题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
SOMATIC:
A．senseless
B．manual
C．spiritual
D．single
E．stressful
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“SOMATIC:A．senselessB．manualC．s…”相关的问题
？For each question 15—20, mark one letter (A, B, C, or D) on your Answer Sheet for the answer you choose.
Human resource is one of the key factors in determining organizational coping and profitability. Despite adverse market conditions and fluctuations, many organizations have implemented changes that seek to improve their competitiveness. The consequences of organizational change, however, can vary. Sometimes, the employees may accept the change readily; at other times, the change is met with resistance and dissatisfaction of the employees.
Change and stress are closely related. Because of the feelings of uncertainty, insecurity, and threat that it invokes, organizational change can be extremely stressful for the individual. When change occurs, employees may be stressed by role overload, role ambiguity, and role boundary.
According to Selye, a little stress is actually good. When stress is at its optimal level, it can increase human resource potential as it spurs individuals to achieve their best working performances.
However stress can become negative and destructive when its optimal level is exceeded. This could result in individuals experiencing high levels of anxiety or depression, low job motivation, somatic problems such as headaches, loss of appetite, trouble sleeping and ill health. In an organization that has many of its employees overly stressed or burned out, there are many detrimental consequences such as higher absenteeism, lower productivity, lower job satisfaction, and low morale.
There is a variation in the manner individuals respond to organizational change. Individuals may undergo a similar change process in the organization, but the stress evoked by the change can be perceived very differently. Some individuals may see change as a threat, feeling distressed and fearful of the uncertain consequences of the change. Others may react to the change with outbursts of anger and complaints. Yet there are also those who welcome change with a positive outlook, seeing change as a challenge, an opportunity for growth and improvement.
What accounts for the differences in experiencing change and perceiving stress for these individuals？ Many studies suggest organizational characteristics, such as workplace climate, empowerment, and information about change, as factors that affect an individual's adjustment to organizational change and stress. However, the research is often focusing on organization-level phenomena, as opposed to focusing on individual factors.
Every person has a distinct set of personality characteristics, owns different resources, and employs different coping strategies to deal with change. This explains why coping with organizational change and stress can turn out to be very different experiences for individuals. For instance, recent micro-level research on individuals has identified dispositional traits that predict a person’s ability to cope with change. Hence, on top o[ looking at organizational factors, this study also examines individual factors that may help to maximize an individual's potential to work productively and efficiently in the midst of change.
According to the first paragraph, what is the most possible and proper statement about the reason why change and stress are closely related？
A．Change can be the motivation of stress and through their mutual interaction, there will be improvement.
B．Stress causes change to occur, and may bring negative effects such as the change of the job and the reduction of the salary.
C．Organizational change is a primary cause of stress and when change occurs, employees often experience role stress.
D．Change and stress are a pair of phenomena that will both appear in the process of employment.
？Read the following extract from an article about human resource and the questions．
？For each question(15-20)，mark one letter(A，B，C，or D)on your Answer Sheet．
Human resource is one of the key factors in determining organizational coping and profitability．Despite adverse market conditions and fluctuations，many organizations have implemented changes that seek to improve their competitiveness．The consequences of organizational change，however，can vary．Sometimes，the employees may accept the change readily；at other times，the change is met with resistance and dissatisfaction of the employees．
Change and stress are closely related．Because of the feelings of uncertainty， insecurity，and threat that it invokes，organizational change can be extremely stressful for the individual．When change occurs，employees may be stressed by role overload，role ambiguity，and role boundary．
According to Selye，a little stress is actually good．When stress is at its optimal level，it can increase human resource potential as it spurs individuals to achieve their best working performances．
However，stress can become negative and destructive when its optimal 1evel is exceeded．This could result in individuals experiencing high levels of anxiety or depression，low job motivation，somatic problems such as headaches，loss of appetite， trouble sleeping and ill health．In an organization that has many of its employees overly stressed or burned out，there are many detrimental consequences such as higher absenteeism，lower productivity，lower job satisfaction，and low morale．
