Attention is called to the fact that in many cases charted depths may be decreased by up to ______.A.one nautical mileB.two kilometersC.5 cables onlyD.one fathom

Passage 1
In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that"social epidemics"are driven in?large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are?unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected．The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn′t?explain how ideas actually spread．
The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested?theory called the"two-step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the?influentials and from them to everyone else．Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it?suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of?the work for them．The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain?looks,brands,or neighborhoods．In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some?small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid?attention．Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people?can drive trends．
In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials?have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed．In fact,they don′t seem to be?required of all．
The researchers′argument stems from a simple observation about social influence:With the?exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey--whose outsize presence is primarily a function of?media,not interpersonal,influence--even the most influential members of a population simply don′t?interact with that many others．Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to?the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics,by influencing their friends and?colleagues directly．For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected must then?influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how?many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential．If people?in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the?cascade of change won′t propagate very far or affect many people．
Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics?of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations,manipulating a?number of variables relating to people′s ability to influence others and their tendency to be?influenced．They found that the principal requirement for what is called"global cascades"—the?widespread propagation of influence through networks--is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people．

The underlined phrase"these people"in Paragraph 4 refers to the ones who__________．查看材料

A.stay outside the network of social influence
B.have little contact with the source of influence
C.are influenced and then influence others
D.are influenced by the initial influential

Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected.The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the"two step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else.Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of the work for them.The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks,brands,or neighborhoods.In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention.Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed.In fact,they don't seem to be required of all.The researchers'argument stems from a simple observing about social influence,with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media,not interpersonal,influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others.Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly.For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected,must then influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential.If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations,manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call"global cascades"–the widespread propagation of influence through networks–is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people.33.What the researchers have observed recently shows that

A.the power of influence goes with social interactions
B.interpersonal links can be enhanced through the media
C.influentials have more channels to reach the public
D.most celebrities enjoy wide media attention

The fact is that _____ is given to seniority and many people would rather be the tail of a lion than the head of a dog.

A.priority
B.focus
C.emphasis
D.attention

材料题
C
Will it matter if you don’t take your breakfast Recently a test was given in the United States．Those tested included people of different ages,from 12 to 83．During the experiment,these people were given all kinds of breakfasts and sometimes they got no breakfast at all．Special tests were set up to see how well their bodies worked when they had eaten a certain kind of breakfast．The results sow that if a person eats a proper breakfast,he or she will work with better effect(影响)than if he or she has no breakfast．This fact appears to be especially true if a person works with his brains．If a student eats fruit,eggs,bread and milk before going to school,he will learn more quickly and listen with more attention in class．Contrary to(与……相反)what many people believe,if you don’t eat breakfast,you will not lose weight．This is because people become so hungry at noon that they eat too much for lunch,and end up gaining weight instead of losing．You will probably lose more weight if you reduce(减少)your other meals．


Which of the following is not true to the passage

A.Poor breakfasts affect(影响)those who work with brain
B.Morning diet may cause one to get fatte
C.Reducing lunch and supper is of less value in weight-losin
D.Eating less in lunch and supper may help to lose weigh

Passage 1
In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that"social epidemics"are driven in?large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are?unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected．The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn′t?explain how ideas actually spread．
The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested?theory called the"two-step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the?influentials and from them to everyone else．Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it?suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of?the work for them．The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain?looks,brands,or neighborhoods．In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some?small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid?attention．Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people?can drive trends．
In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials?have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed．In fact,they don′t seem to be?required of all．
The researchers′argument stems from a simple observation about social influence:With the?exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey--whose outsize presence is primarily a function of?media,not interpersonal,influence--even the most influential members of a population simply don′t?interact with that many others．Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to?the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics,by influencing their friends and?colleagues directly．For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected must then?influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how?many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential．If people?in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the?cascade of change won′t propagate very far or affect many people．
Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics?of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations,manipulating a?number of variables relating to people′s ability to influence others and their tendency to be?influenced．They found that the principal requirement for what is called"global cascades"—the?widespread propagation of influence through networks--is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people．

What the researchers have observed recently shows that__________．查看材料

A.the power of influence goes with social interactions
B.interpersonal links can be enhanced through the media
C.influentials have more channels to reach the public
D.most celebrities enjoy wide media attention

Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected.The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the"two step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else.Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of the work for them.The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks,brands,or neighborhoods.In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention.Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed.In fact,they don't seem to be required of all.The researchers'argument stems from a simple observing about social influence,with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media,not interpersonal,influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others.Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly.For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected,must then influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential.If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations,manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call"global cascades"–the widespread propagation of influence through networks–is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people.35.what is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence?

A.The eagerness to be accepted
B.The impulse to influence others
C.The readiness to be influenced
D.The inclination to rely on others

I really can't put up with him,especially his so-called refined way of speaking and behavior.

A:honest
B:elegant
C:blunt
D:straightforward

In a world where it seems we already have too much to do，and too many things to think about，it seems the last thing we need is something new that we have to learn.But use cases do solve a problem with requirements:with（ ）declarative equirements it's hard to describle steps and sequences of events.Use cases，stated simply，allow description of sequences of events that，taken together，lead to a system doing something useful.As simple as this sounds，this is important.When confronted only with a pile of requiements，it's often（ ）to make sense of what the authors of the requirements really wanted the system to do.In the preceding example，use cases reduce the ambiguity of the requirements by specifying exactly when and under what conditions certain behavior occurs;as such，the sequence of the behaviors can be regarded as a requirement.Use cases are particularly well suited to capture approaches.Although this may sound simple，the fact is that（ ）equirement capture approaches，with their emphasis on declarative requirements and"shall"statements，completely fail to capture the（ ）of the system's behavior.Use cases are a simple yet powerful way to express the behavior of the system in way that all stakeholders can easily understand.But，like anything，use cases come with their own problems，and as useful as they are，they can be（请作答此空）.the result is something that is as bad，if not worse，that the original problem.Therein it's important to utilize use cases effectively without creating a greater problem than the one you started with.

A.misapplied
B.applied
C.used
D.powerful