Millions of people in Cairo and the Cape of Good Hope were subjected to a choking atmosphere because ______.

A:the temperature grew extremely hot B:the temperature became damper and hotter as the humidity of the surface waters of the sea increased C:their conditions were too dangerous D:nothing could be done with the hot temperature

When a student, I was a member of the collegiate basketball team. It was mainly composed of bookish students. Only one could be counted as natural athlete, another half-qualified. That’s why we were defeated nine out of ten games. Our spirits, however, had never dampened, for we were a cheerful team. None would strive to get into the spotlight when we were gaining the upper hand~ nor would we blame each other when we were losing. Thus a cordial relationship between members prevailed in our team. Most recommendable of all was our morale which never lowered. Our sportsmanship also remained good. We persisted in carrying on to the last when suffering great loss. We knew we had done our best, showing no regret at failure. To the rest of the students our team was a good one though it lost the game. They kept encouraging us and none of them was disappointed.
Recently I have avoided watching games, not even at a TV live coverage, still less to the match in person. That’s because I know I couldn’t control myself. When watching a match, I’ll inevitably take sides and be emotionally involved, strongly wishing for the triumph of the side over its opponent. As I often side with the "weaker " in a match, watching it will only spell worry and misery for me.
Not long ago when I accompanied my wife to a super world tennis match my horizons broadened as regards sports competition. It seemed to me that wins and losses were relative and transient. What mattered was the ever-higher level achieved through contest. Victory was a result of all the efforts made by both sides. As one of the audience, I should applaud the energetic performance of both to the neglect of the result. Why should I regard the contest as a life-and-death struggle, the winner as survival and the loser as dead

Which of the following is true according to the article（）

A:The basketball team was often defeated so their feelings were miserable. B:When they lost a match, they always complained about each other. C:They were not in good relationship with each other. D:They had a good sportsmanship even when they lost.

When a student, I was a member of the collegiate basketball team. It was mainly composed of bookish students. Only one could be counted as natural athlete, another half-qualified. That’s why we were defeated nine out of ten games. Our spirits, however, had never dampened, for we were a cheerful team. None would strive to get into the spotlight when we were gaining the upper hand; nor would we blame each other when we were losing. Thus a cordial relationship between members prevailed in our team. Most recommendable of all was our morale which never lowered. Our sportsmanship also remained good. We persisted in carrying on to the last when suffering great loss. We knew we had done our best, showing no regret at failure. To the rest of the students our team was a good one though it lost the game. They kept encouraging us and none of them was disappointed.
Recently I have avoided watching games, not even at a TV live coverage, still less to the match in person. That’s because I know I couldn’t control myself. When watching a match, I’ll inevitably take sides and be emotionally involved, strongly wishing for the triumph of the side over its opponent. As I often side with the "weaker" in a match, watching it will only spell worry and misery for me.
Not long ago when I accompanied my wife to a super world tennis match my horizons broadened as regards sports competition. It seemed to me that wins and losses were relative and transient. What mattered was the ever-higher level achieved through contest. Victory was a result of all the efforts made by both sides. As one of the audience, I should applaud the energetic performance of both to the neglect of the result. Why should I regard the contest as a life-and-death struggle, the winner as survival and the loser as dead
Which of the following is true according to the article

A:The basketball team was often defeated so their feelings were miserable. B:When they lost a match, they always complained about each other. C:They were not in good relationship with each other. D:They had a good sportsmanship even when they lost.

Passage Three

Which of the following is true according to the article

A:The basketball team was often defeated so their feelings were miserable. B:When they lost a match, they always complained about each other. C:They were not in good relationship with each other. D:They had a good sportsmanship even when they lost.

It’s a modern problem: you’re too busy to be disturbed by incessant (连续不断的) phone calls so you turn your cellphone off. But if you don’t remember to turn it back on when you’re less busy, you could miss some important calls. If only the phone knew when it was wise to interrupt you, you wouldn’t have to turn it off at all. Instead, it could let calls through when you are not too busy.
A bunch of behavior sensors (传感器) and a clever piece of software could do just that, by analyzing your behavior to determine if it’s a good time to interrupt you. If built into a phone, the system may decide you’re too busy and ask the caller to leave a message or ring back later.
James Fogarty and Scott Hudson at Camegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania based their system on tiny microphones, cameras and touch sensors that reveal body language and activity. First they had to study different behaviors to find out which ones strongly predict whether your mind is interrupted.
The potential "busyness" signals they focused on included whether the office doors were left open or closed, the time of day, if other people were with the person in question, how close they were to each other, and whether or not the computer was in use.
The sensors monitored these and many other factors while four subjects were at work. At random intervals, the subjects rated how interruptible they were on a scale ranging from "highly interruptible" to "highly not-interruptible". Their ratings were then correlated with the various behaviors. "It is a shotgun (随意的) approach, we used all the indicators we could think of and then let statistics find out which were important," says Hudson.
The model showed that using the keyboard, and talking on a landline or to someone else in the office correlated most strongly with how interruptible the subjects judged themselves to be.
Interestingly, the computer was actually better than people at predicting when someone was too busy to be interrupted. The computer got it right 82 percent of the time, humans 77 percent. Fogarty speculates that this might be because people doing the interrupting are inevitably biased towards delivering their message, whereas computers don’t care.
The first application for Hudson and Fogarty’s system is likely to be in an instant messaging system, followed by office phones and cellphones. "There is no technological roadblock (障碍) to it being deployed in a couple of years," says Hudson.
Scientists at Carnegie Mellon University tried to find out

