“The Heart of the Matter,”the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences（AAAS）,deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosper

“The Heart of the Matter,”the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences（AAAS）,deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America.Regrettably,however,the report’s failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.In 2010,leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken by“federal,state and local governments,universities,foundations,educators,individual benefactors and others”to“maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship and education.”In response,the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences.Among the commission’s 51 members are top-tier-university presidents,scholars,lawyers,judges,and business executives,as well as prominent figures from diplomacy,filmmaking,music and journalism.The goals identified in the report are generally admirable.Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry,the report supports full literacy;stresses the study of history and government,particularly American history and American government;and encourages the use of new digital technologies.To encourage innovation and competition,the report calls for increased investment in research,the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students’ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century,increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day.The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages,international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.Unfortunately,despite 2?years in the making,"The Heart of the Matter"never gets to the heart of the matter:the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities.The commission ignores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don’t know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits.Sadly,the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing“progressive,”or left-liberal propaganda.Today,professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets and self-reliance—as falling outside the boundaries of routine,and sometimes legitimate,intellectual investigation.The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education.Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.
Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

A.Ways to Grasp“The Heart of the Matter”
B.Illiberal Education and“The Heart of the Matter”
C.The AAAS’s Contribution to Liberal Education
D.Progressive Policy vs.Liberal Education

“The Heart of the Matter,”the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences（AAAS）,deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America.Regrettably,however,the report’s failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.
In 2010,leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken by“federal,state and local governments,universities,foundations,educators,individual benefactors and others”to“maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship and education.”In response,the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences.Among the commission’s 51 members are top-tier-university presidents,scholars,lawyers,judges,and business executives,as well as prominent figures from diplomacy,filmmaking,music and journalism.
The goals identified in the report are generally admirable.Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry,the report supports full literacy;stresses the study of history and government,particularly American history and American government;and encourages the use of new digital technologies.To encourage innovation and competition,the report calls for increased investment in research,the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students’ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century,increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day.The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages,international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.
Unfortunately,despite 2?years in the making,"The Heart of the Matter"never gets to the heart of the matter:the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities.The commission ignores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don’t know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits.Sadly,the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing“progressive,”or left-liberal propaganda.
Today,professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets and self-reliance—as falling outside the boundaries of routine,and sometimes legitimate,intellectual investigation.
The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education.Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.
According to Paragraph 1,what is the author’s attitude toward the AAAS’s report?

A.Critical
B.Appreciative
C.Contemptuous
D.Tolerant

We shouldn’t ignore the importance of ______ our hobbies or getting involved in arts and crafts activities.

A.amplifying
B.enhancing
C.fostering
D.magnifying

You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning.
It's implied that the Swedish Academy fails to

A.see the value of non-English novels.
B.arouse the passion of worldwide readers.
C.recognize many historically great writers.
D.expand the influence of American literature.

“The Heart of the Matter,”the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences（AAAS）,deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America.Regrettably,however,the report’s failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.
In 2010,leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken by“federal,state and local governments,universities,foundations,educators,individual benefactors and others”to“maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship and education.”In response,the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences.Among the commission’s 51 members are top-tier-university presidents,scholars,lawyers,judges,and business executives,as well as prominent figures from diplomacy,filmmaking,music and journalism.
The goals identified in the report are generally admirable.Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry,the report supports full literacy;stresses the study of history and government,particularly American history and American government;and encourages the use of new digital technologies.To encourage innovation and competition,the report calls for increased investment in research,the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students’ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century,increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day.The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages,international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.
Unfortunately,despite 2?years in the making,"The Heart of the Matter"never gets to the heart of the matter:the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities.The commission ignores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don’t know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits.Sadly,the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing“progressive,”or left-liberal propaganda.
Today,professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets and self-reliance—as falling outside the boundaries of routine,and sometimes legitimate,intellectual investigation.
The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education.Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.
According to Paragraph 3,the report suggests

A.an exclusive study of American history
B.a greater emphasis on theoretical subjects
C.the application of emerging technologies
D.funding for the study of foreign languages

