Most drinks stating that they are fruit­flavored (水果味道的) contain no fruit at all, while most of the rest contain only a small quantity of fruit, according to a study carried by the British Food Commission.

    “Shoppers need to check the labels (标签) before buying drinks, though sometimes the actual content can be non­existent，” said Food Commission spokesperson Ian Tokelove. “Food production is highly competitive. {#blank#}1{#/blank#} It will increase profits, and consumers won't always realize they are being tricked.”

    Flavorings are focused on the flavors of natural food products such as fruits, meats and vegetables, or creating flavor for food products that do not have the desired flavors. Researchers analyzed the contents of 28 strawberry­flavored products sold in stores. {#blank#}2{#/blank#} Of the 11 products that did contain strawberries, five of them contained less than one percent real fruit. In addition, each juice box contained nearly eight teaspoons of sugar.

    {#blank#}3{#/blank#} Let's take jam as an example. Some strawberry­flavored jam was labeled as containing no artificial colors, flavors, or sweeteners, but it contained absolutely no strawberries at all.

    {#blank#}4{#/blank#} Consumers have the rights to know clearly about what they have bought. Under current UK law, food packages do not have to distinguish between natural and artificial flavoring. “Describing a product as strawberry flavor and covering the surface of the packet with pictures of strawberries is misleading. {#blank#}5{#/blank#} Unfortunately, it is also legal and widespread,” Tokelove said. “It's time to take measures to protect the consumers' rights.”

A. The products which contain real fruit are popular with people.

B. Even products advertised as more natural often contained no fruit.

C. They found that about 60 percent of them didn't contain any fruit at all.

D. If companies can cut their costs by using flavoring, they are likely to do so.

E. It is important and necessary to demand a small amount of flavoring in the products.

F. Actually the product contains just a tiny percentage of strawberry or even no fruit at all.

G. The Food Commission suggested all flavors used in a product should be listed on the packaging.

    Language learning begins with listening. Children are greatly different in the amount of listening they do before they start speaking, and later starters are often long listeners. Most children will “obey” spoken instructions some time before they can speak, though the word “obey” is hardly accurate as a description of the eager and delighted cooperation usually shown by the child. Before they can speak, many children will also ask questions by gesture and by making questioning noises.

    Any attempt to study the development from the noises babies make to their first spoken words leads to considerable difficulties. It is agreed that they enjoy making noises, and that during the first few months one or two noises sort themselves as particularly expressive as delight, pain, friendliness, and so on. But since these can't be said to show the baby's intention to communicate, they can hardly be regarded as early forms of language. It is agreed, too, that from about three months they play with sounds for enjoyment, and that by six months they are able to add new words to their store. This self-imitation leads on to deliberate imitation of sounds made or words spoken to them by other people. The problem then arises as to the point at which one can say that these imitations can be considered as speech.

    It is a problem we need to get our teeth into. The meaning of a word depends on what a particular person means by it in a particular situation and it is clear that what a child means by a word will change as he gains more experience of the world. Thus the use at seven months of “mama” as a greeting for his mother cannot be dismissed as a meaningless sound simply because he also uses it at other times for his father, his dog, or anything else he likes. Playful and meaningless imitation of what other people say continues after the child has begun to speak for himself. I doubt, however, whether anything is gained when parents take advantage of this ability in an attempt to teach new sounds.

    What's On?

    Electric Underground

    7.30p.m. —1.00a.m.        Free at the Cyclops Theatre

    Do you know who's playing in your area? We're bringing you an evening of live rock and pop music from the best local bands. Are you interested in becoming a musician and getting a recording contract (合同)? If so, come early to the talk at 7.30pm by Jules Skye, a successful record producer. He's going to talk about how you can find the right person to produce you music.

    Gee Whizz

    8.30p.m.—10.30p.m.        Comedy at Kaleidoscope

    Come and see Gee Whizz perform. He's the funniest stand-up comedian on the comedy scene. This joyful show will please everyone, from the youngest to the oldest. Gee Whizz really knows how to make you laugh! Our bar is open from 7.00pm for drinks and snacks (快餐).

    Simon's Workshop

    5.00p.m.—7.30p.m.        Wednesdays at Victoria Stage

    This is a good chance for anyone who wants to learn how to do comedy. The workshop looks at every kind of comedy, and practices many different ways of making people laugh. Simon is a comedian and actor who has 10 years' experience of teaching comedy. His workshops are exciting and fun. An evening with Simon will give you the confidence to be funny.

    Charlotte Stone

    8.00p.m.—11.00p.m.        Pizza World

    Fine food with beautiful jazz music; this is a great evening out. Charlotte Stone will perform songs from her new best-selling CD, with James Pickering on the piano. The menu is Italian, with excellent meat and fresh fish, pizzas and pasta (面食). Book early to get a table. Our bar is open all day, and serves cocktails, coffee, beer, and white wine.

