问题 选择题

    中国第28次南极科学考察队2009年12月11日顺利到达中国南极中山站,执行中国2009至2010年度科学考察和后勤保障任务。当中山站的各项工作步入平稳轨道后,中国第28次南极科学考察队的综合队将乘坐“雪龙”号再次启程前往中国南极长城站。读下图,完成1—2题。

1、图中M地常年盛行的风向是[ ]

A、东南风

B、东北风

C、西南风

D、西北风

2、若某科考队员于某日北京时间13时30分在M地观测到太阳位于地平线上,当他再次观测到太阳位于地

    平线上的时间间隔是[ ]

A、19小时

B、21小时

C、22小时

D、24小时

答案

1、A

2、B

问答题

阅读以下说明,根据要求回答问题。
[说明]
老郑是一家系统集成公司软件研发部经理。为集中力量开发一个公司新承接的信息系统软件,他从其他项目组选出了6名聪明能干的开发人员组成了一个新的产品开发小组,老郑亲自担任小组负责人。6名团队成员都是大学本科毕业,在各自的工作中都取得了良好的成绩。老郑相信他的新项目团队一定能成功地完成开发任务。
但是,一个月过去了,小组的工作进展远远落后于开发计划,而且每周的小组成员会议使得每一位与会者都倍受折磨,已快变成了两个相对阵营间的紧张对抗了。老郑主张参与性管理,要求每一位小组成员在作出决定时意见要一致。问题是小郭和小赵很快地就能打定主意,要求进行下一个议题:而小张、小李和小王则要求进一步讨论,要求对更多的资料用更多的时间进行思考;小阮虽然在会议中较少发言,但他基本支持小李的意见。
老郑尽力在双方之间进行平衡。小郭和小赵做事有时有点儿鲁莽,不能仔细考虑所做决定的细节;小张等人确实也有点儿慢吞吞的,会使全组陷入没完没了分析的倾向。老郑很难决定支持哪一方,因为双方都做出过许多高质量的决定,并取得过良好的开发成绩。
为什么6位聪明能干的开发人员到一起工作却带来了这么多问题老郑陷入了沉思……

在本案例中,从人力资源管理和沟通管理两方面,分析造成目前现状的可能原因有:
①项目经理老郑在项目组中缺乏______,并且在______等方面的软技能不足;
②项目团队成员各自的______不明确,成员相互之间缺乏______;
③项目组没有成文(或习惯)的______,缺乏团结合作、协同工作等方面的团队文化建设;
④项目经理老郑对团队成员缺乏明确的______等。

单项选择题


In this section you will find after each of the passages a number of questions or unfinished statements about the passage, each with 4 ( A, B, C and D) choices to complete the statement. You must choose the one which you think fits best. The time for this section is 75 minutes.

Questions 1-5 are based on the following passage.
Sen. John F. Kerry’s 11-day mini-campaign on the theme of national security appears unlikely to produce sensational headlines or seize the country’s attention—which is, on balance, to his credit. At a moment when the crisis in Iraq dominates the national discussion, Mr. Kerry is resisting the temptation to distinguish himself from President Bush with bold but irresponsible proposals to abandon the mission, even though that course is favored by many in his party. Nor has he adopted the near-hysterical rhetoric of former vice president A1 Gore, who has taken to describing Iraq as the greatest strategic catastrophe in American history and calling US handling of foreign detainees an "American gulag. "
Instead, Mr. Kerry is in the process of setting out what looks like a sober and substantial altemative to Mr. Bush’s foreign policy, one that correctly identifies the incumbent’s greatest failings while accepting the basic imperatives of the war that was forced on the country on Sept. 11, 2001. In his opening speech on the subject Thursday, Mr. Kerry reiterated one of the central tenets of Mr. Bush’s policy: Lawless states and terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction present "the single greatest threat to our security. " He said that if an attack on the United States with unconventional weapons "appears imminent I will do whatever is necessary to stop it" and "never cede our security to anyone"—formulations that take him close to Mr. Bush’s preemption doctrine.
Yet Mr. Kerry focused much attention on the president’s foremost weakness, his mismanagement of US alliances. The Bush administration, he charged, "bullied when they should have persuadeD. They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a team. " Not only is the truth of that critique glaringly evident in Iraq and elsewhere, but Mr. Kerry is also right to suggest that repairing and reversing the damage probed will require a new president. Though Mr. Bush has belatedly changed course in response to his serial failures in Iraq, there is no evidence that he would pursue a more multilateral foreign policy if reelected.
Mr. Kerry’s promise to "launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9/11 world" nevertheless does not add up to a strategy by itself. Tensions between the United States and countries such as France, Germany and South Korea predate George W. Bush and will not disappear if he leaves office; leaders in those nations have their own ambitions to challenge or contain American power. Strong alliances require a common strategic vision—and the vision offered so far by Mr. Kerry is relatively narrow. His Thursday speech focused on combating threats and on reducing dependence on Middle East oil; this week he will set out policies to block the spread of nuclear weapons. But he has had little to say about the good that the United States should seek to accomplish in the worlD. In an interview Friday, the candidate stressed that he has set out the "architecture" of his foreign policy and will talk more about goals and values in coming weeks. Thus far he has spoken more about protecting American companies and workers from foreign competition—something that hardly promotes alliances—than about fostering democracy in the Middle East or helping poor nations develop.
The emerging Kerry platform suggests that ultimately he would adopt many of the same goals as Mr. Bush. In his latest speech he rightly warned of the terrible consequences of failure in Iraq and, like Mr. Bush, embraced elections and the training of Iraqi security forces as the best way forwarD. His proposal for a U. N. high commissioner represents a slight upgrade on the deference already given by the White House to U. N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi; his call for a NATO- led military mission already has been aggressively pursued by the Bush administration, with poor results. There are, in fact, few responsible alternatives to the administration’s course. Mr. Kerry’s argument is that he has a better chance of making it work. It’s not a bold offer to voters—but it’s probably the fight one.

Mr. Kerry’s attack against the president focused on______.

A.the latter’s use of force against Iraq

B.the difficulty in reassembling US alliances

C.the need of a new president in directing the Iraq mission

D.the latter’s practice of unilateralism