简单单选
简单单选
Improve Computer-research Skills Like many college students, Jose Juarez carries around a pocket-sized computer that lets him watch movies, surf the Interact and text-message his friends. He’s part of "Generation M"—those born after 1985 who （） up connected to everything from video game to cellphones. "For us, it’s everyday life," said Juarez, 18, a freshman （） California State University at Sacramento (CSUS). （） , educators are now saying that not all Generation M-ers can synthesize the piles of information they’re accessing. "They’re geeky, but they don’t know what to （） with their geekdom. " said Barbara O’Connor, a Sacramento State communications studies professor who has been involved in a nationwide （） to improve students’ computer-research skills. In a recent nationwide test to （） their technological "literacy" their ability to use the Interact to complete class assignments-only 49 percent correctly evaluated a set of Web sites for objectivity, authority and timeliness. Only 35 per cent could correctly narrow an overly （） Internet search. About 130 Sacramento State students, including Juarez, participated in the experimental test, （） to 6,300 college students across the country. The hour-long assessment test is conducted by Educational Testing Service. It is a web-based scavenger hunt （） simulated Interact search engines and academic databases that spit out purposely misleading information. "They’re very good at （） in and using the Internet, but don’t always understand what they get back," said Linda Goff, head of instructional services for the CSUS library. "You see an open search box, you type in a few words and you （） the button," said Goff, who is involved in the testing. "They take at face value （） shows up at the top of the list as the best stuff. " Educators say that these sloppy research skills are troubling. "We look at that as a foundational skill, in the same way we （） math and English as a foundational skill," said Lorie Roth, assistant vice-chancellor for academic programmes in the CSU system. Measuring how well students can "sort the good （） the bad" on the Internet has become a higher priority for CSU, Roth said. CSU is considering （） a mandatory assessment test on technological literacy for all freshmen, much as it has required English and math placement tests since the 1980s. Students in freshman seminars at Sacramento State were asked to take the test early in the semester and were expected to finish another round this week to measure their improvement.
In a recent nationwide test to （） their technological "literacy" their ability to use the Interact to complete class assignments-only 49 percent correctly evaluated a set of Web sites for objectivity, authority and timeliness.A:ask B:measure C:require D:demand
Text 2
IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient, which is a measure of a person’s intelligence found by means of an intelligence test. Before marks gained in such a test can be useful as information about a person, they must be compared with some standard, or norm. It is not enough simply to know that a boy of thirteen has scored, say, ninety marks in a particular test. To know whether he is clever, average or dull, his marks must be compared with the average achieved by boys of thirteen in that test.
In 1906 the psychologist, Alfred Binet, devised the standard in relation to which intelligence has since been assessed.
He invented a variety of tests and put large numbers of children of different ages through them. He found at what age each test was passed by the average child. For instance, he found that the average child of seven could count backwards from 20 to 1 and the average child of three could repeat the sentence: We are going to have a good time in the country. Binet arranged the various tests in order of difficulty, and used them as a scale against which he could measure every individual. If, for example, a boy aged twelve could only do tests that were passed by the average boy of nine, Binet held that he was three years below average, and that he has a mental age of nine.
The concept of mental age provided Binet, and through him, other psychologists, with the required standard, which enables him to state scores in intelligence tests in terms of a norm. At first, it was usual to express the result of a test by the difference between the "mental" and the "chronological" age. Then the boy in the example given would be "three years retarded". Soon, however, the "mental ratio" was introduced, that is to say, the ratio of the mental age to the chronological age. Thus a ’boy of twelve with a mental age of nine has a mental ratio of 0.75.
The mental age was replaced by the "intelligence quotient" or "ID". The IQ is the mental ratio multiplied by 100. For example, a boy of twelve with a mental age of nine has an IQ of 75. Clearly, since the mental age of average child is equal to the chronological age, the average IQ is 100.
