Part 2 Listening Comprehension(25 minutes)

Section A Directions:

Directions:In this section, you will hear two long conversations.

At the end of each conversation,

Both the conversation and the questions will be spoken only once.

four choices marked A), B), C)and D).

Then mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 1 with a single line through the centre.

Now you hear the 2 long conversations

Conversation 1

W: I don’t know what to do.

I can’t seem to get anyone in the hospital to listen to my complaints and this outdated equipment is dangerous.

Just look at it.

M: Hmm, uh, are you trying to say that it presents a health hazard?

W: Yes, I am. The head technician in the lab tried to persuade the hospital administration to replace it,

but they are trying to cut costs.

M: You are pregnant, aren’t you?

W: Yes, I am. I made an effort to get my supervisor to transfer me to another department,

but he urged me not to complain too loudly.

Because the administration is more likely to replace me than an Xray equipment,

I’m afraid to refuse to work. But I’m more afraid to expose my unborn child to the radiation.

M: I see what you mean. Well, as your union representative,

I have to warn you that it would take quite a while to force management

to replace the old machines and attempt to get you transferred may or may not be successful.

W: Oh, what am I supposed to do then?

M: Workers have the legal right to refuse certain unsafe work assignments under two federal laws,

the Occupation or Safety and Health Act and the National Labor Relations Act.

But the requirements of either of the Acts may be difficult to meet.

W: Do you think I have a good case?

M: If you do lose your job, the union will fight to get it back for you along with back pay,

your lost income.But you have to be prepared for a long wait, maybe after two years.

Q 1:What does the woman complain about?

Q 2:What has the woman asked her supervisor to do?

Q 3:What does the man say about the two federal laws?

Q 4:What will the union do if the woman loses her job?

Conversation 2

W: Mr. Green, is it fair to say that negotiation is an art?

M: Well, I think it’s both an art and science.

You can prepare for a negotiation quite scientifically,

but the execution of the negotiation has quite a lot to do with one’s artistic quality.

The scientific part of a negotiation is in determining your strategy.

What do you want out of it?

What can you give?

Then of course there are tactics.

How do you go about it?

Do you take an opening position in a negotiation which differs from the eventual goal you are heading for?

And then of course there are the behavioral aspects.

W: What do you mean by the behavioral aspects?

M: Well, that’s I think where the art comes in.

In your behavior, you can either be an actor.

You can pretend that you don’t like things

which you are actually quite pleased about.

Or you can pretend to like things which you are quite happy to do without.

Or you can be the honest type negotiator

who’s known to his partners in negotiation and always plays everything straight.

But the artistic part of negotiation I think has to do with responding immediately

to cues one gets in the process of negotiation.

These can be verbal cues or even body language.

This is where the artistic quality comes in.

W: So really, you see two types of negotiator then, the actor or the honest one.

M: That's right. And both can work.

I would say the honest negotiator can be quite effective in some circumstances.

In other circumstances you need an actor.

Q 5:When is a scientific approach best embodied in a negotiation according to the man?

Q 6:In what way is a negotiator like an actor according to the man?

Q 7:What does the man say about the two types of negotiator?

Q 8:What is not true according to the man?

Section B. Directions:

In this section, you will hear two passages.

At the end of each passage, you will hear some questions.

Both the passage and the questions will be spoken only once.

After you hear a question, you must choose the best answer from the four choices marked A), B), C) and D).

Then mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 1 with a single line through the centre.

Passage One

A super attendant of the city municipal building,

Dillia Adorno, was responsible for presenting its new security plan to the public.

City employees, citizens and reporters gathered in the hall to hear her describe the plan.

After outlining the main points she would cover,

she assured the audience that she would be happy to answer questions at the end of her presentation.

Dillia realized the plan was expensive and potentially controversial.

So she was not surprised to see a number of hands go up as soon as she finished speaking.

An employee asked,

“Would the new system create long lines to get into the building like the line in the airport security checks?”

Dillia had anticipated this question and had an answer ready.

After repeating the question,

she explained that the sufficient number of security guards would be working at peak hours to speed things along.

The next question was more confrontational.

“Where was the money come from to pay for all of this?”

The journalists who ask the question seem hostile.

But Dillia was careful not to adopt the defensive tone.

She stated that the money would come from the city’s general budget.

“I know these are tide times”, she added,

“But everyone agrees on the importance of safe guarding our employees and members of the public who come into the building.”

Near the end of the 25 minutes she has said, Dillia said she would take two more questions.

When those were finished, she concluded the session

with a brief restatement of how the new system will improve security and peace of mind in the municipal building.

Q 9:What is the focus of Dillia Adorno’s presentation?

Q 10:What question had Dillia Adorno anticipated?

Q 11:What did the speakers think of the question from the journalist?

Passage 2

A scientific team is studying the thinking ability of eleven and half month old children.

The test is a simple one.

The baby watches a sort of show on a small stage.

In Act One of the show, a yellow cube is lifted from a blue box, and moved across the stage.

Then it is returned to the box.

This is repeated 6 times. Act Two is similar except that the yellow cube is smaller.

Baby boys do not react at all to the difference and the size of the cube.

But girls immediately become excited.

The scientists interpret the girls’ excitement as meaning they are trying to understand what they have just seen.

They are wondering why Act Two is odd and how it differs from Act One.

