It would be all too easy to say that Facebook’s market meltdown is coming to an end.After all,Mark Zuckerberg’s social network burned as much as$50 billion of shareholders’wealth in just a couple months.To put that in context,since its debut(初次登台)on NASDA

It would be all too easy to say that Facebook’s market meltdown is coming to an end.After all,Mark Zuckerberg’s social
network burned as much as$50 billion of shareholders’wealth in just a couple months.To put that in context,since its debut(初次登台)on NASDAQ in May,Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo,AOL,Zynga,Yelp,Pandora,Open Table,
Group on,LinkedIn,and Angie's List combined,plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world,it’s no surprise to
anyone who read the initial public offering(IPO)prospectus(首次公开募股说明书).Worse still,all the crises that emerged
when the company debuted-overpriced shares,poor corporate governance,huge challenges to the core business,and a
damaged brand-remain today.Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is,one that
can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation.To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO,say$28 a share,Facebook’s future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier.That would have required
increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That’s not happening.In the first half of 2012,Facebook reported revenue of$2.24 billion,up 38 percent from the same
period in 2011.At the same time,the company’s costs surged to$2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles’heel of Facebook’s business model,which the company clearly stated in a
list of risk factors associated with its IPO:it hasn’t yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices,The number
of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by 67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter,or more than
half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem.The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook’s future in other ways.Indeed,the more Facebook’s disappointment in the market is catalogued,the worse Facebook’s
image becomes.Not only does that threaten to rub off on users,it’s bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers,who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg’s creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super-voting stock he
holds.This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering.It’s a pity so few investors apparently bothered to
do their homework.

What effect will Facebook’s failure in the market have 《》（）

A.Its users’benefits will be threatened.
B.Talented hackers will take down the website.
C.The CEO will hold the super-voting stock.
D.The company’s innovation strength will be damageD.

It would be all too easy to say that Facebook’s market meltdown is coming to an end.After all,Mark Zuckerberg’s social
network burned as much as$50 billion of shareholders’wealth in just a couple months.To put that in context,since its debut(初次登台)on NASDAQ in May,Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo,AOL,Zynga,Yelp,Pandora,Open Table,
Group on,LinkedIn,and Angie's List combined,plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world,it’s no surprise to
anyone who read the initial public offering(IPO)prospectus(首次公开募股说明书).Worse still,all the crises that emerged
when the company debuted-overpriced shares,poor corporate governance,huge challenges to the core business,and a
damaged brand-remain today.Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is,one that
can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation.To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO,say$28 a share,Facebook’s future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier.That would have required
increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That’s not happening.In the first half of 2012,Facebook reported revenue of$2.24 billion,up 38 percent from the same
period in 2011.At the same time,the company’s costs surged to$2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles’heel of Facebook’s business model,which the company clearly stated in a
list of risk factors associated with its IPO:it hasn’t yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices,The number
of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by 67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter,or more than
half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem.The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook’s future in other ways.Indeed,the more Facebook’s disappointment in the market is catalogued,the worse Facebook’s
image becomes.Not only does that threaten to rub off on users,it’s bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers,who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg’s creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super-voting stock he
holds.This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering.It’s a pity so few investors apparently bothered to
do their homework.

To make its stock price reasonable,Facebook has to____《》（）

A.narrow the IPO price range
B.cooperate with Google
C.keep enormously profitable
D.invest additional$2.6 billion

Being a good parent is,of course,what every parent would like to be.But defining what it means to be a good parent is undoubtedly very__1__,particularly since children respond differently to the same style of parenting.A calm,rule-following child might respond better to a different sort of parenting than,__2__,a younger sibling.__3__,there’s another sort of parent that’s a bit easier to__4__:a patient parent.Children of every age benefit from patient parenting.Still,__5__every parent would like to be patient,this is no easy__6__.Sometimes parents get exhausted and frustrated and are unable to maintain a__7__and composed style with their kids.I understand this.You’re only human,and sometimes your kids can__8__you just a little too far.And then the__9__happens:You lose your patience and either scream at your kids or say something that was a bit too__10__and does nobody any good.You wish that you could__11__the clock and start over.We’ve all been there.__12__,even though it’s common,it’s important to keep in mind that in a single moment of fatigue,you can say something to your child that you may__13__for a long time.This may not only do damage to your relationship with your child but also__14__your child’s self-esteem.If you consistently lose your__15__with your kids,then you are inadvertently modeling a lack of emotional control for your kids.We are all becoming increasingly aware of the__16__of modeling tolerance and patience for the younger generation.This is a skill that will help them all throughout life.In fact,the ability to emotionally regulate or maintain emotional control when__17__by stress is one of the most important of all life’s skills.Certainly,it’s incredibly__18__to maintain patience at all times with your children.A more practical goal is to try,to the best of your ability,to be as tolerant and composed as you can when faced with__19__situations involving your children.I can promise you this:As a result of working toward this goal,you and your children will benefit and__20__from stressful moments feeling better physically and emotionally.8选？

