【推荐1】North and South Koreans face a widening language gap caused by 70 years of separation. That is creating some communication problems for the two countries’ first joint Olympic team as it prepares for 2018 Winter Games in Pyeong Chang. South Korea So, the joint women’s hockey team has created its own dictionary. The three-page document translates important hockey terms from English into South Korean, and then into North Korean.

Canadian Sarah Murray is the team’s coach. She says the document has helped everybody communicate. Team Korea was formed just two weeks ago after the two Koreas decided to suddenly cooperate during the Olympics. Twelve players from North Korea were then added to the 23-member South Korean team.

South Korea has incorporated many English words and phrases into its language. North Korea has removed foreign words and created substitutes from Korean words. To many South Koreans, the substitutes sound funny.

Language experts say about one-third of the everyday words used in the two countries are different. The divide is wider with technical language, like that used for medical and sports industries. For example, South Korean hockey players use the English word “pass,” but their North Korean teammates say “yeol lak” or “communication.” North Koreans say “nahl gay soo”meaning “wing player.” South Koreans call that position “wing,” like in English. South Koreans say “block shot” while North Koreans say “buhduh make ”or “stretching to block.”

Murray admits that there are still some problems in communication even with the new dictionary. She said her South Korean assistant coach plays an important part in bridging the divide. Some in South Korea have criticized the partnership. They argue that the addition of players from North Korea players may prevent South Korean players from playing as much. One early public opinion study found that about 70 percent of South Koreans opposed the joint team.

However, that opposition appears to be lessening as the Olympics near.

1. What factor mainly causes the communication barriers for North and South Joint Hockey Team?

A．The team was suddenly formed in a hurry.

B．They are devoted to preparing the Winter Olympics.

C．There exists a gap between the two language.

D．They have been separated from each other for 70 years.

2. Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage?

A．South Korean players are so critical of the joint Olympic team.

B．There are altogether 35 players in the joint Olympic team.

C．Murray from Canada doubts the three-page document in their communication.

D．North Korean assistant coach plays an important role in their communication.

3. How do the joint team solve the communication problems?

A．South Korean brings in English words but North Korean created substitutes from Korea

B．They translate important hockey terms from English into South Korean.

C．They translate important hockey terms from South Korean into North Korean.

D．They use English to bridge the language gaps with the help of their own dictionary.

4. What is the author’s attitude towards the joint hockey team?

A．Supportive

B．Negative

C．Objective

D．Subjective

【推荐3】“Whatever”，totally tops most annoying word in the poll(民意测验).So, you know, it is what it is, but Americans are totally annoyed by the use of “whatever，，in conversations. The popular term of indifference(不感兴趣)was found most annoying in conversations by 47 percent of the Americans surveyed in a Marist College poll on Wednesday.
"Whatever" easily beat out “you know," which especially annoyed a quarter of interviewers. The other annoying expressions were "anyway"(at 7 percent), “it is what it is’，(11percent) and “at the end of the day”(2 percent).
"Whatever" is an expression with staying power. It left everyone a deep impression in the song by Nirvana (“oh well, whatever, never mind”）in 1991 and was popularized by the Valley Girls in the film “Clueless”，later that decade. It is still commonly used, often by younger people.
It can be a common argument-ender or a signal of indifference. And it can really be annoying. The poll found '"whatever" to be consistently(始终地)disliked by Americans regardless of their race, sex, age, income or where they live.
“It doesn't surprise me because ‘whatever，is in a special class, probably，，，said Michael Adams, author of “Slang(俚语)~The People's Poetry" and an associate professor of English at Indiana University. "It's a word that 一 and it depends on how a speaker uses it 一 can suggest being not worthy of attention or respect.’，Adams, who didn't take part in the poll and is not annoyed by "whatever," points out that its use is not always negative. “It can also be used in place of other neutral(中性的）phrases that have fallen out of favor, like ‘six of one, half dozen of the other，.” he said. However, he also noted that the negative meaning of the word might explain why “whatever，was judged more annoying than the ever-popular "you know”.
1. Which tops second among the annoying expression according to the passage?'

A．Whatever.

B．You know.

C．Anyway.

D．It is what it is.

2. What can we know about the word "whatever"?

A．It became popular because of Nirvana.

B．It can be commonly used at the beginning of an agreement.

C．Old people like it while young people don't.

D．Almost half of the Americans surveyed disliked it.

3. In Adams' opinion, the reason why “whatever”，was judged more annoying may be that     . _______

A．most of the people don't like it

B．it can be used in place of other neutral phrases

C．it carries certain negative meaning sometimes

D．the poor don't like it

4. Which of the following statements is true?

A．Adams is not only a writer but also a professor.