The social sciences are flourishing.As of 2005,there were almost half a million professional social scientists from all fields in the world,working both inside and outside academia.According to the World Social Science Report 2010,the number of social-science students worldwide has swollen by about 11%every year since 2000.Yet this enormous resource in not contributing enough to today’s global challenges including climate change,security,sustainable development and health.（1）______Humanity has the necessary agro-technological tools to eradicate hunger,from genetically engineered crops to arificial fertilizers.Here,too,the problems are social:the organization and distribution of food,wealth and prosperity.（2）____This is a shame—the community should be grasping the opportunity to raise its influence in the real world.To paraphrase the great social scientist Joseph Schumpeter:there is no radical innovation without creative destruction.Today,the social sciences are largely focused on disciplinary problems and internal scholarly debates,rather than on topics with external impact.Analyses reveal that the number of papers including the keywords“environmental changed”or“climate change”have increased rapidly since 2004,（3）____When social scientists do tackle practical issues,their scope is often local:Belgium is interested mainly in the effects of poverty on Belgium for example.And whether the community’s work contributes much to an overall accumulation of knowledge is doubtful.The problem is not necessarily the amount of available funding（4）____this is an adequate amount so long as it is aimed in the right direction.Social scientists who complain about a lack of funding should not expect more in today’s economic climate.The trick is to direct these funds better.The European Union Framework funding programs have long had a category specifically targeted at social scientists.This year,it was proposed that system be changed:Horizon 2020,a new program to be enacted in 2014,would not have such a category,This has resulted in protests from social scientists.But the intention is not to neglect social science;rather,the complete opposite.（5）____That should create more collaborative endeavors and help to develop projects aimed directly at solving global problems.
[A]It could be that we are evolving two communities of social scientists:one that is discipline-oriented and publishing in highly specialized journals,and one that is problem-oriented and publishing elsewhere,such as policy briefs.
[B]However,the numbers are still small:in 2010,about 1,600 of the 100,000 social-sciences papers published globally included one of these Keywords.
[C]the idea is to force social to integrate their work with other categories,including health and demographic change food security,marine research and the bio-economy,clear,efficient energy;and inclusive,innovative and secure societies.
[D]the solution is to change the mindset of the academic community,and what it considers to be its main goal.Global challenges and social innovation ought to receive much more attention from scientists,especially the young ones.
[E]These issues all have root causes in human behavior.All require behavioral change and social innovations,as well as technological development.Stemming climate change,for example,is as much about changing consumption patterns and promoting tax acceptance as it is about developing clean energy.
[F]Despite these factors,many social scientists seem reluctant to tackle such problems.And in Europe,some are up in arms over a proposal to drop a specific funding category for social-science research and to integrate it within cross-cutting topics of sustainable development.
[G]During the late 1990s,national spending on social sciences and the humanities as a percentage of all research and development funds-including government,higher education,non-profit and corporate-varied from around 4%to 25%;in most European nations,it is about 15%.
4选？

A.A
B.B
C.C
D.D
E.E
F.F
G.G

资料：之后，经济学家Mr.V发表了关于一些新名词的感悟，请根据下列资料回答问题。
The word “globalization” is in daily use throughout the world.Variously referred to as mondialisation in French, globalisierung in German, or Quan qui hua in China （Scholte, 1996）, news articles, television, and even textbooks often use the word “globalization” to mean many different things. Author Jan Pieterse （1995） asserts there are almost as many conceptualizations of globalization as there are disciplines in the social sciences.Teachers and scholars in disciplinessuch as management,marketing,finance,accounting,and economics also use the word “globalization” to mean different things.For example,some believe globalization is the absence of borders and barriers to trade between nations （Ohmae,1995）,but also it has been described as a shift in traditional patterns of international production,investment,and trade（Dicken,1992）.
Another popular conception of globalization is that it is a business strategy that means doing everything the same everywhere（Kanter and Dretler,1998）.Others believe globalization is interconnections between overlapping interests of business and society （Brown 1992;renesch 1992）.As you can see,these definitions differ in significant ways.Because definitions,descriptions,and visions of globalization vary widely,it is difficult to know what it means for businesses to go “global”.

Which of the following statement is NOT implied by the underlined sentence?（ ）

A.The conceptions of globalization vary.
B.The disciplines in the social sciences vary.
C.There are less conceptions of globalization.
D.There are many disciplines in the social sciences.

It can be inferred from the last paragraph of the passage that the chairperson who resigned from the panel to develop a coordinated federal program for radiation regulation most likely did so because( )

A.he or she disagreed with the findings of the Senate committee
B.regulatory efforts have been balked by disputes，confusion，and bureaucratic delays
C.he or she supported the position of the National Academy of Sciences Committee and opposed regulation of radiation exposure
D.he or she was disorganized and inconsistent in chairing the panel