A.move
B.drag
C.push
D.send

Text 4 The revelations we publish about how Facebook's data was used by Cambridge Analytica to subvert the openness of democracy are only the latest examples of a global phenomenon.YouTube can not only profit from disturbing content but in unintended ways rewards its creation.The algorithms that guide viewers to new choices aim always to intensify the experience,and to keep the viewer excited.Recent research found that the nearly 9,000 YouTube videos explaining away American school shootings as the results of conspiracies using actors to play the part of victims had been watched,in total,more than 4bn times.Four billion page views is an awful lot of potential advertising revenue;it is also,in an embarrassingly literal sense,traffic in human misery and exploitation.None of these problems is new,and all of them will grow worse and more pressing in the coming years,as the technology advances.Yet the real difficulty is not the slickness of the technology but the willingness of the audience to be deceived and its desire to have its prejudices gratified.Many of the most destructive videos on YouTube consist of one man roaring into a camera without any visual aids at all.Twitter uses no fancy technology yet lies spread across that network six times as fast as true stories.Although Twitter and YouTube pose undoubted difficulties for democracies,it is Facebook that has borne the brunt of recent criticism,in part because its global ambitions have led it to expand into countries where it is essentially the only gateway to the wider internet,The company's ambitions to become the carrier of all content（and thus able to sell advertising against everything online）have led it inexorably into the position of being the universal publisher.The difficulties of this position cannot be resolved by the facile idea of the"community values"to which Facebook appeals-and,anyway,that only begs the question:"Which community?"Mark Zuckerberg talks about a"global community"but such a thing does not exist and may never do so.Communities have different values and different interests,which sometimes appear existentially opposed.Almost all will define themselves,at least in part,against other communities.The task of reconciling the resulting conflicts is political,cultural and even religious;it is not technological at all.For a private American advertising company to set itself up as the arbiter of all the world's political and cultural conflicts is an entirely vain ambition.Into the vacuum left by Facebook's waffle,nation states are stepping.Many are keen to use surveillance capitalism for direct political ends.They must be resisted.The standards by which the internet is controlled need to be open and subject to the workings of impartial judiciaries.But the task cannot and will not be left to the advertising companies that at present control most of the content-and whose own judgments are themselves almost wholly opaque and arbitrary.
According to Paragraph 2,the problem's real challenge seems to be the fact that_____

A.technology is evolving too fast
B.fake stories can hardly be curbed
C.platforms have put little efforts in it
D.viewers often welcome false content

--Didn′t the film Beauty and the Beastexcite you?
--__________. I fell bored.

A.Take it easy
B.It depends
C.Far from it
D.That' s all right

It would be all too easy to say that Facebook’s market meltdown is coming to an end.After all,Mark Zuckerberg’s social
network burned as much as$50 billion of shareholders’wealth in just a couple months.To put that in context,since its debut(初次登台)on NASDAQ in May,Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo,AOL,Zynga,Yelp,Pandora,Open Table,
Group on,LinkedIn,and Angie's List combined,plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world,it’s no surprise to
anyone who read the initial public offering(IPO)prospectus(首次公开募股说明书).Worse still,all the crises that emerged
when the company debuted-overpriced shares,poor corporate governance,huge challenges to the core business,and a
damaged brand-remain today.Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is,one that
can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation.To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO,say$28 a share,Facebook’s future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier.That would have required
increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That’s not happening.In the first half of 2012,Facebook reported revenue of$2.24 billion,up 38 percent from the same
period in 2011.At the same time,the company’s costs surged to$2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles’heel of Facebook’s business model,which the company clearly stated in a
list of risk factors associated with its IPO:it hasn’t yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices,The number
of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by 67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter,or more than
half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem.The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook’s future in other ways.Indeed,the more Facebook’s disappointment in the market is catalogued,the worse Facebook’s
image becomes.Not only does that threaten to rub off on users,it’s bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers,who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg’s creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super-voting stock he
holds.This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering.It’s a pity so few investors apparently bothered to
do their homework.


