单选题According to the writer, English-speaking people need to be aware that ______.A some foreigners have never met an English-speaking person.B many foreigners have no desire to learn English.C foreign languages may pose a greater problem in the future.D E

In deed more and more schools are discovering that foreign languages are best taught in the lower grades.Young children often can learn several languages by being（ ）to them,while adults have a much harder time learning another language once the rules of their first language have become firmly fixed.

A.disclosed
B.revealed
C.immersed
D.exposed

Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
Which of the following statements about the more systematic. and more idiosyncratic language is correct?

A. When a language becomes more widely-spoken, it becomes more idiosyncratic,
B. A more systematic language works better than a more idiosyncratic language.
C. A more systematic language facilitates communication a large population.
D. People develop more rules than it is needed when learning a new language.

Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
What is the author's main purpose of writing this article?

A. To explain why bigger languages have simpler grammar.
B. To inform readers the evolvement process of languages.
C. To introduce the systematic and idiosyncratic languages.
D. To compare the differences between Berik and English.

I met several people there, two of ______ being foreigners.

A. whom
B. them
C. who
D. which

资料： The poverty line is the minimum income that people need for an acceptable standard of living. People with incomes below the poverty line are considered poor. Economists study the causes of poverty in order to find solutions to the problem.
As the general standard of living in the country rises, the poverty line does, too. Therefore, even with today’s relatively high standard of living, about 10 percent of the people in the United States are below the poverty line. However, if these people had stable jobs, they could have an acceptable standard of living. Economists suggest several reasons why poor people do not have jobs.
For one thing, more than half of the poor people in the United States are not qualified to work. Over 40 percent of the poor. People are children. By law, children less than 16 years old cannot work in many industries. A large number of poor people are Old. Many companies do not hire people over 65 years old, the normal retirement age.
Some poor adults do not look for jobs for a variety of personal reasons: they are sick, they do not have any motivation, they have family problems, or they do not believe that they can find a job.
Other poor people look for a job but cannot find one. Many poor adults never went to high school. Therefore, when they look for jobs, they have few skills that they can offer.
At the present time, the government thinks it can reduce poverty in the country in the following ways. First, if the national economy grows, businesses and industries hire more workers. Some of the poor who are qualified to look for jobs may find employment. Then they will no longer be below the poverty line. Second, if society invests in the poor, the poor will become more productive. If the government spends money on social programs, education, and training for poor people, the poor will have the skills to offer. Then it is more likely that they can find jobs.
Finally, if the government distributes society's income differently, it raises some poor people above the poverty line. The government collects taxes from the non－poor and gives money to the poor. These payments to the poor are called welfare. In 1975 over 18 million people in the United States received welfare.
Some economists are looking for better solutions to the poverty problem. However, at the present time, many people depend on welfare for a minimally acceptable standard of living.

We may conclude from the passage that _______

A.poor people are bound to go out of the poverty line if they have chances to do business
B.welfare will enable people to be rich
C.employment is the best solution to the poverty problem
D.better solutions to the poverty problem are not found yet

资料： The poverty line is the minimum income that people need for an acceptable standard of living. People with incomes below the poverty line are considered poor. Economists study the causes of poverty in order to find solutions to the problem.
As the general standard of living in the country rises, the poverty line does, too. Therefore, even with today’s relatively high standard of living, about 10 percent of the people in the United States are below the poverty line. However, if these people had stable jobs, they could have an acceptable standard of living. Economists suggest several reasons why poor people do not have jobs.
For one thing, more than half of the poor people in the United States are not qualified to work. Over 40 percent of the poor. People are children. By law, children less than 16 years old cannot work in many industries. A large number of poor people are Old. Many companies do not hire people over 65 years old, the normal retirement age.
Some poor adults do not look for jobs for a variety of personal reasons: they are sick, they do not have any motivation, they have family problems, or they do not believe that they can find a job.
Other poor people look for a job but cannot find one. Many poor adults never went to high school. Therefore, when they look for jobs, they have few skills that they can offer.
At the present time, the government thinks it can reduce poverty in the country in the following ways. First, if the national economy grows, businesses and industries hire more workers. Some of the poor who are qualified to look for jobs may find employment. Then they will no longer be below the poverty line. Second, if society invests in the poor, the poor will become more productive. If the government spends money on social programs, education, and training for poor people, the poor will have the skills to offer. Then it is more likely that they can find jobs.
Finally, if the government distributes society's income differently, it raises some poor people above the poverty line. The government collects taxes from the non－poor and gives money to the poor. These payments to the poor are called welfare. In 1975 over 18 million people in the United States received welfare.
Some economists are looking for better solutions to the poverty problem. However, at the present time, many people depend on welfare for a minimally acceptable standard of living.

