英语期末考试

更新时间：试题数量：购买人数：提供作者：

有效期：个月

章节介绍：共有个章节

收藏

我的练习

我的错题
(0道)

我的收藏
(0道)

我的斩题
(0道)

我的笔记
(0道)

专项练习

顺序练习 练习进度 0 / 0

随机练习 自定义设置练习量

模拟考试 仿真模拟

题型练习 按题型分类练习

易错题 精选高频易错题

学习资料 考试学习相关信息

搜索

题库预览

What did the researchers want to determine by testing a variety of possible explanations?

What happened when the negative reciprocity variable was taken into account?

What did prior research on negative reciprocity among workers find?

What does the author emphasize about their analysis in the last paragraph?

What has Bill Thomas been doing for a quarter of a century?

Why did Bill Thomas try something different in the nursing home?

What do we learn about Bill Thomas bringing animals and plants into the nursing home?

What has Bill Thomas been persistently advocating?

How is Bill Thomas's new concept received?

What can we learn from research on diets in developed countries?

What does the author say is important in formulating policies to improve diets and health?

What does research reveal about adults in food-insecure households?

What would help improve food security among the disadvantaged groups in Canada?

What does the author argue sustainable healthy eating means?

As many office workers adapt to remote work, cities may undergo fundamental change if offices remain under-utilized. Who will benefit if working from home becomes the norm? Employers argue they make considerable savings on real estate when workers shift from office to home work. However, these savings result from passing costs on to workers. Unless employees are fully compensated, this could become a variant of parasitic (寄生的) capitalism, whereby corporate profits increasingly rely on extracting value from the public—and now personal—realm, rather than on generating new value. Though employers are backed by a chorus of remote work advocates, others note the loneliness, reduced productivity and inefficiencies of prolonged remote work. If working from home becomes permanent, employees will have to dedicate part of their private space to work. This requires purchasing desks, chairs and office equipment. It also means having private space dedicated to work: the space must be heated, cleaned, maintained and paid for. That depends on many things, but for purposes of illustration, I have run some estimates for Montreal. The exercise is simple but important, since it brings these costs out of the realm of speculation into the realm of meaningful discussion. Rough calculations show that the savings made by employers when their staff works from home are of similar value to the compensation workers should receive for setting up offices at home. What does this mean for offices in cities? One of two things may happen: Employers pass these costs onto employees. This would be a form of expropriation (侵占), with employees absorbing production costs that have traditionally been paid by the employer. This represents a considerable transfer of value from employees to employers. When employees are properly compensated, employers' real estate savings will be modest. If savings are modest, then the many advantages of working in offices—such as lively atmosphere, rapidity of communication, team-building and acclimatization (适应环境) of new employees—will encourage employers to shelve the idea of remote work and, like Yahoo in 2013, encourage employees to work most of the time from corporate office space. 随着许多办公室职员适应远程工作，如果办公室的利用率持续偏低，城市可能会发生根本性变化：如果居家办公成为常态，谁会从中受益？雇主们称，当员工从办公室转向居家办公时，他们在房地产方面节省了大量开支。然而，这些节省是通过将成本转嫁给员工实现的。除非员工得到全额补偿，否则这可能会成为一种寄生性资本的变体——企业总部越来越依赖于从公共领域（如今还包括个人领域）榨取价值，而不是创造新的价值。尽管雇主们得到了众多远程工作支持者的支持，但也有人指出，远程工作会带来孤独感、生产力下降和效率低下等问题。如果居家办公成为永久性的，员工将不得不把部分私人空间用于工作，这就需要购买办公桌、椅子和办公设备。这也意味着需要有专门用于工作的私人空间：这个空间必须供暖、清洁、维护，并且需要支付相关费用。这取决于许多因素，但为了说明问题，我对蒙特利尔的情况进行了一些估算。这个计算过程简单但重要，因为它将这些成本从猜测领域带入了有意义的讨论范畴。粗略计算显示，雇主在员工居家办公时节省的开支，与员工在家设置办公室应获得的补偿价值相当。这对城市里的办公室意味着什么？可能会发生以下两种情况之一：雇主将这些成本转嫁给员工，这将是一种侵占行为，由员工承担传统上由雇主支付的生产成本，这相当于大量价值从员工向雇主转移。如果员工得到适当补偿，雇主在房地产方面的节省将会很有限。如果节省的金额不多，那么在办公室工作的诸多优势——比如活跃的氛围、快速的沟通、团队建设以及新员工的环境适应——将促使雇主放弃远程工作的想法，就像雅虎在2013年所做的那样，鼓励员工大部分时间在公司办公室工作。【缺少答案，请补充】

What does the author say about working from home?