A:why office doors were often left open. B:when it was a good time to turn off the computer. C:what questions office workers were bothered with. D:which behaviors could tell whether a person was busy.

A Phone That Knows You’re Busy

It’s a modern problem: You’re too busy to be disturbed by incessant (连续不断的) phone calls so you turn your cellphone off. But if you don’t remember to turn it back on when you’re less busy, you could miss some important calls. If only the phone knew when it was wise to interrupt you, you wouldn’t have to turn it off at all. Instead, it could let calls through when you are not too busy.
A bunch of behavior sensors (传感器) and a clever piece of software could do just that, by analyzing your behavior to determine if it’s a good time to interrupt you. If built into a phone, the system may decide you’re too busy and ask the caller to leave a message or ring back later.
James Fogarty and Scott Hudson at Camegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania based their system on tiny microphones, cameras and touch sensors that reveal body language and activity. First they had to study different behaviors to find out which ones strongly predict whether your mind is interrupted.
The potential "busyness" signals they focused on included whether the office doors were left open or closed, the time of day, if other people were with the person in question, how close they were to each other, and whether or not the computer was in use.
The sensors monitored these and many other factors while four subjects were at work. At random intervals, the subjects rated how interruptible they were on a scale ranging from "highly interruptible" to "highly not-interruptible". Their ratings were then correlated with the various behaviors. "It is a shotgun (随意的) approach: we used all the indicators we could think of and then let statistics find out which were important," says Hudson.
The model showed that using the keyboard, and talking on a landline or to someone else in the office correlated most strongly with how interruptible the subjects judged themselves to be.
Interestingly, the computer was actually better than people at predicting when someone was too busy to be interrupted. The computer got it right 82 per cent of the time, humans 77 per cent. Fogarty speculates that this might be because people doing the interrupting are inevitably biased towards delivering their message, whereas computers don’t care.
The first application for Hudson and Fogarty’s system is likely to be in an instant messaging system, followed by office phones and cellphones. "There is no technological roadblock (障碍) to it being deployed in a couple of years," says Hudson.

The computer performed better than people in the study because（　）

A:the computer worked harder. B:the computer was not busy. C:people tended to be biased. D:people were not good at statistics.

It’s a modem problem: you’re too busy to be disturbed by incessant (连续不断的) phone calls so you turn your cellphone off. But if you don’t remember to turn it back on when you’re less busy, you could miss some important calls if only the phone knew when it was wise to interrupt you, you wouldn’t have to turn it off at all. Instead, it could let calls through when you are not too busy.
A bunch of behavior sensors and a clever piece of software could do just that, by analyzing your behavior to determine if it’s a good time to interrupt you. If built into a phone, the system may decide you’re too busy and ask the caller to leave a message or ring back later.
James Fogarty and Scott Hudson at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania based their system oil tiny microphones, cameras and touch sensors that reveal body language and activity. First they had to study different behaviors to find out which ones strongly predict whether your mind is interrupted.
The potential "busyness" signals they focused on included whether the office doors were left open or closed, the time of day, if other people were with the person in question, how close they were to each other, and whether or not the computer was in use.
The sensors monitored these and many other factors while four subjects were at work. At random intervals, the subjects rated how interruptible they were on a scale ranging from "highly interruptible" to "highly not-interruptible". Their ratings were then correlated with the various behaviors. "It is a shotgun (随意的) approach: we used all the indicators we could think of and then let statistics find out which were important," says Hudson.
The model showed that using the keyboard, and talking on a landline or to someone else in the office correlated most strongly with how interruptible the subjects judged themselves to be.
Interestingly, the computer was actually better than people at predicting when someone was too busy to be interrupted. The computer got it right 82 percent of the time, humans 77 percent. Fogarty speculates that this might be because people doing the interrupting are inevitably biased towards delivering their message, whereas computers don’t care.
The first application for Hudson and Fogarty’s system is likely to be in an instant messaging system, followed by office phones and cell phones. "There is no technological roadblock (障碍) to it being deployed in a couple of years, " says Hudson.
The computer performed better than people in the study because______.