What can be inferred about Facebook from the first paragraph 《》（）

A.Its market meltdown has been easily halted.
B.It has increased trade with the newspaper industry.
C.It has encountered utter failure since its stock debut.
D.Its shareholders have invested$50 billion in a social network.

It would be all too easy to say that Facebook’s market meltdown is coming to an end.After all,Mark Zuckerberg’s social
network burned as much as$50 billion of shareholders’wealth in just a couple months.To put that in context,since its debut(初次登台)on NASDAQ in May,Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo,AOL,Zynga,Yelp,Pandora,Open Table,
Group on,LinkedIn,and Angie's List combined,plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world,it’s no surprise to
anyone who read the initial public offering(IPO)prospectus(首次公开募股说明书).Worse still,all the crises that emerged
when the company debuted-overpriced shares,poor corporate governance,huge challenges to the core business,and a
damaged brand-remain today.Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is,one that
can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation.To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO,say$28 a share,Facebook’s future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier.That would have required
increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That’s not happening.In the first half of 2012,Facebook reported revenue of$2.24 billion,up 38 percent from the same
period in 2011.At the same time,the company’s costs surged to$2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles’heel of Facebook’s business model,which the company clearly stated in a
list of risk factors associated with its IPO:it hasn’t yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices,The number
of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by 67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter,or more than
half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem.The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook’s future in other ways.Indeed,the more Facebook’s disappointment in the market is catalogued,the worse Facebook’s
image becomes.Not only does that threaten to rub off on users,it’s bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers,who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg’s creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super-voting stock he
holds.This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering.It’s a pity so few investors apparently bothered to
do their homework.

What does the author imply in the last paragraph 《》（）

A.Sleeplessness does harm to people’s health.
B.Few people really know the importance of sleep.
C.It is important to study our sleep patterns.
D.Average people probably sleep less than the rich.

共用题干
1.Two former lovers are to get married next month after reuniting on Facebook 27 years after their romance first ended.
2.Paul Eaton,56,and Dawn Pitman,48,first met when he stayed at her mother's bed and breakfast hotel in 1982.The couple enjoyed an 18-month romance before going their separate ways because Ms. Pitman,then 21,thought she was too young to settle down.
3.They both met other partners and had children in the following years,but never forgot about each other,then in 2008,water board worker Mr. Eaton joined social networking website Facebook, where he saw some pictures of Ms.Pitman on holiday and got in touch.The mother-of-one,a care worker from Exmouth,Devon,said,"I went to America on holiday and my niece Rachel put all these pictures on Facebook.The irony was that I told her to put them off because I felt it was an invasion of privacy and she said she would get them around to it when she had time.If I hadn't been on Facebook,he would not have contacted me and we would have never got back together."
4.Ms.Pitman later mentioned,"I did think of him quite a lot over the years and wondered what happened to him. He hasn't changed a bit.He's the same old laid back,easygoing Paul I knew all those years ago."Mr. Eaton,a father-of-two from Bransley,South Yorkshire said:"It was totally a chance thing. I had only been on Facebook for one day.I just typed Dawn's name in and I hoped for the best.It was a bit scary when I contacted her. I thought she might be married and would have a dozen kids."
5.The couple met up again on New Year's Eve 2008 and were amazed to discover the intervening years had been kind to each other."It was a real shock,"Mrs.Pitman said,"We both saw each other and he was exactly the same as I remember and that's what he said about me.He hadn't changed a bit.I knew then he was the one for me."
6.Mr. Eaton added:"We just knew instantly as soon as we met up again.We didn't even have to discuss it or propose.When we knew each other all those years ago,I was a white van man and Dawn had a sports car. I still got a white van and Dawn still has a sports car. Some things never change.She always said that we would see each other again.I just didn't think it would be 27 years."The couple are due to get married in Exmouth on March 20.

