【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 ogether for diner but more time together for breakfast. Oneonone interaction between parents and children varies, however, based on parent, shift, and age of children. There is also a greater reliance on child care by relatives and by professional providers.Working nonstandard hours is less a choice of employees and more a mandate of employer. Presser believes that the need for swing shifts and weekend work will continue to rise in the ing decades. She reports that in some European countries there are substantial salary premiums for employees working irregular hours—sometimes as much as 50% higher. The convenience of having services available 24 hours a day continues to drive this trend.Unfortunately, says Presser, the issue is virtually absent from public discourse. She emphasizes the need for focused studies on costs and benefits of working odd hours, the physical and emotional health of people working nights and weekends, and the reasons behind the necessity for working these hours. “Nonstandard work schedules not only are highly prevalent among American families but also generate a level of plexity in family functioning that needs greater attention,” she says. （360 words ）Passage 2Most human beings actual1y decide before they think. When any human being－executive, specialized expert, or person in the street－encounters a plex issue and forms an opinion, often within a matter of seconds, how thoroughly has he or she explored the implications of the various courses of action? Answer: not very thoroughly. Very few people, no matter how inte1ligent or experienced, can take inventory of the many branching possibilities, possible outes, side effects, and undesired consequences of a policy or a course of action in a matter of seconds. Yet, those who pride themse1ves on being decisive often try to do just that. And once their brains lock onto an opinion, most of their thinking thereafter consists of finding support for it.A very serious side effect of argumentative decision making can be a lack of support for the chosen course of action on the pat of the “l(fā)osing” faction. When one faction wins the meeting and the others see themselves as losing, the battle often doesn’t end when the meeting ends. Anger, resentment, and jealousy may lead them to sabotage the decision later, or to reopen the debate at later meetings.There is a better. As philosopher Aldous Huxley said, “It isn’t who is right, but what is right, that counts.”The structuredinquiry method offers a better alternative to argumentative decision making by debate. With the help of the Internet and wireless puter technology the gap between experts and executives is now being dramatically closed. By actually putting the brakes on the thinking process, slowing it down, and organizing the flow of logic, it’s possible to create a level of clarity that sheer argumentation can never match.The structuredinquiry process introduces a level of conceptual clarity by organizing the contributions of the experts, then brings the experts and the decision makers closer together. Although it isn’t possible or necessary for a president or prime minister to listen in on every intelligence analysis meeting, it’s possible to organize the experts’ information to give the decision maker much greater insight as to its meaning. This process may somewhat resemble a marketing focus group。 it’s a simple, remarkably clever way to bring decision makers closer to the source of the expert information and opinions on which they must base their decisions. （382 words ）Passage 3Sport is heading for an indissoluble marriage with television and the passive spectator will enjoy a private paradise. All of this will be in the future of sport. The spectator (the television audience) will be the priority and professional clubs will have to readjust their structures to adapt to the new reality: sport as a business.The new technologies will mean that spectators will no longer have to wait for broadcasts by the conventional channels. They will be the ones who decide what to see. And they will have to pay for it. In the United States the system of the future has already started: payasyouview. Everything will be offered by television and the spectator will only have to choose. The review Sports Illustrated recently published a full profile of the life of the supporter at home in the middle of the next century. It explained that the consumers would be able to select their view of the match on a gigantic, flat screen occupying the whole of one wall, with images of a clarity which cannot be foreseen at present。 they could watch from the trainer’s stands just behind the batter in a game of baseball or from the helmet of the star player in an American football game. And at their disposal will be the sane options the producer of the recorded programmer has to select replays, to choose which camera to me and to decide on the sound whether to hear the public, the players, the trainer and so on.Many sports executives, largely too old and too conservative to feel at home with the new technologies will believe that sport must control the expansion of television coverage in order to survive and ensure that spectators attend matches. They do not even accept the evidence which contradicts their view while there is more basketball than ever on television, for example, it is also certain that basketball is more popular than ever.It is also the argument of these sports executives that television harming the modest team. This is true, but the future of those teams is also modest. They have reached their ceiling . It is the law of the market. The great events continually attract larger audience.The world is being constructed on new technologies so that people can make the utmost use of their time and, in their home have access to the greatest possible range of recreational activities. Sport will have to adapt itself to the new world.The most visionary executives go furt