A.Happiness comes from peaceful life in the country.

B.Health is more important than money.

C.The harmony between man and nature is important.

D.Good old days will never be forgotten.

B

I hated dinner parties .But I decided to give them another shot because I’m in London. And my friend Mallery invited me . And because dinner parties in London are very different from those in New York, “I’m having a dinner party ” means : “I’m booking a table for 12 at a restaurant yocan’t afford ang we’ll be sharing the cheque evenly , no matter what yoeat.” Wors , in Manhattan there is always someone who leaves before the bill arrives. They’ll throw down cash, half of what they owe, and then people like me, who don’t drink, end up paying even more . But if try to use the same trick , the hostess will shout; “Where are yogoing ?” And it’s not like I can say I have somewhere to go : everyone knows I have nowhere to go.

But in London, dinner patise are in people’s homes . Not only that, the guests are an interesting mix .The last time I went to one , the guests were from France , India ,Denmark and Nigeria; it was like a gathering at the United Nations . In New York ,the mix is less striking . It’s like a gathering at Bloomingdat=le’s , a well-known de partment store.

For New Yorkers, talking ,talking about other parts of the world means Brooklyn and Queens in New Yorkers.But at Mallery’s ,when I side that I had been to Myanmar recently, peo ple knew where it was , In New Yorkers people would think it was a usual culb.

60.What does the word “shot” in Paragraph I pro baly mean?

A. Choice B. Try C. Style D.Goal

61. What does the writer dislike most about dinner parties in New Yorkers

A. There is a stange mix of people.

B. The restaurants are expensive.

C. The bill is not fairly shared.

D. People have to pay cash

62.What does the author think of the parties in London?

A. A bit unusual

B. Full of tricks

C.Less costly

D. More interesting

63.What is the author’s opininon of some New Yorkers from her experience?

A.Easy-going B. Self-centred. C.Generous D.Conservative

C

Too much TV-watching can harm children’s ability to learn and even reduce their chances of getting a college degree, new studies suggest in the latest effort to examine the effects of television on children.

One of the studies looked at nearly 400 northern California third-graders. Those with TVs in their bedrooms scored about eight points lower on math and language arts tests than children without bedrooms TVs.

A second study, looking at nearly 1,000 grown-ups in New Zealand, found lower education levels among 26-year-olds who had watched lots of TV during childhood. But the results don’t prove that TV is the cause and don’t rule out that already poorly motivated youngsters(年轻人)may watch lots of TV.

Their study measured the TV habits of 26-year-olds between ages 5 and 15. Those with college degrees had watched an average of less than two hours of TV per weeknight during childhood, compared with an average of more than 2½ hours for those who had no education beyond high school.

In the California study, children with TVs in their rooms but no computer at home scored the lowest, while those with no bedroom TV but who had home computers scored the highest.

While this study does not prove that bedroom TV sets caused the lower scores, it adds to accumulating findings that children shouldn’t have TVs in their bedrooms.

64. According to the California study, the low-scoring group might____________.

A. have watched a lot of TV

B. not be interested in math

C. be unable to go to college

D. have had computers in their bedrooms

65.What is the researchers’ understanding of the New Zealand study results?

A. Poorly motivated 26-year-olds watch more TV.

B. Habits of TV watching reduce learning interest.

C. TV watching leads to lower education levels of the 15-year-olds.

D. The connection between TV and education levels is difficult to explain.

66. What can we learn from the last two paragraphs?