11 澳大利亞的法律制訂
V1 by dandanhoo
一個(gè)是關(guān)于英國(guó)的哥們們?nèi)グ拇罄麃喼趁駮r(shí)期設(shè)立法律的事情，有一個(gè)A打頭的生詞，不知道是不是原住民???貫穿了全文。。。
V2 by mobura
澳洲原住民法律與1992年出臺(tái)，而事實(shí)上很久以前的相關(guān)法律更為復(fù)雜。。。說(shuō)以前不管是英國(guó)人還是原住民都服從英國(guó)法律，只是原住民之間的糾紛英國(guó)不管(有題 簡(jiǎn)單直接定位)。。。后來(lái)說(shuō)這樣的法律在后來(lái)的美洲殖民地再次出現(xiàn)(有題問(wèn)澳洲法律的作用 選作為先行者對(duì)后來(lái)殖民地有影響)
V3 by sissimikey(720 V39)
有英國(guó)殖民者到澳大利亞時(shí)，于法案有關(guān)的那篇文章。A打頭的那個(gè)詞應(yīng)該是Aborigines。說(shuō)的好像是關(guān)于aborigines應(yīng)該適用的法律的問(wèn)題。印象比較深的是說(shuō)到澳大利亞的那些英國(guó)人適用于英國(guó)的法律，aborigines與英國(guó)人發(fā)生爭(zhēng)執(zhí)的時(shí)候也要用英國(guó)的法律，但是在 aborigines相互之間發(fā)生爭(zhēng)執(zhí)的時(shí)候不用用英國(guó)的法律(這里有考題，所以印象深點(diǎn))
V4 by bigbigtongue(700+ V40+)
第一段大概是提到英國(guó)在澳大利亞制定的法律，該法律已經(jīng)很complex(考點(diǎn))了。
第二段舉例說(shuō)明，比如有個(gè)A類人，他們和歐洲人如果發(fā)生沖突的話，英國(guó)的法律適用，而他們自己內(nèi)部沖突的話，就不用英國(guó)的法律。
第三段最后提到在澳大利亞的法律和在美國(guó)的差不多
考點(diǎn)：
1：以下哪個(gè)正確(我選擇了A和歐洲人沖突時(shí)才用英國(guó)法律，A自己內(nèi)部沖突時(shí)不用)
2：這篇article的目的(我選擇了說(shuō)明那時(shí)的法律已經(jīng)很復(fù)雜了)
3：最后提到美國(guó)的法律的目的是什么
12 美國(guó)工業(yè)和服務(wù)業(yè)[附GWD原文原題]
V1 by Gothicly
我貌似碰上了某次prep模考時(shí)的原題。希望不是我又記錯(cuò)了。大家?guī)兔φ艺铱?。是關(guān)于19世紀(jì)美國(guó)工業(yè)和服務(wù)業(yè)的。
第一段說(shuō)17 18世紀(jì)，美國(guó)的工業(yè)企業(yè)增長(zhǎng)是3%每年，后來(lái)變成了1%每年。然后又說(shuō)19世紀(jì)美國(guó)的工業(yè)企業(yè)從一個(gè)低谷走到了**(貌似是世界前列)。然后說(shuō)blablabla。
第二段，開始說(shuō)，19世紀(jì)美國(guó)工業(yè)可以快速增長(zhǎng)是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)趺丛趺?，但是除去了產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量的因素。(有題，好像問(wèn)美國(guó)工業(yè)企業(yè)的增長(zhǎng)可以知道什么。)中間到最后說(shuō)美國(guó)工業(yè)有受到國(guó)外別的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者的壓力。所以很多人失業(yè)。但是事實(shí)上這個(gè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力被夸大了(有題問(wèn)從文中工業(yè)企業(yè)與國(guó)外競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者可以得出什么)，部分失業(yè) 可能是這個(gè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力導(dǎo)致的，但是更多的是需求不足導(dǎo)致的。
第三段，又說(shuō)服務(wù)業(yè)得考慮的質(zhì)量因素。還說(shuō)到了服務(wù)業(yè)和國(guó)外競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者的關(guān)系、貌似說(shuō)國(guó)外競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者對(duì)服務(wù)業(yè)的影響更大。blablabla。因?yàn)闆]有題，不太記得了。
另外兩道題，一道主旨題，選項(xiàng)有兩個(gè)比較迷惑。一個(gè)說(shuō)介紹一種觀點(diǎn)工業(yè)企業(yè)的增長(zhǎng)方法還是什么方法不適合于服務(wù)業(yè)企業(yè)。一個(gè)說(shuō)怎么怎么工業(yè)企業(yè)和服務(wù)業(yè)企業(yè)，并提出一個(gè)解決服務(wù)業(yè)企業(yè)的增長(zhǎng)緩慢的方法。
一道是高亮題在第三段開頭。
V2 by chihhsin7337
還有一篇不知是哪里的，不過(guò)很眼熟
是講美國(guó)制造業(yè)和服務(wù)業(yè)的成長(zhǎng)
第一段開始講1945年-60年 GDP成長(zhǎng)是3%(OR 1%)
70年 是1%還3%
第二段 有講制造業(yè)受外國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，但其實(shí)不是這么回事，外國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)是政客語(yǔ)言
第三段講 政府赤字造成利息高 讓服務(wù)業(yè)不能借錢進(jìn)行投資
附GWD原文原題[已確認(rèn)]
(This passage is excerpted from material published in 1997)
Whereas United States economic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, it has grown at an annual rate of only about 1 percent since the early 1970’s. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. Manufacturing, however, constitutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods-producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. Several explanations have been offered for this declined and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that traditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because of slow growth in demand for manufactured goods.
