问题 单项选择题

历史上,语言在世界上的分布反映了世界权利的分配。试用最广泛的语言,如英语,西班牙语,阿拉伯语和俄语,都是或曾是帝国的语言,这些帝国曾积极促进其他民族试用它们的语言权利分配的变化产生了语言使用的变化,英国和法国都曾坚持在其殖民地使用自己的语言,但大多数殖民地独立后,都在不同层度上努力用本土语言代替帝国语言,并取得了不同程度的成功。 这段文字意在说明:

A.本土语言是民族独立的重要标志 

B.语言使用是政治权利的某种表现 

C.利用权力推行语言是无法持续的 

D.殖民统治对语言分布有深刻影响

答案

参考答案:B

解析:根据提问可知本题属于隐含主旨题。 文段描述的主体是语言和权力,权力是因,语言使用是果。具体介绍了语言的使用受到权力分配的影响。无论是帝国、殖民国家、殖民地,语言的使用都反映了权力的分配,语言也随着权力的变化而变化。 B项是对因果关系主旨的概括,政治权力是因,语言使用是果。A项延伸错误,从文段中只能得知殖民地独立之后努力用本土语言代替帝国语言,而不是本土语言是独立的标志;C项无法从文段中得到,根据文段描述,帝国语言在殖民统治期间仍然是强力的、持续的,独立之后改变语言是为了摆脱殖民的阴影,无法得到权力推行语言的持续性如何;D项是不重要内容,文段并不想强调殖民统治的影响。故正确答案为B。 考点 隐含主旨题

多项选择题
单项选择题

Come on—Everybody’s doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good—drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of examples of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.

The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology. "Dare to be different, please don’t smoke!" pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.

But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it’s presented here is that it doesn’t work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.

There’s no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits—as well as negative ones—spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.

Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It’s like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that’s the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.

The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is()

A.harmful

B. desirable

C. profound

D. questionable