电子商务流程再造不是对现有流程细枝末节的修改，而是在打破原有工作规则基础上的重新设计，其重要原则有（）

A:Eliminate B:Simplify C:Integrate D:Automate

When a disease of epidemic proportions threatens the public, scientists immediately get to work, trying to locate the source of affliction and find ways to combat. Vaccination is one of the effective ways to protect the (1) population of a region or country which may be
(2) grave risk. The process of vaccination allows the patient’s body to (3) immunity to the virus or disease so that, if it is encountered, one can fight it (4) naturally. To accomplish this, a small weak or dead (5) of the disease is actually injected into the patient in a controlled environment, (6) his body’s immune system can learn to fight the invader (7) . Information (8) how to penetrate the disease’s defenses is (9) to all elements of the patient’s immune system in a process that occurs naturally, in which genetic information is passed from cell to cell. This makes sure that (10) the patient later come into contact with the real problem, his body is well equipped. and trained to (11) with it, having already done so before.
There are, however, dangers (12) in the process. (13) , even the weakened version of the disease contained in the vaccine proves (14) much for the body to handle, resulting in the immune system (15) , and, therefore, the patient’s death. Such is the case of the smallpox vaccine, (16) to eradicate the smallpox epidemic that nearly (17) the whole Native American population and killed massive numbers of settlers. (18) l in 10,000 people who receive the vaccine (19) the smallpox disease from the vaccine itself and dies from it. Consequently, the process, which is truly a(20) , may indeed hide some hidden curses.
Notes: proportions (pl.)规模；程度；大小. affliction (疾病)痛苦. vaccination n. 接种疫苗. eradicate v. 根除,消灭。

6（）

A:eliminate B:identify C:develop D:deliver

Directions:
Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1.

A:eliminate B:identify C:develop D:deliver

You would think that people with a history of being discriminated against in the workplace might give those whom they resemble a break. But a growing body of research confirms exactly the opposite: women are just as likely as men to show, sexism toward women in hiring practices, salaries and professional mentorship.
Overt displays of sexism are largely passe in the American workplace. What remains, unfortunately, is a set of subtler and more ingrained cognitive biases deeply rooted in our evolutionary and cultural past. Getting rid of them will require an honest reckoning with the inalienable fact that humans are inclined to make implicit errors in perception and even good people who actively avoid bias may nonetheless harbor subtle yet damaging stereotypes of which they are unaware.
In one of the latest studies, a psychology experiment published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, senior science faculty across the U.S. were presented with identical resumes for a lab-manager job (a position that can often lead to graduate study) that differed only in the gender of the hypothetical applicant. The resume raters were statistically more likely to rate the male candidate higher on competence and hirability and were also more likely to offer the male candidate a bigger salary and greater professional mentorship. By contrast, the hypothetical female applicants were rated more likable but less hirable. Female scientists were just as likely to favor male candidates as potential hires as male scientists were.
There are countless examples of bias against women by both sexes in nonscience fields, including, famously, the increase in women who were hired for orchestras when musicians auditioned behind a blind screen. It’s hard to imagine why this kind of cognitive bias persists in the 21st century, especially when the achievement gaps between males and females arc closing rapidly.
But this only seems puzzling because we tend to think that bias is an evil word, infected with uglyisms and the deliberate diminishing of certain kinds of people. Current research is showing that all human beings have unconscious cognitive biases—what Harvard professor Mahzarin Banaji calls "mind bugs. "These biases may have been adaptive thousands of years ago, when people lived in small, homogeneous communities and in-group favoritism might have made the difference between life and death. But they are problematic in our global 21st century world.
The pervasiveness of cognitive bias is depressing. It’s more comfortable to think of sexism or racism or ageism as a symptom of a few rotten apples than as a fundamental human trait. But if we’re all doing it, even to ourselves ,how on earth can we move beyond the stereotypes If we want to eliminate the perception that women are less competent than men for certain jobs held by both sexes, it’s not enough to hire more women for traditionally male-dominated jobs.
A more fundamental problem is that cognitive bias is rooted not only in our primitive past but also in our contemporary culture. We can’t be surprised by unconscious stereotypes about women when we still embrace a culture infected with sexism in everything from popular movies to recent congressional debates.
In the author’s assessment, our cognitive biases

A:are evil in that they have damaging social effects. B:can be deliberately diminished by calling them evil. C:are difficult to eliminate due to their deep roots. D:become stronger in small and homogeneous societies.

A:choose B:strengthen C:eliminate D:identify

Canada will {{U}}prohibit{{/U}} smoking in all offices later this year.