A:standard B:mark C:measure D:intelligence
"Intelligence" at best is an assumptive construct--the meaning of the word has never been clear. It is generally agreed that a person of high intelligence is one who can grasp ideas (1) , make distinctions, reason logically, and (2) verbal and mathematical symbols in solving problems. An intelligence test is a rough measure of a child’s (3) for learning, particularly for learning the kinds of things required in school. It does not (4) character, social adjustment, physical endurance, manual skills, or artistic abilities. It is not (5) to--it was not designed for such (6) . To criticize it for such failure is roughly (7) criticizing a thermometer for not measuring wind velocity.
The other thing we have to notice is that the assessment of the intelligence of the (8) is essentially a comparative affair.
(9) the assessment of intelligence is a comparative matter we must be sure that the (10) with which we are comparing our subjects provides a "valid" and " (11) " comparison. It is here (12) some of the difficulties which interest us begin. Any test (13) involves at least three factors: the (14) to do one’s best, the knowledge required for understanding what you have to do, and the (15) ability to do it. In school populations in our culture these assumptions can be made fair and reasonable, and the value of intelligence testing has been (16) thoroughly. Its value (17) , of course, in its providing a satisfactory basis for prediction. No one is (18) interested in the marks a little child gets on his test; what we are interested in is whether we can (19) from his mark on the test that the child will do better or worse than other children of his age in (20) which we think require "general intelligence".
A:measure B:standardize C:assess D:make
Who is poor in America This is a hard question to answer. Despite poverty’s messiness, we’ve measured progress against it by a single statistic: the federal poverty line. In 2008, the poverty threshold was $ 21,834 for a four-member family with two children under 18. By 1his measure, we haven’t made much progress. Except for recessions, when the poverty rate can rise to 15 percent, it’s stayed in a narrow range for decades. In 2007—the peak of the last business cycle—the poverty rate was 12.5 percent; one out of eight Americans was "poor. " In 1969, another business-cycle peak, the poverty rate was 12.1 percent. But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons.
First, it ignores immigration. Many immigrants are poor and low skilled. They add to the poor. From 1989 to 2007, about three quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics—mostly immigrants, their children, and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty "experts" don’t dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.
Second, the poor’s material well-being has improved. The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pretax cash income and ignoring other sources of support. These include the earned-income tax credit (a rebate to low-income workers), food stamps, health insurance (Medicaid), and housing subsidies. Although many poor live hand to mouth, they’ve participated in rising living standards. In 2005, 91 percent had microwaves, 79 percent air-conditioning, and 48 percent cell phones.
The existing poverty line could be improved by adding some income sources and subtracting some expenses (example: child care). Unfortunately, the administration’s proposal for a "supplemental poverty measure" in 2011—to complement, not replace, the existing poverty line—goes beyond that. The new poverty number would compound public confusion. It also raises questions about whether the statistic is tailored to favor a political agenda.
The "supplemental measure" ties the poverty threshold to what the poorest third of Americans spend on food, housing, clothing, and utilities. The actual threshold not yet calculated—will probably be higher than today’s poverty line. Moreover, this definition has strange consequences. Suppose that all Americans doubled their income tomorrow, and suppose that their spending on food, clothing, housing, and utilities also doubled. That would seem to signify less poverty—but not by the new poverty measure. It wouldn’t decline, because the poverty threshold would go up as spending went up. Many Americans would find this weird., people get richer, but "poverty" stays stuck.
What produces this outcome is a different view of poverty. The present concept is an absolute one: the poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the new measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: people are automatically poor if they’re a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing.
The author thinks the existing poverty line
A:is a faithful measure of poverty. B:is not adequate as a measure. C:is not as good as the supplemental measure. D:should have been discarded long ago.
Who is poor in America This is a hard question to answer. Despite poverty’s messiness, we’ve measured progress against it by a single statistic: the federal poverty line. In 2008, the poverty threshold was $ 21,834 for a four-member family with two children under 18. By 1his measure, we haven’t made much progress. Except for recessions, when the poverty rate can rise to 15 percent, it’s stayed in a narrow range for decades. In 2007—the peak of the last business cycle—the poverty rate was 12.5 percent; one out of eight Americans was "poor. " In 1969, another business-cycle peak, the poverty rate was 12.1 percent. But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons.
