"The impulse to excess among young Britons remains as powerful as ever, but the force that used to keep the impulse in check has all but disappeared," claimed a newspaper. Legislation that made it easier to get hold of a drink was "an Act for the increase of drunkenness and immorality", asserted a politician.
The first statement comes from 2005, the second from 1830. On both occasions, the object of scorn was a parliamentary bill that promised to sweep away "antiquated" licensing laws. As liberal regulations came into force this week, Britons on both sides of the debate unwittingly followed a 19th-century script.
Reformers then, as now, took a benign view of human nature. Make booze cheaper and more readily available, said the liberalisers, and drinkers would develop sensible, continental European style ways. Nonsense, retorted the critics. Habits are hard to changer if Britons can drink easily, they will drink more.
Worryingly for modern advocates of liheralisation, earlier doomsayers turned out to be right. Between 1820 and 1840, consumption of malt (which is used to make beer) increased by more than 50%. Worse, Britons developed a keener taste for what Thomas Carlyle called "liquid madness"--gin and other spirits.
The backlash was fierce. Critics pointed to widespread debauchery in the more disreputable sections of the working class. They were particularly worried about the people who, in a later age, came to be known as "ladettes". An acute fear, says Virginia Berridge, who studies temperance at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was that women would pass on their sinful ways to their children.
In the 19th century, temperance organisations set up their own newspapers to educate the public about the consequences of excess. That, at least, has changed: these days, the mainstream media rail against the demon drink all by themselves.
Which of the following could be the best title for the text

A:Old wine, new bottle. B:Mainstream media, nonsense. C:Doomsayers, unwarranted arguments. D:Fierce backlash, immorality.

Genghis Khan was not one to agonize over gender roles. He was into sex and power, and he didn’t mind saying so. "The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him." The emperor once thundered. Genghis Khan conquered two thirds of the known world during the early 13th century and he may have set an all-time record for what biologists call reproductive success. An account written 33 years after his death credited him with 20,000 descendants.
Men’s manners have improved markedly since Genghis Khan’s day. At heart, though, we’re the same animals we were 800 years ago, which is to say we are status seekers. We may talk of equality and fraternity. We may strive for classless societies. But we go right on building hierarchies, and jockeying for status within them. Can we abandon the tendency Probably not. As scientists are now discovering, status seeking is not just a habit or a cultural tradition. It’s a design feature of the male psyche--a biological drive that is rooted in the nervous system and regulated by hormones and brain chemicals.
How do we know this relentless one-upmanship is a biological endowment Anthropologists find the same pattern virtually everywhere they 10ok and so do zoologists. Male competition is fierce among crickets, crayfish and elephants, and it’s ubiquitous among higher primates, for example, male chimpanzees have an extraordinarily strong drive for dominance. Coincidence
Evolutionists don’t think so. From their perspective, life is essentially a race to repro-duke, and natural selection is bound to favor different strategies in different organisms. In reproductive terms, they have vastly more to gain from it. A female can’t flood the gene pool by commandeering extra mates; no matter how much sperm she attracts, she is unlikely to produce more than a dozen viable offspring. But as Genghis Khan’s exploits make clear, males can profit enormously by out mating their peers. It’s not hard to see how that dynamic, played out over millions of years, would leave modern men fretting over status. We’re built from the genes that the most determined competitors passed down.
Fortunately, we don’t aspire to families of 800. As monogamy and contraceptives may have leveled the reproductive playfield, power has become its own psychological reward. Those who achieve high status still enjoy more sex with more partners than the rest of us, and the reason is no mystery. Researchers have consistently found that women favor signs of "earning capacity" over good looks. For sheer sex appeal, a doughy (脸色苍白的) bald guy in a Rolex will outscore a stud (非常英俊的男子) in a Burger King uniform almost every time.
It can be inferred from the third paragraph that

A:men are the only animals striving for control. B:chimpanzees are even more fierce in their strive for dominance. C:all mate animals share the same desire for higher status. D:males of lower primates do not have fierce competition.

A multinational corporation is a corporate enterprise, which though headquartered in one country, conducts its operations through branches that it owns or controls around the world. The organizations, mostly based in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, have become major actors on the international stage, for some of them are wealthier than many of the countries they operate in. The less developed countries often welcome the multinationals because they are a source of investment and jobs. Yet their presence has its drawbacks, for these organizations soon develop immense political and economic influence in the host countries. Development becomes concentrated in a few industries that are oriented to the needs of the outsiders; profits are frequently exported rather than reinvested; and local benefits go mainly to a small ruling group whose interests are tied to those of the foreigners rather than to those of their own people. The effect is to further increase export dependency and to limit the less developed countries’ control of their own economies.
It seems that both the modernization and world-system approaches may be valid in certain respects. The modernization model does help us make sense of the historical fact of industrialization and of the various internal adjustments that societies undergo during this process. The world-system model reminds us that countries do not develop in isolation. They do so in a context of fierce international political and economic competition, a competition whose outcome favors the stronger parties.
Today, the less developed countries are struggling to achieve in the course of a few years the material advantages that the older industrialized nations have taken generations to gain. The result is often a tug-of-war between the forces of modernization and the sentiments of tradition, with serious social disturbance as the result. The responses have taken many different forms: military overthrow by army officers determined to impose social order; fundamentalist religious movements urging a return to absolute moralities and certainties of the past; nationalism as a new ideology to unite the people for the challenge of modernization. And sometimes social change takes place in a way that is not evolutionary, but revolutionary.
What does the word "tug-of-war" probably refer to

A:Serious social disorder. B:Military overthrow by army officers. C:Fierce international political and economic competition. D:Struggle between modernization and the sentiments of tradition.

