2. Passage Twenty-SixToday just as technology changed the face of industry， farmers have undergone an “agricultural revolution”.On the farm of today， machines provide all the power.One of the most important benefits will be the farm computer.A few forward-looking farmers are already using computers to help them run their farms more efficiently.The computers help them keep more accurate records， so they can make better decisions on what crops to plant， how much livestock to buy， when to sell their products， and how much profit they can expect.Many computer companies have been developing special computer programs just for farmers.Programs are being written for hog (猪)producers， grain farmers， potato farmers， and dairy farmers.In the future， farmers will be able to purchase computer programs made to their needs.Because of the growing importance of computers on the farm， students at agricultural colleges are required to take computer classes in addition to their normal agricultural courses.There can be no doubt that farmers will rely on computers even more in the future.While the old-time farm depended on horse power， and modern farms depend on machine power， farms of the future will depend on computer power.Another technological advance which is still in the experimental stage is the robot， a real “mechanized hired hand” that will be able to move and， in some ways， think like a human being.Agricultural engineers believe that computer-aided robots will make startling changes in farming before the end of the century.Unlike farmers of the present， farmers of the future will find that many day-to-day tasks will be done for them.Scientists are now developing robots that will be able to shear (修剪)sheep， drive tractors， and harvest fruit.Even complex jobs will be done by robots.For example， in order to milk their cows， farmers must first drive them into the special barn (畜棚)， then connect them to the milking machines， watch the machines， and disconnect them when they are finished.In the future， this will all be done by robots.In addition， when the milking is completed， the robots will automatically check to make sure that the milk is pure.The complete mobilization of the farm is far in the future， but engineers expect that some robots will be used before long.According to the passage， computers can not help farmers decide ().

36. Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage.Most of us in the entrepreneurial community are blessed — or cursed — with higher-than-average ambition.Ambitious people strongly desire accomplishments and are willing to take more risks and spend more effort to get them.Overall， this is a positive quality， especially for people trying to build their own businesses.Apparently， if you’re more naturally driven to set goals， you are more likely to succeed.Actually， this isn’t always the case.In fact， in some cases， extreme ambition may end up doing more harm than good.One major side effect of excessive ambition is the tendency to focus too determinedly on one particular vision or end goal.This is problematic because it hinders your ability to adapt to new circumstances， which is vital if you want to be a successful entrepreneur.If a new competitor emerges to threaten your business， you may need to change direction， even if that means straying from your original vision.If you have too much ambition， you’ll find this hard， if not impossible.Few people are successful when they try to build their first brand.Unfortunately， for the most ambitious entrepreneurs， a failure is seen as disastrous， and impossible to recover from.It’s a clear departure from the intended plan toward the intended goal.For people with limited ambition， however， failure is viewed as something closer to reality.Remember， failure is inevitable， and every failure you survive is a learning experience.Ambitious people tend to be more materialistically successful than their non-ambitious counterparts.However， they’re only slightly happier than their less-ambitious counterparts， and tend to live significantly shorter lives.This implies that even though ambitious people are more likely to achieve conventional “success，” such success means nothing for their health and happiness—and if you don’t have health and happiness， what else could possibly matter?Clearly， some amount of ambition is good for your motivation.Without any ambition， you wouldn＇t start your own business， set or achieve goals and get far in life.But an excess of ambition can also be dangerous， putting you at risk of burnout， stubbornness and even a shorter life.What does the author think of most entrepreneurs?

35. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What does the author advocate for people to live well?

34. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What kind of social system does the author think is unacceptable?

33. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What questions arise from living big?

32. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What is one of the consequences of living big?

31. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What are big houses promoted to be in the United States?

20.Although Anne is happy with her success she wonders ()will happen to her private life.

19.Wouldn＇t you rather your child ()to bed early?

18.Some diseases are ()by certain water animals.

17.This kind of glasses manufactured by experienced craftsmen ()comfortably.