找考题网-背景图
单项选择题

Benjie Goodhart is in his late 30s, adores his partner and has a young son. But the thought of marriage has paralyzed him with fear. And it’s all thanks to his parents’ perfect marriage. Benjie Goodheart felt the pressure of wanting an idealized version of his parents’ relationship.
According to Christine Northam, a relationship counselor with Relate. "It’s like having a terribly clever elder brother at school—it sets a competitive standard," she says. "It’s a normal anxiety about a big change, and you’ve got the added pressure of wanting an idealized version of your parents’ relationship. "It seems such anxiety is not uncommon. "As much as it’s hard to cope with parents being imperfect, cheating, splitting," says therapist Tracey Cox, "it is sometimes harder to be presented with the ideal happy marriage." Avy Joseph is a cognitive behavioral therapist and founder of CityMinds. "It’s quite common for people to put pressure on themselves," he says, "if they’ve grown up in an environment where, in their view, things have been perfect. "
Overcoming these fears involves accepting your marriage may not be perfect, but if it isn’t you will cope. Just because something isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it’s worthless. And if your marriage ends in divorce, it doesn’t define you as a failure. "Your own worth isn’t dependent on the success of your marriage," says Joseph. Working at Relate, Christine Northam knows no marriage is perfect. "I don’t know anybody who is 100% happy with their marriage. Most marriages go through ups and downs. You’re idealizing it. You have a false impression of what real marriage is like. Most married people hate each other at times, frankly. You can’t be perfectly in love all the time." So marriage is not the happy ending of the fairy-tales. I love the fact that, 44 years after they married, my parents still hold hands, make each other giggle, and tease each other. But they would doubtless balk at the idea that their marriage is perfect. Mum suffers from terrible vertigo, yet Dad persists in taking enormous detours every holiday through a mountain range. Dad could spend a week looking at a ruined church, whereas Mum could do the Acropolis in five minutes flat. Hundreds more took place along the recurring themes of what time to leave for the airport (Mum, six hours before a flight; Dad, six minutes), how to pour a drink (Mum, fill a large glass to the brim; Dad, quarter-fill a thimble) and how best to pass leisure time (Mum, bulk-buying from catalogue companies; Dad, reading every column inch of the newspaper).
They aren’t perfect. They just love each other enough to deal with the imperfections. As Cox says: "What they are good at is having faith, loving each other and finding compromises to make them both happy. No one breezes through (marriage) without working at it." And yes, I would hope to have a marriage as successful as theirs. But I know it will take some work. I’m ready for that. I finally got down on one knee this year. After waiting for the perfect romantic moment, I realized it would probably never come. I had prevaricated long enough. So I asked her on the spur of the moment, while I was unpacking the shopping from the car, with Wendy in a bath towel standing in our driveway asking why I’d put Fred in the boot of the car (he’d insisted) while he banged on the rear windscreen, pronouncing loudly about his latest fecal production. The proposal wasn’t on a moonlit beach or over a candlelit dinner, but slap bang in the minutiae of everyday life, in alt its hilarious, glorious ridiculousness—and because of the person she is, Wendy loved it. And so it is that I find myself marching towards my impending nuptials, eyes wide open, resolve secure, safe in the knowledge that I am punching well above my weight with the woman who will be my wife. Benjie and Wendy were married last Saturday.
What does "balk" mean in the third paragraph

A. accept
B. refuse to comply
C. suspect
D. challenge
热门试题

单项选择题According to Wade Henderson, the US Supreme Court [A] once helped maintain apartheid in Michigan. [B] was against racism and racial segregation. [C] states its position on preferential treatment. [D] is going to rule on two new cases of segregation.