A:the computer worked harder B:the computer was not busy C:people tended to be biased D:people were not good at statistics

第二篇 A Phone That Knows You’re Busy It’s a modern problem：you’re too busy to be disturbed by incessant(连续不断的)phone calls so you turn your cellphone off .But if you don’t remember to turn it back on when you’re less busy．you could miss some important calls if only the phone knew when it was wise to interrupt you，you wouldn’t have to turn it off at all. Instead，it could let calls through when you are not too busy A bunch of behavior sensors(传感器)and a clever piece of software could do just that，by analyzing your behavior to determine if it’s a good time to interrupt you．If built into a phone，the system may decide you’re too busy and ask the caller to leave a message or ring back later． James Fogarty and Scott Hudson at Camegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania based their system oil tiny microphones，cameras and touch sensors that reveal body language and activity．First they had to study different behaviors to find out which ones stongly predict whether your mind is interrupted The potential“busyness”signals they focused on included whether the office doors were left open or closed，the time of day，if other people were with the person in question，how close they were to each other, and whether or not the computer was in use． The sensors monitored these and many other factors while four subjects were at work . At random intervals，the subjects rated how interruptible they were on a scale ranging from“highly interruptible’’to“highly not—interruptible” . Their ratings were then correlated with the various behaviors . “It is a shotgun(随意的)approach：we used all the indicators we could think of and then let statistics find out which were important，” says Hudson The model showed that using the keyboard，and talking on a landline or to someone else in the office correlated most strongly with how interruptible the subjects judged themselves to be． Interestingly，the computer was actually better than people at predicting when someone was too busy to be interrupted . The computer got it right 82 per cent of the time，humans 77 per cent．Fogarty speculates that this might be because people doing the interrupting are inevitably biased towards delivering their message，whereas computers don’t care． The first application for Hudson and Fogarty’s system is likely to be in an instant messaging system，followed by office phones and cellphones．“There is no technological roadblock(障碍) to it being deployed in a couple of years，” says Hudson Scientists at Carnegie Menon University tried to find out

A:why office doors were often 1eft open． B:when it was a good time to turn off the computer． C:what questions office workers were bothered with． D:which behaviors could tell whether a person was busy

第二篇 A Phone That Knows You’re Busy It’s a modern problem：you’re too busy to be disturbed by incessant(连续不断的)phone calls so you turn your cellphone off .But if you don’t remember to turn it back on when you’re less busy．you could miss some important calls if only the phone knew when it was wise to interrupt you，you wouldn’t have to turn it off at all. Instead，it could let calls through when you are not too busy A bunch of behavior sensors(传感器)and a clever piece of software could do just that，by analyzing your behavior to determine if it’s a good time to interrupt you．If built into a phone，the system may decide you’re too busy and ask the caller to leave a message or ring back later． James Fogarty and Scott Hudson at Camegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania based their system oil tiny microphones，cameras and touch sensors that reveal body language and activity．First they had to study different behaviors to find out which ones stongly predict whether your mind is interrupted The potential“busyness”signals they focused on included whether the office doors were left open or closed，the time of day，if other people were with the person in question，how close they were to each other, and whether or not the computer was in use． The sensors monitored these and many other factors while four subjects were at work . At random intervals，the subjects rated how interruptible they were on a scale ranging from“highly interruptible’’to“highly not—interruptible” . Their ratings were then correlated with the various behaviors . “It is a shotgun(随意的)approach：we used all the indicators we could think of and then let statistics find out which were important，” says Hudson The model showed that using the keyboard，and talking on a landline or to someone else in the office correlated most strongly with how interruptible the subjects judged themselves to be． Interestingly，the computer was actually better than people at predicting when someone was too busy to be interrupted . The computer got it right 82 per cent of the time，humans 77 per cent．Fogarty speculates that this might be because people doing the interrupting are inevitably biased towards delivering their message，whereas computers don’t care． The first application for Hudson and Fogarty’s system is likely to be in an instant messaging system，followed by office phones and cellphones．“There is no technological roadblock(障碍) to it being deployed in a couple of years，” says Hudson The computer performed better than people in the study because

A:the computer worked harder． B:the computer was not busy C:people tended to be biased． D:people were not good at statistics．