There is variation in the manner individuals respond to organizational change． Individuals may undergo a simiIar change process in the organization，but the stress evoked by the change can be perceived very differently．Some individuals may regard change as a threat，feeling distressed and fearful of the uncertain consequences of the change．Others may react to the change with outbursts of anger and complaints．Yet there are also those who welcome change with an optimistic attitude，seeing change as a challenge，an opportunity for growth and improvement．
What accounts for the differences in experiencing change and perceiving stress forthese individuals？ Many studies suggest organizational characteristics，such as workplaceclimate，empowerment，and information about change，as factors that affect an individual's adjustment to organizational change and stress．However，the research is often focused on organization-level phenomena，rather than on individual factors．
Every person has a distinct set of personality characteristics，owns different resources，and employs different coping strategies to deal with change．This explains why coping with organizational change and stress can turn out to be very different experiences for individuals．For instance，recent micro-level research on individuals has identified dispositional traits that predict a person's ability to cope with change．Hence，on top of looking at organizational factors，this study also examines individual factors that may help to maximize an individual's potential to work productively and efficiently in the midst of change．
According to the second paragraph，what is the most possible and proper statement about the reason why change and stress are closely related？
A．Change can be the motivation of stress and through their mutual interaction，there will be improvement．
B．Stress causes change to occur，and may bring negative effects such as the chang of the job and the reduction of the salary．
C．Organizational change is a primary cause of stress and when change occurs，employees often experience role stress．
D．Change and stress are a pair of phenomena that will both appear in the process of employment．
Testimony at a US Senate hearing on 5 March debated a bill proffered by Republican Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas) that would impose criminal penalties on all attempts at transferring a human somatic cell nucleus into a human egg, whether the purpose was to create an infant (usually called reproductive cloning) or to derive embryonic stem cells for disease research (usually called therapeutic cloning.) The US House of Representatives passed a similar total ban last year. Two other bills have also been introduced into the Senate; both would ban reproductive human cloning but permit therapeutic cloning.
Meanwhile, President Bush is expected to fill the long-vacant top job at the National Institutes of Health this week with Elias Zerhouni, executive vice dean of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Balthnore. For several months the front-runner for NIH director had been AIDS expert Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Immunological Diseases and Stroke. The campaign against Fanci was led by Brownback, who regarded him as insufficiently pro-life. Zerhouni is said to have endorsed Brownbacks anti-cloning bill in writing.
The Bush administration also proposed last week that the United Nations adopt a Brownback type worldwide ban on human cloning, including therapeutic cloning. The UN is considering prohibiting reproductive cloning, but delegates from Europe and Asia oppose interfering with cloning to produce embryonic stem cells for research.
The US Senate hearing starred Christopher Reeve, Hollywood's former Superman, a persuasive high-profile advocate for stem cell research who is handsome as ever, but paralyzed from the shoulders down and unable to breathe on his own because of a riding accident some years ago. Testifying against the Brownback bill, Reeve told the hearing that only human embryonic stem cells carrying his own DNA offered hope for remyelinating his devastated spinal nerves via an immunologically compatible cell transplant. Also testifying against the bill was the hearing's scientific star, Nobel laureate Paul Berg of Stanford University. Berg argued that human stem cells not only could solve the problem of transplant rejections, they also could provide a unique source of information about common chronic late-onset diseases such as cancer. Studying cells from young people carrying mutations that predispose them to complex disorders could illuminate the disease process and generate clues to prevention or cure, he said. As both these applications are based on transfer of particular nuclei into human eggs, he pointed out, none of the existing 78 human embryonic stem cell lines President Bush approved for federally funded research last summer would be useful either for complex disease research or for compatible transplants.
Berg also objected strongly to both the Brownback and the House bills' ban on importing therapies based on human embryonic stem cell research done elsewhere in the world. That would prevent 280 million Americans from taking advantage of treatments developed in nations such as the UK where some of this research is permitted, he pointed out. It might even mean that Americans who seek such treatments abroad could be arrested and fined when they return, he predicted.
Both Reeve and Berg have suggested that a comprehensive ban on human cloning would put US scientists at a competitive disadvantage. The US would take a giant step backward in research leadership, Reeve noted, and anyway the work would be done abroad, for example in Europe. "Those are not rogue nations behaving irresponsibly," he told the Senate. Berg has said that h
A．Both reproductive and therapeutic cloning
B．Reproductive cloning only
C．Therapeutic cloning only
D．Neither reproductive nor therapeutic cloning