Why do some people oppose working from home?

Why did the author run the estimates for Montreal?

What can we conclude from the author's calculations?

What is the author's opinion on working from home?

The human thirst for knowledge is the driving force behind our successful development as a species. But curiosity can also be dangerous, leading to setbacks or even downfalls. Given curiosity's complexity, scientists have found it hard to define. While pinning down a definition has proven tricky, the general consensus is it's some means of information gathering. Psychologists also agree curiosity is intrinsically (内在地) motivated. Curiosity covers such a large set of behaviors that there probably isn't any single "curiosity gene" that makes humans wonder about and explore their environment. That said, curiosity does have a genetic component. Genes and the environment interact in many complex ways to shape individuals and guide their behavior, including their curiosity. Regardless of their genetic makeup, infants have to learn an incredible amount of information in a short time, and curiosity is one of the tools humans have found to accomplish that gigantic task. Hundreds of studies show that infants prefer novelty. It's what motivates non-human animals, human infants and probably human adults to explore and seek out new things before growing less interested in them after continued exposure. But curiosity often comes with a cost. In some situations, the stakes are low and failure is a healthy part of growth. For instance, many babies are perfectly proficient crawlers, but they decide to try walking because there's more to see and do when they stand upright. But this milestone comes at a small cost. A study of 12- to 19-month-olds learning how to walk documented that these children fell down a lot. Seventeen times per hour, to be exact. But walking is faster than crawling, so this motivates expert crawlers to transition to walking. Sometimes, however, testing out a new idea can lead to disaster. For instance, the Inuit people of the Arctic regions have created incredible modes to deal with the challenges of living in northern climates, but what we forget about are the tens of thousands of people that tried and failed to make it in those challenging landscapes. 人类对知识的渴望是我们作为一个物种成功发展的驱动力。但好奇心也可能是危险的，会导致挫折甚至失败。鉴于好奇心的复杂性，科学家们发现很难对其下定义。尽管准确定义好奇心被证明是棘手的，但人们普遍认为它是一种信息收集的方式。心理学家们也一致认为，好奇心是内在驱动的。好奇心涵盖了一系列广泛的行为，因此可能并不存在单一的“好奇心基因”使人类对周围环境产生好奇并进行探索。话虽如此，好奇心确实有遗传成分。基因和环境以许多复杂的方式相互作用，塑造个体并指导他们的行为，包括好奇心。无论基因构成如何，婴儿都必须在短时间内学习大量信息，而好奇心是人类发现的完成这一艰巨任务的工具之一。数百项研究表明，婴儿更喜欢新奇事物。这一特性促使非人类动物、人类婴儿，可能还有成年人去探索和寻找新事物，而在持续接触后，对这些事物的兴趣会逐渐减弱。但好奇心往往伴随着代价。在某些情况下，风险较低，失败是成长过程中有益的一部分。例如，许多婴儿已经能熟练爬行，但他们决定尝试走路，因为站立时能看到更多东西、做更多事情。但这个里程碑的达成伴随着小小的代价。一项针对12至19个月大学习走路的婴儿的研究记录显示，这些孩子经常摔倒——确切地说，每小时会摔倒17次。但走路比爬行更快，这促使熟练的爬行者转向走路。然而，有时尝试新想法可能会导致灾难。例如，北极地区的因纽特人创造了令人难以置信的方式应对北方气候的挑战，但我们忘记的是，有数万人曾尝试在这些充满挑战的环境中生存却失败了。【缺少答案，请补充】

What does the author say about curiosity?

What is the general understanding of curiosity?

更多题库