B．“Whatever” is a signal of concern.

C．Adams is angry at the word “whatever”

D．"Whatever" will be replaced by "You know”.

【推荐1】请认真阅读下面短文，并根据所读内容在文章后表格中的空格里填入一个最恰当的单词。 注意：请将答案写在答题卡上相应题号的横线上。每个空格只填一个单词。

Many of today's young people have a difficult time seeing any moral dimension to their actions. There are a number of reasons why that’s true, but none more important than a failed system of education that avoids teaching children the traditional moral values that bind Americans together as a society and a culture. That failed approach, called ''decision-making'', was introduced in schools 25 years ago. It tells children to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. It replaced ''character education'', which didn't ask children to reinvent the moral wheel, but encouraged them to practice habits of courage, justice and self- control.

Decision-making curriculums pose ethical dilemmas to students, leaving them with the impression that all morality is problematic and that all questions of right and wrong are based on people's own ideas. Youngsters are forced to question values and virtues they've never acquired in the first place. The assumption behind this method is that students will arrive at good moral conclusions if they are given the chance. But the actual result is moral confusion.

This kind of confusion further encouraged by values-education programs that are little more than courses in self-worth. These programs are based on the questionable assumption that a child who feels good about himself or herself won't want to do anything wrong. But it is just as reasonable to make an opposite assumption: namely, that a child who always believes in and accepts himself will conclude that he or she can't do anything bad.

It is time to throw ''decision-making'' and ''none-judgementalism'' into the rubbish heap of failed policies, and return to a proved method. Character education provides a much more realistic approach to moral formation. It is built on an understanding that we learn morality not by debating it, but by practicing it.

Children Must Be Taught to Distinguish Right from Wrong

Problem	Many young people find it     1     to see their actions in a moral way.
Reason	Replacing character education, the decision-making approach does not teach children     2     morality but emphasizes subjective judgment on right and wrong.
Consequences	●     3     decision-making curriculums were meant to give students the chance to       4    good moral conclusions by themselves, they make students     5     confused, due to the     6     of criteria on what's right and wrong. ● Values-education programs     7     students' moral confusion. Those with self-acceptance will make the assumption that they can't do anything wrong. ● Public education based on decision-making approach, which     8     to guide youngsters on the right track, fuels the explosion of serious     9     problems.
Solution	An immediate shift back to character education is needed. Moral formation can be achieved by means of     10    .

【推荐2】Nowadays, the world is slowly becoming a high-tech society and we are now surrounded by technology. Facebook and Twitter are innovative tools; text messaging is still a somewhat existing phenomenon and even e-mail is only a flashing spot on the screen when compared with our long history of snail mail. Now we adopt these tools to the point of essentialness, and only rarely consider how we are more fundamentally affected by them.

Social media, texting and e-mail all make it much easier to communicate, gather and pass information. But they also present some dangers. By removing any real human engagement, they enable us to develop our abnormal self-love without the risk of disapproval or criticism theatrical metaphor (隐喻), these new forms of communication provide a stage on which we create our own characters, hidden behind a fourth wall of tweets, status updates and texts. This unreal state of unconcern can become addictive as we separate ourselves a safe distance from the cruelty of our fleshly lives, where we are imperfect, powerless and insignificant. In essence, we have been provided not only the means to be more free, but also to become new, to create and protect a more perfect self to the world. As we become more reliant on these tools, they become more a part of our daily routine and so we become more restricted in this fantasy.

So it is that we live in a cold era, where names and faces represent two different levels of closeness, where working relationships occur only through the magic of email and where love can start or end by text message. An environment such as this reduces interpersonal relationships to mere digital exchanges.

Would a celebrity have been so daring to do something dishonorable if he had had to do it in person? Doubtful. It seems he might have been lost in a fantasy world that ultimately convinced himself into believing the digital self could obey different rules and regulations, as if he could continually push the limits of what’s acceptable without facing the consequences of “real life.”

1. The author compares e-mail with snail mail to show ________.

A．the influence of high-tech on our life	B．the history of different types of mails
C．the value of traditional communications	D．the rapid development of social media

2. What can we know about new communication tools?

A．Destroying our life totally.	B．Posing more dangers than good.
C．Helping us to hide our faults.	D．Replacing traditional letters.

3. What is the potential threat caused by the novel communication tools?

A．Sheltering us from virtual life.	B．Removing face-to-face interaction.
C．Leading to false mental perception.	D．Making us rely more on hi-tech media.

4. What can be inferred from the last two paragraphs?

A．Technologies have changed our relationships.

B．The digital world is a recipe for pushing limits.

C．Love can be better conveyed by text message.

D．The digital self need not take responsibility.