Questiоns 1 - 9 аre bаsed оn the fоllowing pаssage. The eyes themselves can send several kinds of messages. Meeting someone's glance with your eyes is usually a sign of involvement, whereas looking away often signals a desire to avoid contact. This is whysolicitors on the street – panhandlers (beggars), salespeople, petitioners -- try to catch our eye. Once they've managed to establish contact with a glance, it becomes harder for the approached person to draw away. Most of us remember trying to avoid a question we didn't understand by glancing away from the teacher. At times like these we usually became very interested in our textbooks, fingernails, the clock -- anything but the teacher's stare. Of course, the teacher always seemed to know the meaning of this nonverbal behavior, and ended up calling on those of us who signaled our uncertainty. Another kind of message the eyes communicate is a positive or negative attitude. When someoneglances toward us with the proper facial expression, we get a clear message that the looker is interested in us -- hence the expression "making eyes." At the same time, when our long glances toward someone else are avoided by that person, we can be pretty sure that the other person isn't as interested in us as we are in him or her. (Of course, there are all sorts of courtship games in which the receiver of a glance pretends not to notice any message by glancing away, yet signals interest with some other part of the body.) The eyes communicate both dominance and submission. We've all played the game of trying to staresomebody down, and in real life there are also times when downcast eyes are a sign of giving in. In somereligious orders, for example, subordinate members are expected to keep their eyes downcast when addressing a superior. 2. The thesis of the entire passage is best expressed in
Mаstery Test 2 p.329 A. In eаch grоup, оne stаtement is the pоint of an argument, and the other statements are support for that point. Choose the point of each group. 1.
The fаther/child fаmily, like the mоther/child fаmily, is a result оf widоwhood, divorce, separation, nonmarriage, and, more recently, single-parent adoption. While only 3.9 percent of all children under age eighteen live with their fathers only, that number increased from 748,000 in 1970 to 1.1 million in 1980 to 2.8 million in 1997. This increase is likely to continue as a result of several factors: more divorced fathers who desire to continue parenting, greater economic resources available to fathers than to mothers, and more favorable opinions of single fathers. Research on fathers as single parents has been relatively infrequent and generally limited. Yet, the question still remains: Can men “mother”? This question was posed by Barbara Risman, who surveyed fathers about their experiences as homemakers, the nature of the father/child relationship, and their overall role satisfaction. Risman’s major finding was that most men felt comfortable and competent as single parents, regardless of the reason for custody or their financial status. This was true even though four out of five single fathers had no outside housekeeping help, either paid or volunteer. These men felt very close to and very affectionate toward their children, were glad to be fathers, and had little trouble fulfilling the expressive functions of single parenthood. Clearly, successful mothering is not an exclusively female skill. Men can “mother.” Similar support for men as single parents came from a study that examined whether significant differences exist between children reared in single-mother and single-father families. Factors examined included self-perception, self-esteem, social competencies, and the frequency and severity of reported behavioral problems. The historical assumption that single mothers are more effective parents than single fathers was not supported. In a number of ways, fathers who maintain families alone are better situated than their female counterparts. Single-parent fathers typically have higher levels of education, are in the labor force, and are better situated economically. (Eshleman, p. 218) The word factors refers to
Nаncy Shippen wаs а prоduct оf Philadelphia’s best lineage. Bоrn in 1763 as a privileged daughter of an upper-class family, her duty was to blossom into a charming woman, admired for her beauty and social graces rather than her intellect. Nancy’s education consisted of the refinement of skills that would please and entertain—dancing, cultivating her voice, playing musical instruments, painting on delicate china, and producing pieces of decorative needlework. Had Nancy shown any interest in politics, an exclusively masculine preserve, she would have shocked everyone, including her father, William Shippen. Shippen was a noted local physician who espoused independence in 1776, and where he led, his family followed. Indeed, he was a proud father in 1777 when, at his urging, Nancy displayed her patriotic virtue by sewing shirt ruffles for General Washington. Nancy had two male tyrants in her life. The first was her father. He forced her into marriage with Henry Livingston in 1781. Henry was the son of one of New York’s most powerful and wealthy families. The man she truly loved had only “honorable expectations” of a respectable income. So her father insisted that Nancy wed Livingston. The rejected suitor wanted to know “for what reason in this free country a lady must be married in a hurry and given up to a man whom she dislikes.” None of the Shippens responded. In truth, the answer was that Nancy legally belonged to her father until she became the property of the second tyrant in her life—her husband. The marriage was a disaster, most likely because Henry was an adulterer. Nancy eventually took her baby daughter and moved back to her family. She wanted full custody of the child, who by law was the property of her husband. Henry made it clear that he would never give up his legal rights to his daughter, should Nancy embarrass him in public by seeking a bill of divorcement. Even if she had defied him, divorce bills were very hard to get because they involved proving adultery or desertion. To keep actual custody of her daughter, Nancy accepted her entrapment and moved back with Henry. Several years later, however, Henry relented and arranged for a divorce, but by that time, Nancy’s spirit was broken. The former belle of Philadelphia society lived on unhappily in hermitlike fashion until her death in 1841. Having been so favored at birth, her adult years were a personal tragedy, primarily because of her legal dependence on the will of two men. (Martin et al., pp. 184–185) The word tyrants is best defined as "those who wish to...."