According to the passage, which of the following is NOT the reason of unemployment?

A.some people are too young to work in many industries
B.some people are satisfied with the government welfare
C.some people don’t have motion to work
D.some people are not qualified to work

共用题干
Some Things We Know About Language
Many things about language are a mystery,and many will always remain so.But some things we do know.
First,we know that all human beings have a language of some sort. There is no race of men anywhere on earth so backward that it has no language,no set of speech sounds by which the people communicate with one another. Furthermore,in historical times,there has never been a race of men without a language.
Second,there is no such thing as a primitive language.There are many people whose cultures are undeveloped,who are,as we say,uncivilized,but the languages they speak are not primitive .In all known languages we can see complexities that must have been tens of thousands of years in developing.
This has not always been well understood;indeed,the direct contrary has often been stated.
Popular ideas of the language of the American Indians will illustrate.Many people have supposed that the Indians communicated in a very primitive system of noises.Study has proved this to be nonsense .There are,or were,hundreds of American Indian languages,and all of them turn out to be very complicated and very old.They are certainly different from the languages that most of us are familiar with,but they are no more primitive than English and Greek.
A third thing we know about language is that all languages are perfectly adequate. That is, each one is a perfect means of expressing the culture of the people who speak the language.
Finally,we know that language changes.It is natural and normal for language to change;the only languages which do not change are the dead ones.This is easy to understand if we look backward in time.Change goes on in all aspects of language.Grammatical teatures change as do speech sounds,and changes in vocabulary are sometimes very extensive and may occur very rap-idly. Vocabulary is the least stable part of any language.

According to the author,language changes are most likely to occur in______.
A: grammar
B: pronunciation
C: vocabulary
D: intonation

共用题干
Some Things We Know About Language
Many things about language are a mystery,and many will always remain so.But some things we do know.
First,we know that all human beings have a language of some sort. There is no race of men anywhere on earth so backward that it has no language,no set of speech sounds by which the people communicate with one another. Furthermore,in historical times,there has never been a race of men without a language.
Second,there is no such thing as a primitive language.There are many people whose cultures are undeveloped,who are,as we say,uncivilized,but the languages they speak are not primitive .In all known languages we can see complexities that must have been tens of thousands of years in developing.
This has not always been well understood;indeed,the direct contrary has often been stated.
Popular ideas of the language of the American Indians will illustrate.Many people have supposed that the Indians communicated in a very primitive system of noises.Study has proved this to be nonsense .There are,or were,hundreds of American Indian languages,and all of them turn out to be very complicated and very old.They are certainly different from the languages that most of us are familiar with,but they are no more primitive than English and Greek.
A third thing we know about language is that all languages are perfectly adequate. That is, each one is a perfect means of expressing the culture of the people who speak the language.
Finally,we know that language changes.It is natural and normal for language to change;the only languages which do not change are the dead ones.This is easy to understand if we look backward in time.Change goes on in all aspects of language.Grammatical teatures change as do speech sounds,and changes in vocabulary are sometimes very extensive and may occur very rap-idly. Vocabulary is the least stable part of any language.

According to the author,people of undeveloped cultures can have______languages.
A: complicated
B: uncivilized
C: primitive
D: well-known

According to the law, all foreigners have to _____________ with the local police within two weeks of arrival.

A.register
B.associate
C.negotiate
D.dispute

Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
What is the main finding of the study conducted by Max Plank Institute?

A. Bigger groups of speakers tend to make the language system simpler.
B. It is the foreign people learning that language makes it become simpler.
C. The small groups got better at communicating with each other at the end.
D. Members in bigger groups have more chances to interact with each other.

Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
According to the passage, in which way is Berik different from the system of bigger languages, like English?

A. There is no way to express the tiny pieces of meanings in English.
B. There are more direct and easier ways to convey the same content.
C. The word forms remain unchanged when used in different situations.
D. It requires small pieces attached to words to indicate diferent meanings.

Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
Which of the following sentences best fit in the blank in the second paragraph?

