当前位置：首页 → 职业资格 → 教师资格 → 小学教育教学知识与能力->请认真阅读下文，并按要求作答。把1米平均分成100份。小数的
请认真阅读下文，并按要求作答。
把1米平均分成100份。
小数的计数单位是十分之一、百分之一、千分之一……分别写作0.1、0.01、0.001……每相邻两个计数单位间的进率是（）。
问题（一）：如指导高年段小学生学习上述内容，试拟定教学目标和教学重点。（12分）
问题（二）：根据拟定的教学目标和教学重点，设计课堂教学环节并简要说明理由。（28分）
略
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
The author′ s attitude toward reversing the high-speed trend is__________.
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
John Gottman says that reliable snap reactions are based on__________.
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
To reverse the negative influences of snap decisions, we should__________.
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
Our reaction to a fast-food logo shows that snap decisions__________.
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
The time needed in making decisions may__________.
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
It can be inferred from the passage that the lobby group Consumer International wants to __________.
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
What is one of the consequences caused by the many claims of household products?
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
A study was carried out by Britain′ s NCC to __________.
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
As indicated in this passage, with so many good claims, the consumers __________.
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
According to the passage, the NCC found it outrageous that __________.
