就宜溜 少量狗

hyl_0212

下午考的，出发前惊闻换裤了...就慌了，只能劝自己别在乎,大不了再来一次，到了考场又发生一堆事，又慌了....考作文的时候发现题都是上个月的，心里小兴奋了一下，结果到数学做到30题了发现一道狗都没遇到，就知道换裤是真的了...数学完了休息的完了进去考verbal,输密码的老师告诉我超时了5分钟，可是我只去了厕所一下就回考场了...慌死了，赶忙开始，结果是监考老师看错了...没超市，但还是前十题很慌，心里老不能平静，尤其是第一篇阅读，只有一段看了三遍却完全没看懂，三个题基本上都是蒙的...后来做题就慢慢顺手了...估计是心里没负担了...出分的时候祈祷了一下，700，M49 V36，换裤了，这样的分我真的很满意很满意了。

啥也不说了，上狗狗...

作文还是上月狗里的
AA Generally speaking, it is financially unwise for people quit stable office job and start working from home. It is there are a lot of distractions when people working from home. People working from home tend to procrastinate because there is no discipline. Also, working from home make people isolated. Therefore, it is financially more advantageous for people working in the office

AI “It is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy. International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we expect to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations.”

估计AWA杯具了...

月度 没看懂的那篇印象超深，只有一段很短，讲的是大概是什么water right, 又有什么HXXX law, 一开始一些人以为water right是exclusive的，其实是什么跟人一起分享之类的，题不记得了...当时很慌，蒙的...

还有一篇是讲women 工作的，好像是3段吧，得往下拉，不过挺简单的，一开始有两个theory，后来又有一个新的theory把两个都否决了，说是教育作用很重要，受教育的women比uneducated的挣更多钱，但是在发达的地方还有不发达的地方雇佣率基本一样，说原因不难解释，因为发达的地方需要的人也多。还有说uneducated的人如果工作比在家里工作争得少就不太有incentives去工作之类的

罗技 记得有GWD原题，但选项完全换了，是那个gardening 杂志的那个，什么wild plant的那个，但问的不一样，问支持
        记得还有一个也见过，想不起来了，等下找找
        又想起来一个，说一个地方出了法规限制公司往公共场所倒垃圾废物，每次倒了发现就收fixed fine,有人反驳说不对，问这个人假设是什么，我选的法规没规定违规公司要清理这些垃圾并且妥善的处理它们

雨法 不是特别难，划长线的划短的一半一半吧
有一个考什么flaunt（好像拼的不对..不记得了） with 还是in, 反正就纠结这两个选项了
还有一个有个remain的 记得前面的名词是个单数，所以应该是remains

大学没学数学，数学时间很紧，好多DS题,尤其是前10题...记不太住了
PS 说有两个圆，有图，跟X轴都相切，两圆也相切，小的半径为4，大的半径为6，求过两圆圆心的直线的斜率，图在附件里
PS 有个人买东西，a个东西单价为b, 每个a个东西里有12个boxes，卖的时候每3个boxes 卖4.98吧，最后赚了一倍...记不太清了..
又想到一个数学
PS 一个数除以2 3 5都余1，问这个数一下选项中最小是多少，我选了61


真的好佩服记得狗的筒子们...我实在记不起多少了，一想起来就回来补充

mirare

THX LZ

vetch

楼主说的water right，是不是这一篇阿？ In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters fl owing through
or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty
establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did
not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the
federal government, when it created the reservation,
intended to deal fairly with American Indians by
reserving for them the waters without which their
lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts can fi nd federal rights
to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land
in question lies within an enclave under exclusive
federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally
withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn
from the stock of federal lands available for private
use under federal land use laws—and set aside or
reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the
government intended to reserve water as well as land
when establishing the reservation.
Some American Indian tribes have also established
water rights through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to
the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For
example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when
the United States acquired sovereignty over New
Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became
part of the United States, the pueblo lands never
formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in
any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has
ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public
lands as American Indian reservations. This fact,
however, has not barred application of the Winters
doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian
reservation is a question of practice, not of legal
defi nition, and the pueblos have always been treated
as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic
approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963),
wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner
in which any type of federal reservation is created
does not affect the application to it of the Winters
doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of
Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water
rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be
considered to have become reservations.