A:ban B:remove C:eliminate D:expel

In what may be bad news for bars and pubs, a European research group has found that people drinking alcohol outside of meals have a significantly higher risk of cancer in the mouth and neck than do those taking their libations with food. Luigino Dal Maso and his colleagues studied the drinking patterns of 1,500 patients from four cancer studies and another 3.500 adults who had never had cancer.
After the researchers accounted for the amount of alcohol consumed, they found that individuals who downed a significant share of their alcohol outside of meals faced at least a 50 to 80 percent risk of cancer in the oral cavity, pharynx, and esophagus, when compared with people who drank only at meals. Consuming alcohol without food also increased by at least 50 percent the likelihood of laryngeal cancer. "Roughly 95 percent of cancers at these four sites traced to smoking or drinking by the study volunteers, " Dal Maso says. The discouraging news. his team reports, is that drinking with meals didn’t eliminate cancer risk at any of the sites.
For their new analysis, the European scientists divided people in the study into four groups. based on how many drinks they reported having in an average week. The lowest-intake group included people who averaged up to 20 drinks a week. The highest group reported downing at least 56 servings of alcohol weekly for an average of eight or more per day. Cancer risks for the mouth and neck sites rose steadily with consumption even for people who reported drinking only with meals. For instance, compared with people in the lowest-consumption group, participants who drank 21 to 34 alcohol servings a week at least doubled their cancer risk for all sites other than the larynx. If people in these consumption groups took some of those drinks outside meals, those in the higher consumption group at least quadrupled their risk for oral cavity and esophageal cancers.
People in the highest-consumption group who drank only with meals had 10 times the risk of oral cancer. 7 times the risk of pharyngeal cancer. and 16 times the risk of esophageal cancer compared with those who averaged 20 or fewer drinks a week with meals. In contrast, laryngeal cancer risk in the high-intake, with-meals-only group was only triple that in the low-intake consumers who drank with meals.
"Alcohol can inflame tissues. Over time. that inflammation can trigger cancer. " Dal Maso says. He suspects that food reduced cancer risk either by partially coating digestive-tract tissues or by scrubbing alcohol off those tissues. He speculates that the reason laryngeal risks were dramatically lower for all study participants traces to the tissue’s lower exposure to alcohol.
Which of the following is NOT the conclusion made by the researchers about "drinking with meals"

A:It has a lower risk of cancer than drinking without food. B:It may also be a cause of cancer. C:It increases by 20 percent the possibility of cancer in all sites. D:It does not eliminate cancer risk at any of the sites.

第一篇“Don’t Drink Alone” Gets New Meaning In what may be bad news for bars and pubs, a European research group has found that people drinking alcohol outside of meals have a significantly higher risk of cancer in the mouth and neck than do those taking their libations with food. Luigino Dal Maso and his colleagues studied the drinking patterns of 1,500 patients from four cancer studies and another 3, 500 adults who had never had cancer. After the researchers accounted for the amount of alcohol consumed, they found that individuals who downed a significant share of their alcohol outside of meals faced at least a 50 to 80 percent risk of cancer in the oral cavity, pharynx, and esophagus, when compared with people who drank only at meals. Consuming alcohol without food also increased by at least 20 percent the likelihood of laryngeal cancer. “Roughly 95 percent of cancers at these four sites traced to smoking or drinking by the study volunteers,” Dal Maso says. The discouraging news, his team reports, is that drinking with meals didn’t eliminate cancer risk at any of the sites. For their new analysis, the European scientists divided people in the study into four groups, based on how many drinks they reported having in an average week. The lowest-intake group included people who averaged up to 20 drinks a week. The highest group reported downing at least 56 servings of alcohol weekly for an average of eight or more per day. Cancer risks for the mouth and neck sites rose steadily with consumption even for people who reported drinking only with meals. For instance, compared with people in the lowest-consumption group, participants who drank 21 to 34 alcohol servings a week at least doubled their cancer risk for all sites other than the larynx. If people in these consumption groups took some of those drinks outside meals, those in the higher consumption group at least quadrupled their risk for oral cavity and esophageal cancers. People in the highest-consumption group who drank only with meals had 10 times the risk of oral cancer, 7 times the risk of pharyngeal cancer, and 16 times the risk of esophageal cancer compared with those who averaged 20 or fewer drinks a week with meals. In contrast, laryngeal cancer risk in the high-intake, with-meals-only group was only triple that in the low-intake consumers who drank with meals. “Alcohol can inflame tissues. Over time, that inflammation can trigger cancer.” Dal Maso says. He suspects that food reduced cancer risk either by partially coating digestive-tract tissues or by scrubbing alcohol off those tissues. He speculates that the reason laryngeal risks were dramatically lower for all study participants traces to the tissue’s lower exposure to alcohol.Which of the following is NOT the research finding about “drinking with meals”?

A:It lowers cancer risk compared with drinking without food. B:It may be a cause of cancer. C:It does not eliminate cancer risk at any of the sites. D:It increases by 20 percent the risk of cancer in all the four sites.

The doctor said that I had to eliminate alcohol.

A:cut out B:cut on C:cut in D:cut up

Unfortunately, even computers cannot completelyerrors.

A:reduce B:diminish C:eliminate D:decrease