First, it ignores immigration. Many immigrants are poor and low skilled. They add to the poor. From 1989 to 2007, about three quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics—mostly immigrants, their children, and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty "experts" don’t dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.
Second, the poor’s material well-being has improved. The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pretax cash income and ignoring other sources of support. These include the earned-income tax credit (a rebate to low-income workers), food stamps, health insurance (Medicaid), and housing subsidies. Although many poor live hand to mouth, they’ve participated in rising living standards. In 2005, 91 percent had microwaves, 79 percent air-conditioning, and 48 percent cell phones.
The existing poverty line could be improved by adding some income sources and subtracting some expenses (example: child care). Unfortunately, the administration’s proposal for a "supplemental poverty measure" in 2011—to complement, not replace, the existing poverty line—goes beyond that. The new poverty number would compound public confusion. It also raises questions about whether the statistic is tailored to favor a political agenda.
The "supplemental measure" ties the poverty threshold to what the poorest third of Americans spend on food, housing, clothing, and utilities. The actual threshold not yet calculated—will probably be higher than today’s poverty line. Moreover, this definition has strange consequences. Suppose that all Americans doubled their income tomorrow, and suppose that their spending on food, clothing, housing, and utilities also doubled. That would seem to signify less poverty—but not by the new poverty measure. It wouldn’t decline, because the poverty threshold would go up as spending went up. Many Americans would find this weird., people get richer, but "poverty" stays stuck.
What produces this outcome is a different view of poverty. The present concept is an absolute one: the poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the new measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: people are automatically poor if they’re a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing.
A:is a faithful measure of poverty B:is not adequate as a measure C:is not as good as the supplemental measure D:should have been discarded long ago
Who is poor in America This is a hard question to answer. Despite poverty’s messiness, we’ve measured progress against it by a single statistic: the federal poverty line. In 2008, the poverty threshold was $ 21,834 for a four-member family with two children under 18. By 1his measure, we haven’t made much progress. Except for recessions, when the poverty rate can rise to 15 percent, it’s stayed in a narrow range for decades. In 2007—the peak of the last business cycle—the poverty rate was 12.5 percent; one out of eight Americans was "poor. " In 1969, another business-cycle peak, the poverty rate was 12.1 percent. But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons.
First, it ignores immigration. Many immigrants are poor and low skilled. They add to the poor. From 1989 to 2007, about three quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics—mostly immigrants, their children, and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty "experts" don’t dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.
Second, the poor’s material well-being has improved. The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pretax cash income and ignoring other sources of support. These include the earned-income tax credit (a rebate to low-income workers), food stamps, health insurance (Medicaid), and housing subsidies. Although many poor live hand to mouth, they’ve participated in rising living standards. In 2005, 91 percent had microwaves, 79 percent air-conditioning, and 48 percent cell phones.
The existing poverty line could be improved by adding some income sources and subtracting some expenses (example: child care). Unfortunately, the administration’s proposal for a "supplemental poverty measure" in 2011—to complement, not replace, the existing poverty line—goes beyond that. The new poverty number would compound public confusion. It also raises questions about whether the statistic is tailored to favor a political agenda.
The "supplemental measure" ties the poverty threshold to what the poorest third of Americans spend on food, housing, clothing, and utilities. The actual threshold not yet calculated—will probably be higher than today’s poverty line. Moreover, this definition has strange consequences. Suppose that all Americans doubled their income tomorrow, and suppose that their spending on food, clothing, housing, and utilities also doubled. That would seem to signify less poverty—but not by the new poverty measure. It wouldn’t decline, because the poverty threshold would go up as spending went up. Many Americans would find this weird., people get richer, but "poverty" stays stuck.
What produces this outcome is a different view of poverty. The present concept is an absolute one: the poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the new measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: people are automatically poor if they’re a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing.
A:is a faithful measure of poverty B:is not adequate as a measure C:is not as good as the supplemental measure D:should have been discarded long ago
A:ask B:measure C:require D:demand
您可能感兴趣的题目