zliycdr

妇女的就业问题/文言文

服务行业的妇女
(from 2009-11 XOXO 简易版阅读)
1P 美国妇女一直干一些低级的工作, 妇女就业面临不平等。以往认为服务业的增加对女性就业有好处，但事实上不是这样. 近来随着服务产业的发展,这对妇女的经济地位会产生影响但具体会产生什么影响. 有3种不同的理论
2P 一个model说service增加, 女人就业好. 女人在制造业就业与在服务行业就业的变化,对女人的影响; P理论因为随服务业的扩展,妇女的就业机会大大的增加，而且服务业的从业人员大多数是妇女。这使得妇女比原来从事的低级工作更易获得较高的报酬，更容易找到工作.  (问针对此理论,以下哪个是作者的观点呢?)
3P 一个model说工业增加好否则男人会从工业往service走影响女人. Q理论. 与p理论的不同点是，强调重点是由于随服务业的扩展。建筑等低级体力活(主要工人为男工人) 在工业中占的比重变小,即不是因为妇女改善了,而是因为男人的就业状况恶化了.这一段着重于对男性的影响. (问此理论同彼理论侧重点哪里不同哩?)
4P 作者认为前两个关注了不同行业女人的机会不同. 又有一个d理论说关注同行业的男女工作机会, 认为service多不多不重要, 但最后有一个反例说事实上service多了妇女还是收益. 最后一句话为延伸性内容: 最后有一句some one说男性在service industry工作时间不如女性工作的持久
1. 主题题
答: 预测一种趋势可能结果的3种方法(approach )
2. 文中指出什么随着服务业扩展妇女怎样了?
答: 比以前更不能干建筑等(男人占优势地位的) 低级体力活了
3. 理论2怎么不同于理论1?
答: 理论2不强调妇女状况的改善而强调男人状况的恶化
4. 其中一题问1和2两论点的差别 (同上)
应该是理论1注重情况变化对女性的影响,理论2注重其对男性的影响.
5. 针对文中最后一句话延伸性内容出题(最后的例子作用)
6. 问针对第一个理论,以下哪个是作者的观点呢?
7. 记得有个问题将一整段加亮了，好像是工作机会，那段大体是说女性原来在工作中比例小于男性，但是后来serviceindustry 得发展，比例缩小。。。记得有4段

mikeandy

作文换题库一般还是上月的，我当初也是这样~

XYXB

LZ，关于妇女就业的那篇阅读，辛苦你确认一下考古，谢谢：

一种观点认为: industrialization阻碍了妇女的就业, 因为农业....
另一种观点正好相反认为: industrialization加速了妇女的就业, 因为工业化...
一 个人S认为以上两个观点都不太对。他对巴西妇女的就业情况进行了研究发现不管巴西的development level如何，巴西妇女的就业一直是40%。而妇女的比例跟教育程度密切相关，没受过教育的只有30%就业，而受了大学教育的有90%。然后解释了妇女 就业和教育的关系: 因为没受过教育的妇女的薪水很低，不能吸引妇女离开家里的农活出去工作。而受过大学教育的妇女的薪水可以达到没受到教育的妇女的新水的10倍。后面又说明 有一个奇怪的现象是developed and undeveloped的地区，妇女就业的教育程度的比例差不多，感到奇怪，因为按照常理发达地方应该受过教育的比例更高，（有题）然后解释说明这个现象是合理的。

还有一道细节题：对于巴西妇女的描述有哪个文中没有提到

hyl_0212

楼主说的water right，是不是这一篇阿？ In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters fl owing through
or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty
establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did
not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the
federal government, when it created the reservation,
intended to deal fairly with American Indians by
reserving for them the waters without which their
lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts can fi nd federal rights
to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land
in question lies within an enclave under exclusive
federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally
withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn
from the stock of federal lands available for private
use under federal land use laws—and set aside or
reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the
government intended to reserve water as well as land
when establishing the reservation.
Some American Indian tribes have also established
water rights through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to
the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For
example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when
the United States acquired sovereignty over New
Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became
part of the United States, the pueblo lands never
formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in
any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has
ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public
lands as American Indian reservations. This fact,
however, has not barred application of the Winters
doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian
reservation is a question of practice, not of legal
defi nition, and the pueblos have always been treated
as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic
approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963),
wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner
in which any type of federal reservation is created
does not affect the application to it of the Winters
doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of
Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water
rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be
considered to have become reservations.