A. They found that Russian does not actually has the most complex grammar rules compared to other languages.
B. They tend to find that big languages spoken by large numbers of people are actually simpler than small ones.
C. They found that there is not any pattern about the relation between the complexity ofa language and its' popularity.
D. They found that laypeople usually pay attention to whether the vocabulary in one language is complex or simple.

共用题干
Tightened Visa Regulations
According to South Korea's new visa regulations,native speakers of English in South Korea will be required to undergo criminal record checks,medical and drug tests,provide sealed academic transcripts（成绩单）and have their university diplomas inspected,The Korea Times has reported.The tightened regulations will affect an estimated 17,000 foreigners that hold E-2 visas specifically for foreign language teachers.
The most controversial requirement is that English teachers residing（居住）outside South Korea will have to have an interview at a South Korean Embassy before taking up their teaching posts. For applicants living in remote areas in Canada,Australia or the US,this is an additional travel burden .Meanwhile,foreign teachers currently living in South Korea must leave the country after their one-year contracts and renew their visas by visiting a neighboring country and return without additional documentation（文件证据）.
The visa changes are a reaction to public concern about the suitability of some foreign teachers .A report from the South Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development shows between 2001 and August of this year,1,481 foreign language teachers have been caught for a range of offenses including forged（伪造的）degrees , visa violations and general lawbreak-ing.
But the changes are likely to slow up the supply of teachers to South Korea's English language education sector. According to Michael Duffy,manager of a teacher placement service in South Korea,applicants have to spend a few hundred dollars and several months on getting affidavits（书面陈述书）for documents. " South Korea has put up too many hoops（圈）to jump through,"he said,adding that foreigners would seek work elsewhere.Most foreigners wonder if the experience of working in South Korea will be worth the burden of the paper work and increasing restrictions."I don't think(South)Korea has thought this through."Said Scott Mclnnis,a Canadian teacher based in Incheon near Seoul."This is a reactionary move by the government that will have strong implications for the EFL community."
As part of the efforts to ease the discontent（不满）,the South Korean Ministry of Justice has granted a three-month grace period for current E-2 visa holders to prepare the necessary docu- ments.

The new visa policy aims at______.
A: protecting South Korea from terrorist attacks.
B: improving foreign language teaching in South Korea.
C: providing more job opportunities for the South Korean people.
D: encouraging the South Korean people to learn the Chinese language.

资料： The poverty line is the minimum income that people need for an acceptable standard of living. People with incomes below the poverty line are considered poor. Economists study the causes of poverty in order to find solutions to the problem.
As the general standard of living in the country rises, the poverty line does, too. Therefore, even with today’s relatively high standard of living, about 10 percent of the people in the United States are below the poverty line. However, if these people had stable jobs, they could have an acceptable standard of living. Economists suggest several reasons why poor people do not have jobs.
For one thing, more than half of the poor people in the United States are not qualified to work. Over 40 percent of the poor. People are children. By law, children less than 16 years old cannot work in many industries. A large number of poor people are Old. Many companies do not hire people over 65 years old, the normal retirement age.
Some poor adults do not look for jobs for a variety of personal reasons: they are sick, they do not have any motivation, they have family problems, or they do not believe that they can find a job.
Other poor people look for a job but cannot find one. Many poor adults never went to high school. Therefore, when they look for jobs, they have few skills that they can offer.
At the present time, the government thinks it can reduce poverty in the country in the following ways. First, if the national economy grows, businesses and industries hire more workers. Some of the poor who are qualified to look for jobs may find employment. Then they will no longer be below the poverty line. Second, if society invests in the poor, the poor will become more productive. If the government spends money on social programs, education, and training for poor people, the poor will have the skills to offer. Then it is more likely that they can find jobs.
Finally, if the government distributes society's income differently, it raises some poor people above the poverty line. The government collects taxes from the non－poor and gives money to the poor. These payments to the poor are called welfare. In 1975 over 18 million people in the United States received welfare.
Some economists are looking for better solutions to the poverty problem. However, at the present time, many people depend on welfare for a minimally acceptable standard of living.

