题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
Why did the U.S. Navy set up underwater microphones around the world in the 1960s？
A．To listen for changes in ocean structure.
B．To listen for changes of ocean currents or volcanic activity.
C．To make sure whether there was a giant squid deep in the ocean.
D．To follow the track of the Soviet warships under water.
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“Why did the U.S. Navy set up u…”相关的问题
A. Because they are respected as parents and grandparents.
B. Because they are too old to support themselves.
C. Because their interests are protected by the law.
D. Because the elderly consist most of the U.S. government.
Why the War Against Terror Will Boost the Economy
There is still a lot of uncertainty about how the U.S. economy. To analyze the likely economic impact of the war, I think of the current action as analogous to U.S. wars of the past. My main conclusion is that the current war will be expansionary and will, therefore, help the U.S. economy recover from its current slowdown.
If we consider World War Ⅱ , Korea, and Vietnam, we have examples of Large, medium, and small wars. In World War Ⅱ, peak military spending in 1944 was 60% to 70% of prewar gross domestic product. During the Korea War, spending peaked at around 11% of GDP in 1952, and during the Vietnam War, it peaked at about 2% of GDP in 1968. The evidence is that economic activity expanded during each war but by less than the amount of wartime spending. My estimate is that each ＄ 1 worth of military outlays led to a 60￠ to -70￠ increase in GDP. To put it another way, while military spending raised output, there was no free lunch. The spending had to be paid for by decreases in other forms of spending, especially business investment (and by more work effort).
The economic effect of the Gulf War is harder to isolate because military spending rose by only about 0.3% of GDP. The economy was in a recession in 1990, before the war started in January, 1991. Economic growth resumed by the second quarter of 1991 but remained low until 1992. The analysis from the other three wars suggests that little of the recovery stemmed from the Gulf War.
Spending Hikes. For the current war effort, if we sum up the likely near-term added expenditures for the military, domestic security, and reconstruction of New York City, we get at least 1% of GDP. This calculation is likely to underestimate added wartime spending because we will probably also see a long-term reversal of the "peace dividend" that resulted from the end of the cold war. During the Clinton Administration, from the end of 1991 to the end of 2000, defense outlays fell from 6.2 % of GDP to 3.8 % (and the number of military personnel declined by around 1 million).
Given the insecurity of the post-September 11 world, I would expect a long-lasting increase in defense spending. If the U.S. responds as it did during the Reagan Administration's defense buildup of the early 1980s, defense spending would rise another 1% to 1.5 % of the GDP over a one-to-two-year period. Thus, the overall spending stimulus from the war on terror will likely be similar to the extra 2% of GDP that was expended at the peak of the Vietnam War. Using the kind of economic response mentioned before, where GDP rose by 60￠ to 70￠ for each dollar of military outlay, this stimulus is likely to help the economy avoid a recession in 2002.
Not all aspects of wars are favorable to economic activity, of course. Consumers' perceived increased risk of flying, for example, lowers the demand for air travel, and the perceived higher risk of terrorism likely reduces business investment. However, negative effects were also present in previous wars, including Worries about Japanese invasion of the U.S. mainland during World War Ⅱ and about Soviet missiles during the cold war. Nevertheless, the net effects of previous wars on U.S. GDP turned out to be positive.
No Bailouts Needed. One concern about the current situation is all the nonsensical proposals in Washington for fiscal stimulus beyond the expenditures for national security and the reconstruction of New York. It seems reasonable to regard security in airports and on airplanes as public goods that should be supervised and perhaps partly financed by the federal government. But there is no economic rationale for general bailouts or subsidies of airlines, insurance companies, the steel industry, agriculture, and so on. After all, it is not only, during tranquil times that we ought to rely on free markets rather t
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
What explains these 【C5】______ in living arrangements across cultures？ Modernization theory 【C6】______ the extended family household to low levels of economic development. In traditional societies, the elderly live with their children in large extended family units for economic reasons. But with modernization, children move to urban areas, 【C7】______ old people behind in isolated 【C8】______ areas. Yet modernization theory cannot explain why extended family households were never common in the United States or England, or why families in Italy, which is fully modernized, maintain a strong 【C9】______ of intergenerational living. Clearly, economic development alone cannot explain 【C10】______ living arrangements.
Another theory associated intergenerational living arrangements with inheritance patterns. In some cultures, the stem family pattern of inheritance 【C11】______ . 【C12】______ this system, parents live with a married child, usually the oldest son, 【C13】______ then inherits their property when they die. The stem family system was once common in Japan, but changes in inheritance laws, 【C14】______ broader social changes brought 【C15】______ by industrialization and urbanization, have 【C16】______ the tradition. In 1960 about 80 percent of Japanese over 65 lived with their children; by 1990 only 60 percent did — a figure that is still high 【C17】______ U.S. standards, but which has been 【C18】______ steadily. In Korea, too, traditional living arrangements are 【C19】______ : the percentage of aged Koreans who live with a son declined from 77 percent in 1984 to 50 percent just 10 years later. 【C20】______ most elderly Koreans still expect to live with a son, their adult children do not expect to live with their children when they grow old.
【C1】
A．about
B．for
C．of
D．to
(31)
A．1000 dollars.
B．25,000 dollars.
C．40,000 dollars.
D．15,000 dollars.
听力原文：M: Hello. I need to talk with someone about my driver's license.
W: Yes. How may I help you？ Do you have a driver's license, or do you need to get one？
M: Well, I'm not sure. You see, I have an international driver's license.
W: Uhuh. And how long will you be staying in the United States？
M: Probably four years, until I finish my degree.
W: Oh. Then you will need to get in Arizona driver's license.
M: Do I have to take a driver's test to do that？
W: Yes, you do. You need to come in and take a written exam and an eye exam, and then you need to take a road test with a parallel parking test. Did you say that you are a student？
M: Yes, I'm a student at the university. I don't have ID with me, but I can go and get it.
W: Okay. Then you can apply for a limited license. Just come back and show your student ID, and you can make application for a five-year license.
M: Great. That's what I want. So I don't have to take the driver’s test then.
W: Oh, yes you do. The limited license only costs you ten dollars. A regular license would cost you a lot more than that, but it is valid for more than five yearn.
M: Why can't I just use my international driver's license？
W: You could if you were just visiting a lot less than a year. But as a student, you will be temporarily residing in our state.
M: Okay. So that's why my friend can use his international license, he is a tourist.
W: Right.
(23)
A．The man wants to obtain an international driver's license that be can use both in the U.S. and in his country.
B．The man wants to take a driver's test to get an Arizona driver's license.
C．The man wants to know whether he can use his international driver's license in Arizona.
D．The man wants to fill out an application for an Arizona driver's license.
