【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 unusual informed, persuasive, or we connect. The idea is intuitively pelling but it doesn39。t explain how ideas actually spread?！　he supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the towstep flow of munication. Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the twostep flow became it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those select people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of people was wearing, promoting or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people call drive trends。　　In their recent work, however, some researchers have e up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact , they don’t seem to be required of all. The researchers39。 argument stems from a simple observation about social influence, with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfreywhose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal influenceeven the most influential members of a population simply don39。t interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these noncelebrating influentials who according to the twostepflow theory are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur however each person so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs and so on and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example from the initial influential, prove resistant, for example the cascade of change won39。t propagate very far or affect many people?！　uilding on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people’s ability to influence others and their tendency to be。31. By citing the book The Tipping Point the author intends to　　[A] analyze the consequences of social epidemics　　[B] discuss influentials’ function in spreading ideas　　[C] exemplify people’s intuitive response to social epidemics　　[D] describe the essential characteristics of influentials　　32. The author suggests that the “twostepflow theory”　　[A] serves as a solution to marketing problems　　[B] has helped explain certain prevalent trends　　[C] has won support from influentials　　[D] requires solid evidence for its validity　　33. What the researchers have observed recently shows that　　[A] the power of influence goes with social interactions　　[B] interpersonal links can be enhanced through the media　　[C] influentials have more channels to reach the public　　[D]most celebritiea enjoy wide media attention　　34. The underlined phrase “these people” in paragraph 4 refers to the ones who　　[A]stay outside the network of social influence　　[B]have little contact with the source of influence　　[C]are influenced and then influence others　　[D] are influenced by the initial influential　　35. What is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence?　　[A]The eagerness to be accepted [B]The impulse to influence others　　[C]The readiness to be influenced [D]The inclination to rely on others　Text 4　　Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else the accounting standardsetters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it’s just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch?！　nfortunately, banks’ lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standardsetters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being promised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult. After a bruising encounter with Congress, America’s Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long0term assets in their ine statement. Bob Herz, the FASB’s chairman, cried out against those who “question our motives。” Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobby group politely calls “the use of judgment by management。”　　European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it pletes it reconstruction of rules later this year is strong Charlie McCreevy, a European missioner, warned the IASB that it did ”not live in a political vacuum” but” in the real word” and the Europe could yet develop different rules。　　It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they Largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But bank’s shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains。　　To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. America’s new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even bative standardsetters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility interests. But by g