    We talk a lot in the U.S. about success. Success is the dream and the end point. And not by coincidence the idea that hard work leads to personal success is as American as apple pie.

    But the reality is that sometimes we fail. And sometimes things, through no fault of our own, don't go our way. We're faced with a life-changing diagnosis(诊断), the passing of a loved one or job loss. We don't, as a society, have as much to say here.

    I think uncertainty does us all harm. We'd feel better equipped to deal with uncertainty if we talked about it more. I had so fully bought into the belief that with enough effort, I could control what happened in my life. I actually caught myself thinking I could "work my way out" of my cancer. As it turns out, cancer doesn't really care about one's work.

    We might also make wiser decisions--this isn't just a feel-good exercise. For example, technology and medicine have progressed to the point that many patients are living longer than they would have even a decade ago. These are achievements worth celebrating. And yet I wonder if the focus on success is sometimes misguided here as well. If it is one reason why we tend to pursue expensive end-of-life treatments, they often accomplish little other than to make a patient's final days painful and frightening. The fact is that, when asked, many patients would rather focus on living meaningfully in their final days.

    My hope here is to make a case for thinking about meaning, in the same way we think about pursuing success. In that spirit, I've asked several people, each of whom has met misfortune, how they find meaning in their lives. The diversity in their responses reflects the fact that there are no right or wrong answers here. We each can find meaning in different things.

    An open office is supposed to force employees to cooperate. To have them talk more face to face. To get them off instant messenger (IM) and brainstorming new ideas. But a recent study by two researchers offers evidence to support what many people who work in open offices already know: It doesn't really work that way. The noise causes people to put on headphones and tune out. The lack of privacy causes others to work from home when they can. And the sense of being in a fishbowl means many choose email over a desk-side chat.

    Ethan Bernstein and Stephen Turban, two Harvard Business School professors, studied two Fortune 500 companies that made the shift to an open office environment from one where workers had more privacy. Using “sociometric” electronic badges (徽章) and microphones, as well as data on email and instant messenger use by employees, the researchers found in the first study that after the organization made the move to open-plan offices, workers spent 73% less time in face-to-face interaction. Meanwhile, email use rose 67% and IM use went up 75%.

    The participants wore the badges and microphones for several weeks before the office was redesigned and for several after, and the company gave the researchers access to their electronic communications. The results were astonishing. “We were surprised by the degree to which we found the effect,” Bernstein said. The badges could tell that two people had a face-to-face interaction without recording actual spoken words. The researchers were careful to make sure other factors weren't in question—the business cycle was similar, for instance, and the group of employees were the same.

    In a second study, the researchers looked at the changes in interaction between specific pairs of colleagues, finding a similar drop in face-to-face communication and a smaller but still significant increase in electronic correspondence.

    Another wrinkle in their research, Bernstein said, is that not only did workers shift the way of communication they used, but they also tended to interact with different groups of people online than they did in person. Moving from one kind of communication to another may not be all bad—“maybe email is just more efficient,” he said—but if managers want certain teams of people to be interacting, that may be lost more than they think. The shift in office space could “have strong effects on productivity and the quality of work”.

    Bernstein hopes the research will offer evidence that will help managers consider the possible trade-offs of moving to an open office plan. In seeking a lower cost per square foot, they buy into the idea that it will also lead to more cooperation, even if it's not clear that's true. “I don't blame the architects,” he said. “But I do think we spend more of our time thinking about how to design workplaces based on the observer's angle”—the manager—“rather than the observed.”

    Every time a new year is coming, people set out to better themselves. They promise they will lose weight, find a new job, or maybe even take that vacation they've always talked about. But why do we make these promises to ourselves, and where did this tradition come from? Why does this tradition live on when so many people fail to keep the resolutions(决定) they made? Well, we can start by blaming the ancient Babylonians.

    Around 4, 000 years ago in Babylon, the earliest recorded celebration honoring the coming of a new year was held. Calendars weren't as they are today, so the Babylonians did it in late March during the first new moon after the Spring Equinox(春分). The festivities were meant for the rebirth of the sun god, but the Babylonians made promises in order to please their gods. They felt this would help them start the new year off well.

    Resolutions continued on with the Romans. When the early Roman calendar no longer synced(同步) up with the sun, Julius Caesar decided to make a change. He consulted with the best astronomers and mathematicians of the time and introduced the Julian calendar, which more closely represents the modern calendar we use today. Caesar declared January 1 the first day of the year to honor the god of new beginnings, Janus. The Romans celebrated the New Year by offering sacrifices to Janus.

To this day, the traditions of the ancient Babylonians and Romans continue around the world. So much that Google launched a Resolution Map in 2013 where people could add resolutions and see others adding theirs in real time. However, no matter how many people participated in Google's project, the numbers are bleak when it comes to the number of people who maintain their resolutions—-only eight percent of people are successful in sticking them out.