V1 by dandanhoo
一個(gè)是關(guān)于英國(guó)的哥們們?nèi)グ拇罄麃喼趁駮r(shí)期設(shè)立法律的事情，有一個(gè)A打頭的生詞，不知道是不是原住民???貫穿了全文。。。
V2 by mobura
澳洲原住民法律與1992年出臺(tái)，而事實(shí)上很久以前的相關(guān)法律更為復(fù)雜。。。說(shuō)以前不管是英國(guó)人還是原住民都服從英國(guó)法律，只是原住民之間的糾紛英國(guó)不管(有題 簡(jiǎn)單直接定位)。。。后來(lái)說(shuō)這樣的法律在后來(lái)的美洲殖民地再次出現(xiàn)(有題問(wèn)澳洲法律的作用 選作為先行者對(duì)后來(lái)殖民地有影響)
V3 by sissimikey(720 V39)
有英國(guó)殖民者到澳大利亞時(shí)，于法案有關(guān)的那篇文章。A打頭的那個(gè)詞應(yīng)該是Aborigines。說(shuō)的好像是關(guān)于aborigines應(yīng)該適用的法律的問(wèn)題。印象比較深的是說(shuō)到澳大利亞的那些英國(guó)人適用于英國(guó)的法律，aborigines與英國(guó)人發(fā)生爭(zhēng)執(zhí)的時(shí)候也要用英國(guó)的法律，但是在 aborigines相互之間發(fā)生爭(zhēng)執(zhí)的時(shí)候不用用英國(guó)的法律(這里有考題，所以印象深點(diǎn))
V4 by bigbigtongue(700+ V40+)
第一段大概是提到英國(guó)在澳大利亞制定的法律，該法律已經(jīng)很complex(考點(diǎn))了。
第二段舉例說(shuō)明，比如有個(gè)A類人，他們和歐洲人如果發(fā)生沖突的話，英國(guó)的法律適用，而他們自己內(nèi)部沖突的話，就不用英國(guó)的法律。
第三段最后提到在澳大利亞的法律和在美國(guó)的差不多
考點(diǎn)：
1：以下哪個(gè)正確(我選擇了A和歐洲人沖突時(shí)才用英國(guó)法律，A自己內(nèi)部沖突時(shí)不用)
2：這篇article的目的(我選擇了說(shuō)明那時(shí)的法律已經(jīng)很復(fù)雜了)
3：最后提到美國(guó)的法律的目的是什么
12 美國(guó)工業(yè)和服務(wù)業(yè)[附GWD原文原題]
V1 by Gothicly
我貌似碰上了某次prep模考時(shí)的原題。希望不是我又記錯(cuò)了。大家?guī)兔φ艺铱?。是關(guān)于19世紀(jì)美國(guó)工業(yè)和服務(wù)業(yè)的。
第一段說(shuō)17 18世紀(jì)，美國(guó)的工業(yè)企業(yè)增長(zhǎng)是3%每年，后來(lái)變成了1%每年。然后又說(shuō)19世紀(jì)美國(guó)的工業(yè)企業(yè)從一個(gè)低谷走到了**(貌似是世界前列)。然后說(shuō)blablabla。
第二段，開始說(shuō)，19世紀(jì)美國(guó)工業(yè)可以快速增長(zhǎng)是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)趺丛趺?，但是除去了產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量的因素。(有題，好像問(wèn)美國(guó)工業(yè)企業(yè)的增長(zhǎng)可以知道什么。)中間到最后說(shuō)美國(guó)工業(yè)有受到國(guó)外別的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者的壓力。所以很多人失業(yè)。但是事實(shí)上這個(gè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力被夸大了(有題問(wèn)從文中工業(yè)企業(yè)與國(guó)外競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者可以得出什么)，部分失業(yè) 可能是這個(gè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力導(dǎo)致的，但是更多的是需求不足導(dǎo)致的。
第三段，又說(shuō)服務(wù)業(yè)得考慮的質(zhì)量因素。還說(shuō)到了服務(wù)業(yè)和國(guó)外競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者的關(guān)系、貌似說(shuō)國(guó)外競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者對(duì)服務(wù)業(yè)的影響更大。blablabla。因?yàn)闆]有題，不太記得了。
另外兩道題，一道主旨題，選項(xiàng)有兩個(gè)比較迷惑。一個(gè)說(shuō)介紹一種觀點(diǎn)工業(yè)企業(yè)的增長(zhǎng)方法還是什么方法不適合于服務(wù)業(yè)企業(yè)。一個(gè)說(shuō)怎么怎么工業(yè)企業(yè)和服務(wù)業(yè)企業(yè)，并提出一個(gè)解決服務(wù)業(yè)企業(yè)的增長(zhǎng)緩慢的方法。
一道是高亮題在第三段開頭。
V2 by chihhsin7337
還有一篇不知是哪里的，不過(guò)很眼熟
是講美國(guó)制造業(yè)和服務(wù)業(yè)的成長(zhǎng)
第一段開始講1945年-60年 GDP成長(zhǎng)是3%(OR 1%)
70年 是1%還3%
第二段 有講制造業(yè)受外國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，但其實(shí)不是這么回事，外國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)是政客語(yǔ)言
第三段講 政府赤字造成利息高 讓服務(wù)業(yè)不能借錢進(jìn)行投資
附GWD原文原題[已確認(rèn)]
(This passage is excerpted from material published in 1997)
Whereas United States economic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, it has grown at an annual rate of only about 1 percent since the early 1970’s. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. Manufacturing, however, constitutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods-producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. Several explanations have been offered for this declined and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that traditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because of slow growth in demand for manufactured goods.