The planes now have to _______ very thorough safety checks. A: hunch B: undergo C: torment D: sigh

Jerry<br/>loves football. I ________ he'll be at game today. A: doubt B: have<br/>a hunch

torment crowd ugly sink hunch vision grab souldare venture sigh crumble flee groan plungeSam ran to the edge of the lake and in.

torment crowd ugly sink hunch vision grab souldare venture sigh crumble flee groan plungeInvading soldiers forced the villagers to to the surrounding hills.

torment crowd ugly sink hunch vision grab souldare venture sigh crumble flee groan plungeMy uncle’s back injury caused him to___________ .

torment crowd ugly sink hunch vision grab souldare venture sigh crumble flee groan plungeStefan’s shyness made giving his class presentation a(n) experience for him.

Which of the following is the right thing to do when you are giving a public speech? A: Look up from your text. B: Stand up straight so as to assume a parade-ground posture. C: Hunch over the lectern from time to time. D: Speak at a high volume into the microphone so that the whole audience can hear you.

Passage One The words you use betray who you are. Linguists and psychologists have long been studying this phenomenon. A few decades ago they had the hunch that the number of active verbs in your sentences or which adjectives you use (lovely, sweet, angry) reflect personality traits. They have pointed out various insights. For example,uicidal poets, in their published works, use more first-person singular words (like "me" or "my") and death-related words than poets who aren't suicidal. Peoplen positions of powerre more likely to make statements that involve others ("we," "us"), while lower-status people often use language that's more self-focused and ask more questions. Comparing genders, women end to use ore words related to psychological and social processes, while men referred more to impersonal topics and objects' properties. This research suggests that Internet companies such as Facebook and Google, with their collection of written expressions, are sitting on powerful insights about us as people. But if you ask them, "Hey, can you give me the take on me that you've got in-house or that you've built for advertisers, with my anonymized(匿名的) data?" -- they won't give it to you. I actually did ask, and they don't have that kind of offering. But I've found someone who does: IBM's Watson division. Researchers there have taken the personality dictionaries already created by scientists, dropped them into Watson, and sent it off to apply it to people on Twitter, Facebook, blogs. That forms a digital population of people and personality types. Over time, more text from more people will help Watson get smarter. In its own studies, IBM found that characteristics derived from people's writings can reliably predict some of their real-world behaviors. For instance, people who are less neurotic(神经质的) and more open to experiences are more likely to click on an ad, while people who score high on self-enhancement (meaning, seek personal success) like to read articles about work. For IBM, these kinds of interpretations can become a business opportunity.

Nothing succeeds in business books like the study of success. The current business-book boom was launched in 1982 by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman with In Search of Excellence. The trend has continued with a succession of experts and would-be experts who promise to distil the essence of excellence into three (or five or seven) simple rules.The Three Rules is a self-conscious contribution to this type of writing； it even includes a bibliography of “success studies”. Michael Raynor and Mumtaz Ahmed work for a consultancy, Deloitte, that is determined to turn itself into more of a thought-leader and less a corporate repairman. They employ all the tricks of the success books. They insist that their conclusions are “measurable and actionable”-guides to behaviour rather than analysis for its own sake. Success authors usually serve up vivid stories about how exceptional businesspeople stamped their personalities on a company or rescued it from a life-threatening crisis. Messrs Raynor and Ahmed are happier chewing the numbers： they provide detailed appendices on “calculating the elements of advantage” and “detailed analysis”.The authors spent five years studying the behaviour of their 344 “ exceptional companies” only to come up at first with nothing. Every hunch (直觉) led to a blind alley and every hypothesis to a dead end. It was only when they shifted their attention from how companies behave to how they think that they began to make sense of their voluminous material.Management is all about making difficult tradeoffs in conditions that are always uncertain and often fast-changing. But exceptional companies approach these tradeoffs with two simple rules in mind, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. First： better before cheaper. Companies are more likely to succeed in the long run if they compete on quality or performance than on price. Second： revenue before cost. Companies have more to gain in the long run from driving up revenue than by driving down costs.Most success studies suffer from two faults. There is “the halo (光环）effect”, whereby good performance leads commentators to attribute all manner of virtues to anything and everything the company does. These virtues then suddenly become vices when the company fails. Messrs Raynor and Ahmed work hard to avoid these mistakes by studying large bodies of data over several decades. But they end up embracing a different error： stating the obvious. Most businesspeople will not be surprised to learn that it is better to find a profitable niche(隙缝市场）and focus on boosting your revenues than to compete on price and cut your way to success. The difficult question is how to find that profitable niche and protect it. There, The Three Rules is less useful.