:In 1660. D:In the late 18th century.

第三篇 Is the Tie a Necessity? Ties, or neckties, have been a symbol of politeness and elegance in Britain for centuries. But the casual Prime Minister Tony Blair has problems with them. Reports suggest that even the civil servants may stop wearing ties. So, are the famously formal British really going to abandon the neckties? Maybe. Last week, the UK’s Cabinet Secretary Andrew Turnbull openly welcomed a tieless era. He hinted that civil servants would soon be free of the costliest 12 inches of fabric that most men ever buy in their lives. In fact, Blair showed this attitude when he had his first guests to a cocktail party. Many of them were celebrities (知名人士) without ties, which would have been unimaginable even in the recent past. For some more conservative British, the tie is a must for proper appearance. Earlier, Labor leader Jim Callaghan said he would have died rather than have his children seen in public without a tie. For people like Callaghan, the tie was a sign of being complete, of showing respect. Men were supposed to wear a tie when going to church, to work in the office, to a party - almost every social occasion. But today, people have begun to accept a casual style even for formal occasions. The origin of the tie is tricky. It started as something called simply a "band". The term could mean anything around a man’s neck. It appeared in finer ways in the 1630s. Frenchmen showed a love of this particular fashion statement. Their neckwear (颈饰) impressed Charles II, the king of England who was exiled (流放) to France at that time. When he returned to England in 1660, he brought this new fashion item along with him. It wasn’t, however, until the late 18th century that fancy young men introduced a more colorful, flowing piece of cloth that eventually became known as the tie. Then, clubs, military institutions and schools began to use colored and patterned ties to indicate the wearer’s membership in the late 19th century. After that, the tie became a necessary item of clothing for British gentlemen. But now, even gentlemen are getting tired of ties. Anyway, the day feels a bit easier when you wake up without having to decide which tie suits you and your mood. When did British gentlemen begin to wear ties regularly?

A:After the late 19th century. B:In the 1630s. C:In 1660. D:In the late 18th century.