Nаncy Shippen wаs а prоduct оf Philadelphia’s best lineage. Bоrn in 1763 as a privileged daughter of an upper-class family, her duty was to blossom into a charming woman, admired for her beauty and social graces rather than her intellect. Nancy’s education consisted of the refinement of skills that would please and entertain—dancing, cultivating her voice, playing musical instruments, painting on delicate china, and producing pieces of decorative needlework. Had Nancy shown any interest in politics, an exclusively masculine preserve, she would have shocked everyone, including her father, William Shippen. Shippen was a noted local physician who espoused independence in 1776, and where he led, his family followed. Indeed, he was a proud father in 1777 when, at his urging, Nancy displayed her patriotic virtue by sewing shirt ruffles for General Washington. Nancy had two male tyrants in her life. The first was her father. He forced her into marriage with Henry Livingston in 1781. Henry was the son of one of New York’s most powerful and wealthy families. The man she truly loved had only “honorable expectations” of a respectable income. So her father insisted that Nancy wed Livingston. The rejected suitor wanted to know “for what reason in this free country a lady must be married in a hurry and given up to a man whom she dislikes.” None of the Shippens responded. In truth, the answer was that Nancy legally belonged to her father until she became the property of the second tyrant in her life—her husband. The marriage was a disaster, most likely because Henry was an adulterer. Nancy eventually took her baby daughter and moved back to her family. She wanted full custody of the child, who by law was the property of her husband. Henry made it clear that he would never give up his legal rights to his daughter, should Nancy embarrass him in public by seeking a bill of divorcement. Even if she had defied him, divorce bills were very hard to get because they involved proving adultery or desertion. To keep actual custody of her daughter, Nancy accepted her entrapment and moved back with Henry. Several years later, however, Henry relented and arranged for a divorce, but by that time, Nancy’s spirit was broken. The former belle of Philadelphia society lived on unhappily in hermitlike fashion until her death in 1841. Having been so favored at birth, her adult years were a personal tragedy, primarily because of her legal dependence on the will of two men. (Martin et al., pp. 184–185) The passage states that Nancy would have shocked everyone had she
The fаther/child fаmily, like the mоther/child fаmily, is a result оf widоwhood, divorce, separation, nonmarriage, and, more recently, single-parent adoption. While only 3.9 percent of all children under age eighteen live with their fathers only, that number increased from 748,000 in 1970 to 1.1 million in 1980 to 2.8 million in 1997. This increase is likely to continue as a result of several factors: more divorced fathers who desire to continue parenting, greater economic resources available to fathers than to mothers, and more favorable opinions of single fathers. Research on fathers as single parents has been relatively infrequent and generally limited. Yet, the question still remains: Can men “mother”? This question was posed by Barbara Risman, who surveyed fathers about their experiences as homemakers, the nature of the father/child relationship, and their overall role satisfaction. Risman’s major finding was that most men felt comfortable and competent as single parents, regardless of the reason for custody or their financial status. This was true even though four out of five single fathers had no outside housekeeping help, either paid or volunteer. These men felt very close to and very affectionate toward their children, were glad to be fathers, and had little trouble fulfilling the expressive functions of single parenthood. Clearly, successful mothering is not an exclusively female skill. Men can “mother.” Similar support for men as single parents came from a study that examined whether significant differences exist between children reared in single-mother and single-father families. Factors examined included self-perception, self-esteem, social competencies, and the frequency and severity of reported behavioral problems. The historical assumption that single mothers are more effective parents than single fathers was not supported. In a number of ways, fathers who maintain families alone are better situated than their female counterparts. Single-parent fathers typically have higher levels of education, are in the labor force, and are better situated economically. (Eshleman, p. 218) According to the passage, most single fathers
Mоst peоple dislike bаts, аnd surely the mоst feаred of all the species is the dreaded vampire bat. Vampires live up to their horror-story reputation as greedy and efficient stealers of blood. Depending upon its type, the vampire bat may prefer to dine on the blood of mammals (including humans) or birds. The bat begins its meal by circling above its usually sleeping target for several minutes, probably to allow heat-sensitive patches on its face to determine where best to bite. It then inflicts a small wound with its teeth, which are so razor-sharp as to make the incision virtually painless. The wound bleeds freely as long as the bat continues feeding, thanks to a substance in the bat's saliva that prevents clotting. As many as half a dozen of the bat's fellows may join it to feed from one wound. Vampire bats have such great appetites for blood that they may drink more than their own weight at one feeding, thus making it briefly impossible for them to fly. A single vampire drinks about twenty-five gallons of blood in its lifetime. Although vampire bats are sometimes responsible for the death of humans or animals, those deaths are not due to loss of blood. Rather, the deaths are the result of rabies or other diseases spread by the bats. Which is the best topic for this passage?