All of which raises a question: why are we still wrestling with this stuff Why, more than a quarter of a century after the high court ruled race had a legitimate place in university admissions decisions, are we still fighting over whether race should play a role
One answer is that the very idea of affirmative action--that is, systematically treating members of various groups differently in the pursuit of diversity or social justice--strikes some people as downright immoral. For to believe in affirmative action is to believe in a concept of equality turned upside down. It is to believe that "to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently, " as the idea was expressed by U. S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun.
That argument has never been an easy sell, even when made passionately by President Lyndon B. Johnson during an era in which prejudice was thicker than L. A. smog. Now the argument is infinitely more difficult to make. Even those generally supportive of affirmative action don’t like the connotations it sometimes carries. "No one wants preferential treatment, including African-Americans, "observed Ed Sarpolis, vice president of EPIC-MRA, a Michigan polling firm.
In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan’s right to use race in the pursuit of "diversity," even as it condemned the way the undergraduate school had chosen to do so. The decision left Jennifer Gratz, the named plaintiff, fuming. "I called Ward Connerly... and I said, ’We need to do something about this’, " recalled Gratz, an animated former cheerleader. They decided that if the Supreme Court wouldn’t give them what they wanted, they would take their case--and their proposition--directly to the people.
Californians disagree about the impact of Connerly’s proposition on their state. But despite some exceedingly grim predictions, the sky did not fall in. Most people went about their lives much as they always had.
In a sane world, the battle in Michigan, and indeed the battle over affirmative action writ large, would offer an opportunity to seriously engage a question the enemies and defenders of affirmative action claim to care about: how do you go about creating a society where all people--not just the lucky few--have the opportunities they deserve It is a question much broader than the debate over affirmative action. But until we begin to move toward an answer, the debate over affirmative action will continue--even if it is something of a sideshow to what should be the main event.

单项选择题The assembly line reduced the time to make a magneto by ______ within a year. [A] 20% [B] 38% [C] 65% [D] 75%

A revolutionary manufacturing process made it possible for anyone to own a car. Henry Ford is the man who put the world on wheels.
When it comes to singling out those who have made a difference in all our lives, you cannot overlook Henry Ford. A historian a century from now might well conclude that it was Henry Ford who most influenced all manufacturing everywhere, even to this day, by introducing a new way to make cars—one, strange to say, that originated in slaughter houses.
Back in the early 1900s, slaughter houses used what could have been called a "disassembly line." That is, the carcass of a slain steer or a pig was moved past various meat-cutters, each of whom cut off only a certain portion. Ford reversed this process to see if it would speed up production of a part of an automobile engine called a magneto. Rather than have each worker completely assemble a magneto, one of its elements was placed on a conveyer, and each worker, as it passed, added another component to it, the same one each time. Professor David Hounshell, of The University of Delaware, an expert on industrial development tells what happened: "The previous day, workers carrying out the entire process had averaged one magneto every 20 minutes. But on that day, on the line, the assembly team averaged one every 13 minutes and 10 seconds per person."
Within a year, the time had been reduced to five minutes. In 1913, Ford went all the way. Hooked together by ropes, partially assembled vehicles were towed past workers who completed them one piece at a time. It wasn’t long before Ford was turning out several hundred thousand cars a year, a remarkable achievement then. And so efficient and economical was this new system that he cut the price of his cars in half, to $260, putting them within reach of all those who, up until that time, could not afford them. Soon, auto makers over the world copied him. In fact, he encouraged them to do so by writing a book about all of his innovations, entitled Today and Tomorrow. The Age of the Automobile had arrived. Today, aided by robots and other forms of automation, everything from toasters to perfumes is made on assembly lines.
Edsel Ford, Henry’s great-grandson, and a Ford vice president: “I think that my great-grandfather would just be amazed at how far technology has come."
Many of today’s innovations come from Japan. Norman Bodek, who publishes books about manufacturing processes, finds this ironic. On a recent trip to Japan he talked to two of the top officials of Toyota. "When I asked them where these secrets came from, where their ideas came from to manufacture in a totally different way, they laughed, and they said. ’Well. We just read it in Henry Ford’s book from 1926: Today and Tomorrow.’\