-- by 会员 vetch (2010/9/17 1:48:05)

不好意思，赶着回学校...回复晚了
不是这篇，我确定，请再考考古...

hyl_0212

妇女的就业问题/文言文

服务行业的妇女
(from 2009-11 XOXO 简易版阅读)
1P 美国妇女一直干一些低级的工作, 妇女就业面临不平等。以往认为服务业的增加对女性就业有好处，但事实上不是这样. 近来随着服务产业的发展,这对妇女的经济地位会产生影响但具体会产生什么影响. 有3种不同的理论
2P 一个model说service增加, 女人就业好. 女人在制造业就业与在服务行业就业的变化,对女人的影响; P理论因为随服务业的扩展,妇女的就业机会大大的增加，而且服务业的从业人员大多数是妇女。这使得妇女比原来从事的低级工作更易获得较高的报酬，更容易找到工作.  (问针对此理论,以下哪个是作者的观点呢?)
3P 一个model说工业增加好否则男人会从工业往service走影响女人. Q理论. 与p理论的不同点是，强调重点是由于随服务业的扩展。建筑等低级体力活(主要工人为男工人) 在工业中占的比重变小,即不是因为妇女改善了,而是因为男人的就业状况恶化了.这一段着重于对男性的影响. (问此理论同彼理论侧重点哪里不同哩?)
4P 作者认为前两个关注了不同行业女人的机会不同. 又有一个d理论说关注同行业的男女工作机会, 认为service多不多不重要, 但最后有一个反例说事实上service多了妇女还是收益. 最后一句话为延伸性内容: 最后有一句some one说男性在service industry工作时间不如女性工作的持久
1. 主题题
答: 预测一种趋势可能结果的3种方法(approach )
2. 文中指出什么随着服务业扩展妇女怎样了?
答: 比以前更不能干建筑等(男人占优势地位的) 低级体力活了
3. 理论2怎么不同于理论1?
答: 理论2不强调妇女状况的改善而强调男人状况的恶化
4. 其中一题问1和2两论点的差别 (同上)
应该是理论1注重情况变化对女性的影响,理论2注重其对男性的影响.
5. 针对文中最后一句话延伸性内容出题(最后的例子作用)
6. 问针对第一个理论,以下哪个是作者的观点呢?
7. 记得有个问题将一整段加亮了，好像是工作机会，那段大体是说女性原来在工作中比例小于男性，但是后来serviceindustry 得发展，比例缩小。。。记得有4段

-- by 会员 zliycdr (2010/9/17 4:30:25)

对，就是这篇！！

看错楼了。。。不是这篇

hyl_0212

LZ，关于妇女就业的那篇阅读，辛苦你确认一下考古，谢谢：

一种观点认为: industrialization阻碍了妇女的就业, 因为农业....
另一种观点正好相反认为: industrialization加速了妇女的就业, 因为工业化...
一 个人S认为以上两个观点都不太对。他对巴西妇女的就业情况进行了研究发现不管巴西的development level如何，巴西妇女的就业一直是40%。而妇女的比例跟教育程度密切相关，没受过教育的只有30%就业，而受了大学教育的有90%。然后解释了妇女 就业和教育的关系: 因为没受过教育的妇女的薪水很低，不能吸引妇女离开家里的农活出去工作。而受过大学教育的妇女的薪水可以达到没受到教育的妇女的新水的10倍。后面又说明 有一个奇怪的现象是developed and undeveloped的地区，妇女就业的教育程度的比例差不多，感到奇怪，因为按照常理发达地方应该受过教育的比例更高，（有题）然后解释说明这个现象是合理的。

还有一道细节题：对于巴西妇女的描述有哪个文中没有提到

-- by 会员 XYXB (2010/9/17 18:25:02)

确认是这篇！！这次确认了~！

hyl_0212

作文换题库一般还是上月的，我当初也是这样~

-- by 会员 mikeandy (2010/9/17 9:29:03)

原来是这样~那不是循环下去，每次的题都差不多？？
上次作文准备的不好，这个月得好好准备下，备战下月二战，给自己加油...