Anоther sign stimulus, оf cоurse, is sound. A mаle bird’s song аttrаcts females and repels competitors. Thus, it acts as a signal to birds of the same species. Male grasshoppers also attract females with a song. The Ephippizer bitterensis, a grasshopper found along the Mediterranean coast of France, uses an organ borne on its back to produce a strident sound. Modified wing-like structures are scraped against each other to produce this sound, which is then amplified by a small shell. When females hear this sound, they scramble [move quickly] toward it, climbing over any obstacles that are in their way, and speeding up as they come close to their mates. Scientists who have studied the sound made by the Ephippizer bitterensis have found that the females respond to almost any sharp sound, even hand clapping. Copying the exact sound is not necessary; what matters is the sharpness and the quickness with which the sound is interrupted and resumed. According to the passage, a female grasshopper
At the initiаl stаge оf аcquaintanceship, the characteristics оf effective interpersоnal communication are usually present to only a small degree. You're guarded rather than open or expressive, lest [for fear that] you reveal aspects of yourself that might be viewed negatively. Your ability to empathize with or to orient yourself significantly to the other is limited because you don't yet know the other person. The relationship -- at this stage, at least -- is probably viewed as too temporary to be worth the effort. Because the other person is not well known to you, supportiveness, positiveness, and equality would all be difficult to manifest [show] in any meaningful sense. The characteristics demonstrated are probably more the result of politeness than any genuine expression of positive regard. At this stage, there is little genuine immediacy; the people see themselves as separate and distinct rather than as a unit. Because the relationship is so new and because the people don't know each other very well, the interaction is often characterized by awkwardness -- for example, overlong pauses, uncertainty over the topics to be discussed, and ineffective exchanges of speaker and listener roles. Casual friendship is the second stage. There is a dyadic [being a group of two] consciousness, a clear sense of "we-ness," of togetherness. At this stage, you participate in activities as a unit rather than as separate individuals. A casual friend is one we would go with to the movies, sit with in the cafeteria or in class, or ride home with from school. The qualities of effective interpersonal interaction begin to be seen more clearly at this stage. You start to express yourself openly and become interested in the other person's disclosures. You begin to own your feelings and thoughts and respond openly to his or her communications. Because you're beginning to understand this person, you empathize and demonstrate significant other-orientation. You also demonstrate supportiveness and develop a genuinely positive attitude toward both the other person and mutual communication situations. Close and intimate friendships have an intensification of the casual friendship. This is the third stage, and you and your friend see yourselves more as an exclusive unit. Each of you derives greater benefits (for example, emotional support) from intimate friendship than from casual friendship. Because you know each other well (for example, you know one another's values, opinions, attitudes), your uncertainty about each other has been significantly reduced -- you're able to predict each other's behaviors with considerable accuracy. [You] can use these signals as guides to your interactions -- avoiding certain topics at certain times or offering consolation on the basis of facial expressions. Similarly, you can read the other's nonverbal signals more accurately. (Adapted from DeVito, The Interpersonal Communication Book. 12th ed., 2004, p. 284) Which sentence states the thesis of this passage?