Text 2

It can be inferred from the third paragraph that

A:men are the only animals striving for control. B:chimpanzees are even more fierce in their strive for dominance. C:all mate animals share the same desire for higher status. D:males of lower primates do not have fierce competition.

Text 4

Which of the following could be the best title for the text

A:Old wine, new bottle. B:Mainstream media, nonsense. C:Doomsayers, unwarranted arguments. D:Fierce backlash, immorality.

"The impulse to excess among young Britons remains as powerful as ever, but the force that used to keep the impulse in check has all but disappeared," claimed a newspaper. Legislation that made it easier to get hold of a drink was "an Act for the increase of drunkenness and immorality", asserted a politician.
The first statement comes from 2005, the second from 1830. On both occasions, the object of scorn was a parliamentary bill that promised to sweep away " antiquated" licensing laws. As liberal regulations came into force this week, Britons on both sides of the debate unwittingly followed a 19th-century script.
Reformers then, as now, took a benign view of human nature. Make booze cheaper and more readily available, said the liberalisers, and drinkers would develop sensible, continental European-style ways. Nonsense, retorted the critics. Habits are hard to change; if Britons can drink easily, they will drink more.
Worryingly for modern advocates of liberalisation, earlier doomsayers turned out to be right. Between 1820 and 1840, consumption of malt (which is used to make beer) increased by more than 50%. Worse, Britons developed a keener taste for what Thomas Carlyle called "liquid madness"—gin and other spirits.
The backlash was fierce. Critics pointed to widespread debauchery in the more disreputable sections of the working class. They were particularly worried about the people who, in a later age, came to be known as "ladettes". An acute fear, says Virginia Berridge, who studies temperance at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was that women would pass on their sinful ways to their children.
In the 19th century, temperance organisations set up their own newspapers to educate the public about the consequences of excess. That, at least, has changed: these days, the mainstream media rail against the demon drink all by themselves.

Which of the following could be the best title for the text （）

A:Old Wine, New Bottle B:Mainstream Media, Nonsense C:Doomsayers, Unwarranted Arguments D:Fierce Backlash, Immorality

"The impulse to excess among young Britons remains as powerful as ever, but the force that used to keep the impulse in check has all but disappeared," claimed a newspaper. Legislation that made it easier to get hold of a drink was "an Act for the increase of drunkenness and immorality", asserted a politician.
The first statement comes from 2005, the second from 1830. On both occasions, the object of scorn was a parliamentary bill that promised to sweep away " antiquated" licensing laws. As liberal regulations came into force this week, Britons on both sides of the debate unwittingly followed a 19th-century script.
Reformers then, as now, took a benign view of human nature. Make booze cheaper and more readily available, said the liberalisers, and drinkers would develop sensible, continental European-style ways. Nonsense, retorted the critics. Habits are hard to change; if Britons can drink easily, they will drink more.
Worryingly for modern advocates of liberalisation, earlier doomsayers turned out to be right. Between 1820 and 1840, consumption of malt (which is used to make beer) increased by more than 50%. Worse, Britons developed a keener taste for what Thomas Carlyle called "liquid madness"—gin and other spirits.
The backlash was fierce. Critics pointed to widespread debauchery in the more disreputable sections of the working class. They were particularly worried about the people who, in a later age, came to be known as "ladettes". An acute fear, says Virginia Berridge, who studies temperance at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was that women would pass on their sinful ways to their children.
In the 19th century, temperance organisations set up their own newspapers to educate the public about the consequences of excess. That, at least, has changed: these days, the mainstream media rail against the demon drink all by themselves.

Which of the following could be the best title for the text（）

A:Old Wine, New Bottle B:Mainstream Media, Nonsense C:Doomsayers, Unwarranted Arguments D:Fierce Backlash, Immorality

"The impulse to excess among young Britons remains as powerful as ever, but the force that used to keep the impulse in check has all but disappeared," claimed a newspaper. Legislation that made it easier to get hold of a drink was "an Act for the increase of drunkenness and immorality", asserted a politician.
The first statement comes from 2005, the second from 1830. On both occasions, the object of scorn was a parliamentary bill that promised to sweep away " antiquated" licensing laws. As liberal regulations came into force this week, Britons on both sides of the debate unwittingly followed a 19th-century script.
Reformers then, as now, took a benign view of human nature. Make booze cheaper and more readily available, said the liberalisers, and drinkers would develop sensible, continental European-style ways. Nonsense, retorted the critics. Habits are hard to change; if Britons can drink easily, they will drink more.
Worryingly for modern advocates of liberalisation, earlier doomsayers turned out to be right. Between 1820 and 1840, consumption of malt (which is used to make beer) increased by more than 50%. Worse, Britons developed a keener taste for what Thomas Carlyle called "liquid madness"—gin and other spirits.
The backlash was fierce. Critics pointed to widespread debauchery in the more disreputable sections of the working class. They were particularly worried about the people who, in a later age, came to be known as "ladettes". An acute fear, says Virginia Berridge, who studies temperance at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was that women would pass on their sinful ways to their children.
In the 19th century, temperance organisations set up their own newspapers to educate the public about the consequences of excess. That, at least, has changed: these days, the mainstream media rail against the demon drink all by themselves.
Which of the following could be the best title for the text

A:Old Wine, New Bottle B:Mainstream Media, Nonsense C:Doomsayers, Unwarranted Arguments D:Fierce Backlash, Immorality