Mr. Eaton joined social networking website Facebook,where he saw some pictures of Ms.Pit-man on holiday and______.
A:got in touch
B:an invasion of privacy
C:too young to settle down
D:her candles
E:met up
F: all those years ago

Text 4 The revelations we publish about how Facebook's data was used by Cambridge Analytica to subvert the openness of democracy are only the latest examples of a global phenomenon.YouTube can not only profit from disturbing content but in unintended ways rewards its creation.The algorithms that guide viewers to new choices aim always to intensify the experience,and to keep the viewer excited.Recent research found that the nearly 9,000 YouTube videos explaining away American school shootings as the results of conspiracies using actors to play the part of victims had been watched,in total,more than 4bn times.Four billion page views is an awful lot of potential advertising revenue;it is also,in an embarrassingly literal sense,traffic in human misery and exploitation.None of these problems is new,and all of them will grow worse and more pressing in the coming years,as the technology advances.Yet the real difficulty is not the slickness of the technology but the willingness of the audience to be deceived and its desire to have its prejudices gratified.Many of the most destructive videos on YouTube consist of one man roaring into a camera without any visual aids at all.Twitter uses no fancy technology yet lies spread across that network six times as fast as true stories.Although Twitter and YouTube pose undoubted difficulties for democracies,it is Facebook that has borne the brunt of recent criticism,in part because its global ambitions have led it to expand into countries where it is essentially the only gateway to the wider internet,The company's ambitions to become the carrier of all content（and thus able to sell advertising against everything online）have led it inexorably into the position of being the universal publisher.The difficulties of this position cannot be resolved by the facile idea of the"community values"to which Facebook appeals-and,anyway,that only begs the question:"Which community?"Mark Zuckerberg talks about a"global community"but such a thing does not exist and may never do so.Communities have different values and different interests,which sometimes appear existentially opposed.Almost all will define themselves,at least in part,against other communities.The task of reconciling the resulting conflicts is political,cultural and even religious;it is not technological at all.For a private American advertising company to set itself up as the arbiter of all the world's political and cultural conflicts is an entirely vain ambition.Into the vacuum left by Facebook's waffle,nation states are stepping.Many are keen to use surveillance capitalism for direct political ends.They must be resisted.The standards by which the internet is controlled need to be open and subject to the workings of impartial judiciaries.But the task cannot and will not be left to the advertising companies that at present control most of the content-and whose own judgments are themselves almost wholly opaque and arbitrary.
The author suggests internet content____

A.be supervised by people
B.be surveilled by social media
C.be checked by its providers
D.be controlled by law

Text 4 The revelations we publish about how Facebook's data was used by Cambridge Analytica to subvert the openness of democracy are only the latest examples of a global phenomenon.YouTube can not only profit from disturbing content but in unintended ways rewards its creation.The algorithms that guide viewers to new choices aim always to intensify the experience,and to keep the viewer excited.Recent research found that the nearly 9,000 YouTube videos explaining away American school shootings as the results of conspiracies using actors to play the part of victims had been watched,in total,more than 4bn times.Four billion page views is an awful lot of potential advertising revenue;it is also,in an embarrassingly literal sense,traffic in human misery and exploitation.None of these problems is new,and all of them will grow worse and more pressing in the coming years,as the technology advances.Yet the real difficulty is not the slickness of the technology but the willingness of the audience to be deceived and its desire to have its prejudices gratified.Many of the most destructive videos on YouTube consist of one man roaring into a camera without any visual aids at all.Twitter uses no fancy technology yet lies spread across that network six times as fast as true stories.Although Twitter and YouTube pose undoubted difficulties for democracies,it is Facebook that has borne the brunt of recent criticism,in part because its global ambitions have led it to expand into countries where it is essentially the only gateway to the wider internet,The company's ambitions to become the carrier of all content（and thus able to sell advertising against everything online）have led it inexorably into the position of being the universal publisher.The difficulties of this position cannot be resolved by the facile idea of the"community values"to which Facebook appeals-and,anyway,that only begs the question:"Which community?"Mark Zuckerberg talks about a"global community"but such a thing does not exist and may never do so.Communities have different values and different interests,which sometimes appear existentially opposed.Almost all will define themselves,at least in part,against other communities.The task of reconciling the resulting conflicts is political,cultural and even religious;it is not technological at all.For a private American advertising company to set itself up as the arbiter of all the world's political and cultural conflicts is an entirely vain ambition.Into the vacuum left by Facebook's waffle,nation states are stepping.Many are keen to use surveillance capitalism for direct political ends.They must be resisted.The standards by which the internet is controlled need to be open and subject to the workings of impartial judiciaries.But the task cannot and will not be left to the advertising companies that at present control most of the content-and whose own judgments are themselves almost wholly opaque and arbitrary.
The first paragraph mainly presents to us____.

A.the secret of online video marketing
B.public safety problems in the digital era
C.the destructive power of social media
D.the social impact of conspiracy theories