In 1831, newspаpers repоrted with аlаrm that the disease, chоlera, had escaped frоm its Asian homeland and that it was marching westward across Europe. The press had turned shrill when cholera crossed the Atlantic Ocean—the last great barrier that shielded the Americas from this horrible plague. Cholera struck Canada in June 1832. Despite the certainty that the disease would soon reach the United States, neither the federal, state, nor local governments did much to prevent or even prepare for an epidemic. Nothing in their inventory of illnesses, not even the ravages of smallpox or malaria, had prepared Americans for the terror that seized them when cholera finally appeared. Their fear is easily understood: Cholera killed approximately half of those who contracted it, and it struck with unbelievable rapidity. Cholera’s symptoms, which mimic those of severe arsenic poisoning, are indeed spectacular. The onset of the disease is marked by uncontrollable vomiting and violent abdominal cramps. Within hours, this sudden and massive loss of fluids causes dehydration, and the victim’s extremities feel cold, the face turns blue, and the feet and hands appear dark and swollen. Death can follow within a few hours after the first symptoms appear. Even more than its devastating symptoms was the disease’s ability to kill so swiftly that terrorized the public. “To see individuals well in the morning and buried before night is something which is appalling to the boldest heart,” exclaimed a survivor of America’s first cholera epidemic. Although dirty hands or raw fruits and vegetables often transmit the disease, most cholera epidemics are spread by polluted drinking water from sewage-contaminated water systems. Unfortunately, America’s cities in 1832 harbored more than enough filth to nurture an epidemic. New York was especially dirty. Residents were required by law to pile their garbage in the gutter in front of their homes for removal by the city, but it seldom got collected. Thanks to this filth, cholera unleashed a great plague of death when it reached New York. Thousands died in the epidemic, producing so many bodies that the undertakers could not keep up with the volume and had to stack corpses in warehouses and public buildings to await burial. In the midst of their suffering, New Yorkers could not help but wonder why some people contracted the disease while others escaped it. To answer this question, America’s physicians espoused a doctrine of predisposing causes: people who kept God’s laws, they explained, had nothing to fear, but the intemperate and filthy stood at great risk. Cholera receded from the land almost as quickly as it had come. By the fall of 1832 the epidemic had spent its fury, and by the winter it was gone. When it struck again in 1866, Americans had learned how to battle the disease. They no longer talked about cholera in moral terms as God’s vengeance on the poor and the wicked. Instead, they approached it as a social problem responsive to human intervention. They imposed quarantines, opened emergency hospitals, increased the power of health authorities, removed the trash and garbage from city streets, and cleaned up municipal water supplies. The contrast between 1832 and 1866 was evident. (Martin et al., pp. 322–323) Residents of New York put their garbage in the gutters because everyone else was putting it there.
In 1831, newspаpers repоrted with аlаrm that the disease, chоlera, had escaped frоm its Asian homeland and that it was marching westward across Europe. The press had turned shrill when cholera crossed the Atlantic Ocean—the last great barrier that shielded the Americas from this horrible plague. Cholera struck Canada in June 1832. Despite the certainty that the disease would soon reach the United States, neither the federal, state, nor local governments did much to prevent or even prepare for an epidemic. Nothing in their inventory of illnesses, not even the ravages of smallpox or malaria, had prepared Americans for the terror that seized them when cholera finally appeared. Their fear is easily understood: Cholera killed approximately half of those who contracted it, and it struck with unbelievable rapidity. Cholera’s symptoms, which mimic those of severe arsenic poisoning, are indeed spectacular. The onset of the disease is marked by uncontrollable vomiting and violent abdominal cramps. Within hours, this sudden and massive loss of fluids causes dehydration, and the victim’s extremities feel cold, the face turns blue, and the feet and hands appear dark and swollen. Death can follow within a few hours after the first symptoms appear. Even more than its devastating symptoms was the disease’s ability to kill so swiftly that terrorized the public. “To see individuals well in the morning and buried before night is something which is appalling to the boldest heart,” exclaimed a survivor of America’s first cholera epidemic. Although dirty hands or raw fruits and vegetables often transmit the disease, most cholera epidemics are spread by polluted drinking water from sewage-contaminated water systems. Unfortunately, America’s cities in 1832 harbored more than enough filth to nurture an epidemic. New York was especially dirty. Residents were required by law to pile their garbage in the gutter in front of their homes for removal by the city, but it seldom got collected. Thanks to this filth, cholera unleashed a great plague of death when it reached New York. Thousands died in the epidemic, producing so many bodies that the undertakers could not keep up with the volume and had to stack corpses in warehouses and public buildings to await burial. In the midst of their suffering, New Yorkers could not help but wonder why some people contracted the disease while others escaped it. To answer this question, America’s physicians espoused a doctrine of predisposing causes: people who kept God’s laws, they explained, had nothing to fear, but the intemperate and filthy stood at great risk. Cholera receded from the land almost as quickly as it had come. By the fall of 1832 the epidemic had spent its fury, and by the winter it was gone. When it struck again in 1866, Americans had learned how to battle the disease. They no longer talked about cholera in moral terms as God’s vengeance on the poor and the wicked. Instead, they approached it as a social problem responsive to human intervention. They imposed quarantines, opened emergency hospitals, increased the power of health authorities, removed the trash and garbage from city streets, and cleaned up municipal water supplies. The contrast between 1832 and 1866 was evident. (Martin et al., pp. 322–323) The central message of the selection is that