The author’s main purpose to write this article is_____

A.to give several possible solutions to the problem of poverty
B.to explain why some people in the United States are below the poverty line
C.to show sympathy for those poor people
D.to give the definition of “poverty line”

共用题干
Some Things We Know About Language
Many things about language are a mystery,and many will always remain so.But some things we do know.
First , we know that all human beings have a language of some sort.There is no race（种族）of men anywhere on earth so backward that it has no language,no set of speech sounds by which the people communicate with one another.Furthermore,in historical times,there has never been a race of men without a language. Second,there is no such thing as a primitive（原始的）language.There are many people whose cultures are undeveloped,who are,as we say,uncivilized,but the languages they speak are not primitive.In all known languages we can see complexities that must have been tens of thousands of years in developing. This has not always been well understood;indeed,the direct contrary has often been stated.Popular ideas of the language of the American Indians will illustrate.Many people have supposed that the Indians communicated in a very primitive system of noises.Study has proved this to be nonsense.There are,or were, hundreds of American Indian languages,and all of them turn out to be very complicated and very old.They are certainly different from the languages that most of us are familiar with,but they are no more primitive than English and Greek.
A third thing we know about language is that all languages are perfectly adequate.That is,each one is a perfect means of expressing the culture of the people who speak the language. Finally,we know that language changes.It is natural and normal for language to change;the only languages which do not change are the dead ones.This is easy to understand if we look backward in time. Change goes on in all aspects of language.Grammatical features change as do speech sounds,and changes in vocabulary are sometimes very extensive and may occur very rapidly.Vocabulary is the least stable part of any language.

According to the third paragraph,the author thinks that______.
A:there exist some primitive languages in the world
B:there are many people who don't have a language
C:no languages in the world haven't been well developed
D:there are some languages we know having little complexities

共用题干
Some Things We Know About Language
Many things about language are a mystery,and many will always remain so.But some things we do know.
First,we know that all human beings have a language of some sort. There is no race of men anywhere on earth so backward that it has no language,no set of speech sounds by which the people communicate with one another. Furthermore,in historical times,there has never been a race of men without a language.
Second,there is no such thing as a primitive language.There are many people whose cultures are undeveloped,who are,as we say,uncivilized,but the languages they speak are not primitive .In all known languages we can see complexities that must have been tens of thousands of years in developing.
This has not always been well understood;indeed,the direct contrary has often been stated.
Popular ideas of the language of the American Indians will illustrate.Many people have supposed that the Indians communicated in a very primitive system of noises.Study has proved this to be nonsense .There are,or were,hundreds of American Indian languages,and all of them turn out to be very complicated and very old.They are certainly different from the languages that most of us are familiar with,but they are no more primitive than English and Greek.
A third thing we know about language is that all languages are perfectly adequate. That is, each one is a perfect means of expressing the culture of the people who speak the language.
Finally,we know that language changes.It is natural and normal for language to change;the only languages which do not change are the dead ones.This is easy to understand if we look backward in time.Change goes on in all aspects of language.Grammatical teatures change as do speech sounds,and changes in vocabulary are sometimes very extensive and may occur very rap-idly. Vocabulary is the least stable part of any language.

The author has used American Indian languages as an example to show that they are______.
A: just as old as some well-known languages
B: just as sophisticated as some well-known languages
C: more developed than some well-known languages
D: more complex than some well-known languages

共用题干
Some Things We Know About Language
Many things about language are a mystery,and many will always remain so.But some things we do know.
First,we know that all human beings have a language of some sort. There is no race of men anywhere on earth so backward that it has no language,no set of speech sounds by which the people communicate with one another. Furthermore,in historical times,there has never been a race of men without a language.
Second,there is no such thing as a primitive language.There are many people whose cultures are undeveloped,who are,as we say,uncivilized,but the languages they speak are not primitive .In all known languages we can see complexities that must have been tens of thousands of years in developing.
This has not always been well understood;indeed,the direct contrary has often been stated.
Popular ideas of the language of the American Indians will illustrate.Many people have supposed that the Indians communicated in a very primitive system of noises.Study has proved this to be nonsense .There are,or were,hundreds of American Indian languages,and all of them turn out to be very complicated and very old.They are certainly different from the languages that most of us are familiar with,but they are no more primitive than English and Greek.
A third thing we know about language is that all languages are perfectly adequate. That is, each one is a perfect means of expressing the culture of the people who speak the language.
Finally,we know that language changes.It is natural and normal for language to change;the only languages which do not change are the dead ones.This is easy to understand if we look backward in time.Change goes on in all aspects of language.Grammatical teatures change as do speech sounds,and changes in vocabulary are sometimes very extensive and may occur very rap-idly. Vocabulary is the least stable part of any language.

Which of the following statements is CORRECT?
A: A language can express many cultures.
B: All languages can well express their respective cultures.
C: American Indian languages are not as sophisticated as English.
D: Some languages are better than other languages.