Owing to an （ ） lack of lower-income housing, the municipal government is embarrassed by the impressing housing issue.

A.alien B.obscure C.acute D.elaborate

Arithmetic is the one fundamental science, （ ） all other physical sciences.

A.undermining B.undertaking C.underscoring D.underlying

t="" want="" to="" displease="" our="" most="" （="" ）="" supporters,="" therefore,="" we="" have="" provided="" them="" with="" the="" opportunity="" of="" getting="" extra="" tickets="" any="" game="" this="" year,="" "="" sa manager="" football="" club.'>

"We didn't want to displease our most （ ） supporters, therefore, we have provided them with the opportunity of getting extra tickets to any game this year, " said the manager of the football club.

A.acuteB.ardentC.sheerD.fantastic

To maintain a leading position in the market, companies have to develop products which are cheaper, more（ ） and more reliable than those of their competitors.

A.innovative B.commensurate C.enlightening D.legitimate

s="" mid-term="" elections.Agricultural production in most poor countries accounts for up to 50% of GDP, compared to only 3% in rich countries. But most farmers in poor countries grow just enough for themselves and their families. Those who try exporting to the West find their goods whacked with huge tariffs or competing against cheaper subsidized goods. In 1999 the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development concluded that for each dollar developing countries receive in aid they lose up to $ 14 just because of trade barriers imposed on the export of their manufactured goods. It's not as if the developing world wants any favours, says Uganda's Minister of Finance. “What we want is for the rich countries to let us compete.”Agriculture is one of the few areas in which the Third World can compete. Land and labour are cheap, and as fanning methods develop, new technologies should improve output. This is no pie-in-the-sky speculation. The biggest success in Kenya's economy over the past decade has been the boom in exports of cut flowers and vegetables to Europe. But that may all change in 2008, when Kenya will be slightly too rich to qualify for the “ least-developed country ” status that allows African producers to avoid paying stiff European import duties on selected agricultural products. With trade barriers in place, the horticulture industry in Kenya will shrivel as quickly as a discarded rose. And while agriculture exports remain the great hope for poor countries, reducing trade barriers in other sectors also works: American's African Growth and Opportunity Act, which cuts duties on exports of everything from handicrafts to shoes, has proven a boon to Africa's manufacturers. The lesson: the Third World can prosper if the rich world gives it a fair go.This is what makes Bush's decision to increase farm subsidies last month all the more depressing. Poor countries have long suspected that the rich world urges trade liberalization only so it can wangle its way into new markets. Such suspicions caused the Seattle trade talks to break down three years ago. But last November members of the World Trade Organization, meeting in Doha, Qatar, finally agreed to a new round of talks designed to open up global trade in agriculture and textiles. Rich countries assured poor countries that their concerns were finally being addressed. Bush's handout last month makes a lie of America's commitment to those talks and his personal devotion to free trade.1.By comparison, farmers（ ） receive more government subsidies than others.2.In addition to the economic considerations, there is a （ ） motive behind Bush's signing of the new farm bill.3.The message the writer attempts to convey throughout the passage is that （ ） .4.The author's attitude towards new farm subsidies in the U. S. is（ ）.'>

Farmers in the developing world hate price fluctuations. It makes it hard to plan ahead. But most of them have little choice: they sell at the price the market sets. Farmers in Europe, the U. S. and Japan are luckier: they receive massive government subsidies in the form of guaranteed prices or direct handouts. Last month U. S. President Bush signed a new farm bill that gives American farmers $ 190 billion over the next 10 years, or $ 83 billion more than they had been scheduled to get, and pushes U. S. agricultural support close to crazy European levels. Bush said the step is necessary to “promote farmer independence and preserve the farm way of life for generations”. It is also designed to help the Republican Party win control of the Senate in November's mid-term elections.Agricultural production in most poor countries accounts for up to 50% of GDP, compared to only 3% in rich countries. But most farmers in poor countries grow just enough for themselves and their families. Those who try exporting to the West find their goods whacked with huge tariffs or competing against cheaper subsidized goods. In 1999 the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development concluded that for each dollar developing countries receive in aid they lose up to $ 14 ju

s="" great="" english="" dictionary="" of="" 1755,="" that="" “lexicographer”,="" his="" own="" calling,="" is="" the="" most="" famous,="" an="" example="" same="" wit="" led="" him="" to="" define="" “oats”="" as="" “a="" grain,="" which="" in="" england="" generally="" given="" horses,="" but="" scotland="" supports="" people”.Why name a language column after a harmless drudge? Because Johnson, despite the drudgery, knew that language was not harmless. Its power to inform and to lead astray, to entertain and to annoy, to build co-operation or destroy a reputation, makes language serious stuff, The Economist's “Johnson” column began in 1992 and was later revived online. This week it returns to the print edition, and henceforth will appear fortnightly.Many of the topics tackled are fun: swearing and slang, preferences and peeves. Some are more fundamental. Language reveals a lot about human nature: how people reason differently in a foreign language, or to what extent different languages encode a world view, are some of the most exciting and controversial topics in linguistic research.People care intensely about their language, and so language in the wider world sometimes comes into conflict. The perceived arrogance of Castilians to Catalan threatens to sunder Spain; “language police” in Quebec tell restaurant owners to change “pasta” and “grilled cheese” pates and fromae fondant. At the extreme, the passage of a law downgrading Russian in Ukraine helps spark war in that country ; Vladimir Putin has used it as evidence that Ukrainian nationalists are bent on wiping out Russian culture there. The war has rumbled on since, with language the most obvious symbol of wider identity and sympathy.So the Johnson column treats topics light and heavy as well as language both English and international. A language column is expected to tackle questions of right and wrong. There are roughly two views of how to do this: one top-down, based on authority, prestige, writing and stability; one bottom-up, resting on how most people actually use the language, and open to change.The two schools of thought, known as “prescriptivism”( which sets down how the language should be) and “descriptivism” ( which tells how it is ) , have often been at daggers drawn: English teachers and some usage-book writers on one side, and academic linguists, lexicographers and other usage-book writers on the other. In the caricature, prescriptivists are authoritarians with their heads in the sand, insisting on Victorian-era non-rules. The descriptivists are mocked as “anything-is-correct '', embracing every fad, even that Shakespeare should be taught in text-message-speak.An intellectual writing for an elite audience, Samuel Johnson did not shy away from “right” and “wrong”, even “barbarity”, “depravity” and “corruption”, in matters of language. But he declared his task was not to “form” but to “register” (that is, describe) the language; trying to stop change was like trying to “ lash the wind”. Above all, his years of drudging at the dictionary had taught him humility: he knew he was sure to commit “ a few wild blunders, and visible absurdities, from which no work of such multiplicity was ever free”.Prescribing is not really the opposite of describing. Lexicographers from Johnson's day on must describe the language, grounding their definitions in real living English. But that is in order to give stronger roots to a book they know people will use for firm guidance. Academic linguists, the arch-descriptivists, are perfectly willing to call some usages wrong and others plain ugly.1.Which of the following is INCORRECT about Samuel Johnson according to the passage?2.Why is language serious stuff according to the passage?3.From Para 4, the author has listed the conflicts caused by language in the following countries EXCEPT（ ） .4.Which of the following is NOT MENTIONED in the passage?'>

“A HARMLESS drudge.” Of the definitions in Samuel Johnson's great English dictionary of 1755, that of “lexicographer”, his own calling, is the most famous, an example of the same