阅读下列短文，从每题所给的四个选项（A、B、C和D）中，选出最佳选项。

     The idea of inventing an international language is not a new one. Over the past 180 years, linguists (语言学家) have created over ten different languages that are based on German, Spanish, and English. One of these was Basic English.

     By 1923 the First World War had been over for five years, but Europe was still recovering from its effects. Charles Kay Ogden, a linguist and writer, was running several bookshops in Cambridge. He published The Meaning of Meaning (1923), a book describing how we use language. The book received high praise, which drove Ogden to design an international language — something that was much simpler than English. In 1930 Ogden's book Basic English: A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar was published.

     Perhaps it takes about seven years for one to become a good English speaker. Ogden believed that Basic English could be learned in seven weeks. There were only 850 words and the grammar was very simple.

     The language attracted the attention of educators all over the world, but its development was stopped by the Second World War. After the war, both the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt looked for ideas that might bring world peace. They both gave speeches that encouraged the use of Ogden's international language. In the past 60 years, the language has had some success. In some parts of East Asia, teachers are still using Ogden's word lists.

     However, in the main, the language has disappeared. Because there are many more non-native than native speakers of English, recently some linguists have asked whether we should give careful consideration to Ogden's ideas again. And the Wikipedia website (www.wikipedia.org) has started a version (版本) written in Basic English for non-native learners of the language. Search for it on the Internet now!  

    Saving money is a golden rule in everyday life. And in the western countries it is especially obvious. As prices and building costs keep rising, the "do-it-yourself" (DIY) trend in the US continues to grow.

    "We need furniture for our living room", says John Rose, "and we just didn't have enough money to buy it. So we decided to try to making a few tables and chairs."

    John got married six months ago, and like many young people these days, they are struggling to make a home at a time when the cost of living is very high. The Roses took a 2-week course for $ 280 at a night school. Now they make all their furniture and repairs around the house.

    Jim Hatfield has three boys and his wife died. He has a full-time job at home as well as in a shoe-making factory. Last month, he received a car repair bill for $420. "I was deeply upset about it. Now I've finished a car repair course, I should be able to fix the car by myself."

    John and Jim are not unusual people. Most families in the country are doing everything they can do to save money so they can fight the high cost of living. If you want to become a DIY, you can go to DIY classes. And for those who didn't have time to take a course, there are books that tell you how you can do things yourself.

    Cooperation at work is generally seen as a good thing. The latest survey by the Financial Times of what employers want from MBA graduates found that the ability to work with a wide variety of people was what managers wanted most. But managers always have to balance the benefits of teamwork, which help ensure that everyone is working towards the same goal, with the dangers of “groupthink” when critics are reluctant to point out a plan's drawbacks for fear of being kept out of the group. The disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 was a classic case of groupthink. Skeptics were reluctant to challenge John F. Kennedy, the newly elected American president.

    Modern communication methods mean that cooperation is more frequent. Workers are constantly in touch with each other via e-mail messaging groups or mobile calls. But does that improve, or lower performance? A new study by three American academics, tried to answer this question. They set a logical problem (designing the shortest route for a travelling salesman visiting various cities). Three groups were involved: one where subjects acted independently; another where they saw the solutions posted by team members at every stage; and a third where they were kept informed of each other's views only intermittently.

    The survey found that members of the individualist group reached the premier solution more often than the constant cooperators but had a poorer average result. The intermittent cooperators found the right result as often as the individualists, and got a better average solution. When it comes to ideal generation, giving people a bit of space to a solution seems to be a good idea. Occasional cooperation can be a big help: most people have benefited from a colleague's brainwave or (just as often) wise advice to avoid a particular course of action.

    Further clues come from a book, Superminds, by Thomas Malone of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He says that three factors determine the collective intelligence of cooperating groups: social intelligence (how good people were at rating the emotional states of others); the extent to which members took part equally in conversation (the more equal, the better); and the cooperation of women in the group (the higher, the better). Groups ranked highly in these areas cooperated far better than others.

    In short, cooperation may be a useful tool but it doesn't work in every situation.