In other words, the little girls are reasoning.

This experiment certainly does not definitely prove that girls start to reason before boys,

but it provides a clue that scientists would like to study more carefully.

Already it is known that bones, muscles and nerves develop faster in baby girls.

Perhaps it is early nerve development that makes some infant girls show more intelligence than infant boys.

Scientists have also found that nature seems to give another boost to girls.

Baby girls usually talk at an earlier age than boys do.

Scientists think that there is a physical reason for this.

They believe that the nerve endings in the left side of the brain develop faster in girls than in boys,

and it is this side of the brain that strongly influences an individual’s ability to use language and remember things.

Q 12:What is the difference between Act One and Act Two in the test?

Q 13:How do the scientists interpret their observation from the experiment?

Q 14:What does the speaker say about the experiment?

Q 15:According to scientists, what is another advantage given to girls by nature?

Section C Directions:

In this section, you will hear recordings of lectures or talks followed by some questions.

The recordings will be played only once.After you hear a question,

you must choose the best answer from the four choices marked A), B), C)and D).

Then mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 1 with a single line through the centre.

Passage 1

Ni hao. It is such a pleasant and an honor to be here with all of you at this great university…

Thank you so much for having me.

And most of all, I want to thank all of the student for being here today…

and I particularly want to thank Eric Schafer and Zhu Xuanbao

for that extraordinary English and Chinese introduction.

That was such a powerful symbol of everything I want to talk with you about today.

Because we believe that relationships between nations

are not just about relationship between governments or leaders…

they're about relationships between people, particularly our young people.

So we view study abroad programs not just as an educational opportunity for students…

but also as a vital part of America's foreign policy.

You see, through the wonders of modern technology,

our world is more connected than ever before.

So studying abroad isn't just a fun way to spend a semester

it's quickly becoming the key to success in our global economy.

Because getting ahead in today's workplaces isn't just about getting good grades or test scores in school…

it's also about having real experience with the world beyond your borders—

experience with languages, cultures and societies very different from your own.

Because that's how you develop that habit of cooperation—

you do it by improving yourself in someone's culture…by learning each other's stories…

and by getting past the stereotypes and misconceptions that too often divide us.

China is currently the fifth most popular destination for Americans studying abroad.

And today, the highest number of exchange students in the U.S. are from China.

But still, too many students never have this chance…and some that do are hesitant to take it.

They may feel like study abroad is only for wealthy students,

or students from certain kinds of universities.

Or they may think to themselves:

“Well, that sounds fun, but how will it really be useful in my life?”

So I hope you will keep seeking these kinds of experiences.

And I hope you'll keep teaching each other…and learning from each other…

and building bonds of friendship that will enrich your lives and enrich our world for decades to come.

You all have so much to offer,

and I cannot wait to see all that you achieve together in the years ahead.

Thank you so much. Xie Xie.

Passage 2

Extracts from secret American diplomatic messages have been published

by a number of newspapers around the world after the Wikileaks website defied an appeal

from the US government not to release the material.

The extracts come from a quarter of a million documents passing

between the State Department in Washington and US diplomatic missions over the past three years.

Among the revelations, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have been urging the US

to halt Iran's nuclear programme by any means,

including military force.Here's our diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

This avalanche of cables from the internal,

supposedly secure email switching system linking US embassies abroad

with the State Department and Pentagon in Washington is a nightmare for US diplomacy.

A White House statement noted in response that by its very nature,

“field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information.It is not an expression of policy,”

the statement goes on, “nor does it always shape final policy decisions.”

Now this may all be true.But world leaders do not expect

to have their private conversations with US officials nor candid assessments

of their capabilities and peculiarities publicised for all to see.

The White House has described the publication of the diplomatic cables as “reckless and dangerous”.

Both Democrats and Republicans condemned the release of the classified material.

The Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said those responsible should face justice.

“The people at Wikileaks could have blood on their hands.

We are at risk here from Iran, North Korea and other actors.

We're at war.I mean, the world is getting dangerous by the day,

and people who do this are low on the food chain

as far as I'm concerned.If you can prosecute them, let's try.”

Passage 3

It was the first time that sitting head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service

－known as MI6－has made a public speech.

John Sawers took the opportunity to outline his agency's attitude to torture.

“Torture is illegal and abhorrent under any circumstances,

and we have nothing whatsoever to do with it.”

He said MI6 has a duty to ensure partner services respect human rights.

But he said, doing so is “not always straightforward” when innocent lives are at risk.

Earlier this year, the British government ordered an inquiry into allegations

that British intelligence agencies were complicit in torture of terror suspects overseas.

Tim CookeHurle is from the Britainbased humanrights group Reprieve.

He said allegations that MI6 were complicit in torture have hurt the agency's reputation

in recent years.Giving the agency a public face,

he said, is in part a move to gain popular support.

“I think there is a genuine intention on the part of the security services

to clean up their act and to do this they do have to put people in the public light.”

And CookeHurle says that although MI6 does not itself carry out torture,

the agency's hands are not necessarily clean.

“It all happens in this awful gray zone where we know that allies,

and by this I would include the United States

under the (George) Bush administration, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and so on,

do practice torture and the degree

to which we cooperate with those groups can amount to collusion in torture in certain circumstances.”

MI6 has been in operation for 100 years,

but until 1994 the government refused to admit the organization existed.