Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to choose the word or phrase that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 6 to 15.
In "Cerealizing America", Scott Bruce and Bill Crawford remark that the cereal industry uses 816 million pounds of sugar per year. Americans buy 2.7 billion packages of breakfast cereal each year. If (6)________ end to end, the empty cereal boxes from one year's consumption would (7)_________ to the moon and back. One point three (1.3) million advertisements for cereal are broadcast on American television every year at a(n) (8)______ of $762 million for airtime. Only automobile manufacturers spend more money on television advertising than the makers of breakfast cereal.
(9)______ of the boxed cereals found in supermarkets contain large amounts of sugar and some contain more than 50% sugar. Cereal manufacturers are very clever in their marketing, making many cereals appear much healthier than they really are by "fortifying" them with vitamins and minerals. Oh, (10)____________ - you now have vitamin-fortified sugar!
Before you eat any cereal, read the ingredient list and see how (11)______________ sugar appears on the ingredient list. Then check the "Nutrition facts" panel.
There are actually only a small handful of national commercially-branded cereals that are made (12)_________whole grains and are sugar-free. If you shop at a health food store instead of your local supermarket, you (13)_____ to find a healthy, whole grain, sugar-free (or very low sugar) cereal. But (14)_________ ! Some of the health food store boxed cereals are sweetened with fruit juice or fructose. Although this may be an improvement (15)_____________________ refined white sugar, this can really skyrocket the calories.
From"Foods That Burn Fat, Foods That Turn to Fat" by Tom Ventulo
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 41 to 50.
Very few people, groups, or governments oppose globalization in its entirety. Instead, critics of globalization believe aspects of the way globalization operates should be changed. The debate over globalization is about what the best rules are for governing the global economy so that its advantages can grow while its problems can be solved.
On one side of this debate are those who stress the benefits of removing barriers to international trade and investment, allowing capital to be allocated more efficiently and giving consumers greater freedom of choice. With free-market globalization, investment funds can move unimpeded from the rich countries to the developing countries. Consumers can benefit from cheaper products because reduced taxes make goods produced at low cost from faraway places cheaper to buy. Producers of goods gain by selling to a wider market. More competition keeps sellers on their toes and allows ideas and new technology to spread and benefit others.
On the other side of the debate are critics who see neo-liberal policies as producing greater poverty, inequality, social conflict, cultural destruction, and environmental damage. They say that the most developed nations - the United States, Germany, and Japan - succeeded not because of free trade but because of protectionism and subsidies. They argue that the more recently successful economies of South Korea, Taiwan, and China all had strong state-led development strategies that did not follow neo-liberalism. These critics think that government encouragement of "infant industries" - that is, industries that are just beginning to develop - enables a country to become internationally competitive.
Furthermore, those who criticize the Washington Consensus suggest that the inflow and outflow of money from speculative investors must be limited to prevent bubbles. These bubbles are characterized by the rapid inflow of foreign funds that bid up domestic stock markets and property values. When the economy cannot sustain such expectations, the bubbles burst as investors panic and pull their money out of the country.
Protests by what is called the anti-globalization movement are seldom directed against globalization itself but rather against abuses that harm the rights of workers and the environment. The question raised by nongovernmental organizations and protesters at WTO and IMF gatherings is whether globalization will result in a rise of living standards or a race to the bottom as competition takes the form of lowering living standards and undermining environmental regulations.
One of the key problems of the 21st century will be determining to what extent markets should be regulated to promote fair competition, honest dealing, and fair distribution of public goods on a global scale.
From ,Globalization "byTabb, William K., Microsoft® Student2009 [DVD]
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 56 to 65.
New surveys suggest that the technological tools we use to make our lives easier are killing our leisure time. We are working longer hours, taking fewer and shorter vacations (and when we do go away, we take our cell phones, PDAs, and laptops along). And, we are more stressed than ever as increased use of e-mail, voice mail, cell phones, and the Internet is destroying any idea of privacy and leisure.
Since the Industrial Revolution, people have assumed that new labor-saving devices would free them from the burdens of the workplace and give them more time to grow intellectually, creatively, and socially - exploring the arts, keeping up with current events, spending more time with friends and family, and even just 'goofing off'.
But here we are at the start of the 21st century, enjoying one of the greatest technological boom times in human history, and nothing could be further from the truth. The very tools that were supposed to liberate us have bound us to our work and study in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. It would seem that technology almost never does what we expect.
In 'the old days', the lines between work and leisure time were markedly clearer. People left their offices at a predictable time, were often completely disconnected from and out of touch with their jobs as they traveled to and from work, and were off-duty once they were home. That is no longer true. In today's highly competitive job market, employers demand increased productivity, expecting workers to put in longer hours and to keep in touch almost constantly via fax, cell phones, e-mail, or other communications devices. As a result, employees feel the need to check in on what is going on at the office, even on days off. They feel pressured to work after hours just to catch up on everything they have to do. Workers work harder and longer, change their work tasks more frequently, and have more and more reasons to worry about job security.
Bosses, colleagues, family members, lovers, and friends expect instant responses to voice mail and e-mail messages. Even college students have become bound to their desks by an environment in which faculty, friends, and other members of the college community increasingly do their work online. Studies of time spent on instant messaging services would probably show staggering use.
This is not what technology was supposed to be doing for us. New technologies, from genetic research to the Internet, offer all sorts of benefits and opportunities. But, when new tools make life more difficult and stressful rather than easier and more meaningful - and we are, as a society, barely conscious of it - then something has gone seriously awry, both with our expectations for technology and our understanding of how it should benefit us.
From "Summit 1" by Joan Saslow & Allen Ascher