题干

现有用同一种材料做成的四个正方体,其中有一个是空心的,它们的边长和质量如图所示,空心的是(  )

A:

B:

C:

D:

上一题 下一题 0.0难度 选择题 更新时间:2020-01-03 06:46:34

答案(点此获取答案解析)

C

同类题3

阅读下面的文字,完成下列小题。

    多余一句话!

    那天我坐公交车去找朋友,车上人不多,但也没有空位子,有几个人还站着吊在拉手上晃来晃去。

    一个年轻人,干干瘦瘦的,戴个眼镜,身旁有几个大包,一看就是刚从外地来的。他靠在售票员旁边,手拿着一个地图在认真研究着,眼不时露出茫然的神情,估计是有点儿迷路了。他犹豫了半天,很不好意思地问售票员:“去颐和园应该在哪儿下车啊?”

    售票员是个短头发的小姑娘,正剔着指甲缝呢。她抬头看了一眼外地小伙子说:“你坐错方向了,应该到对面往回坐。”要说这些话也没什么错了,大不了小伙子下一站下车到马路对面坐回去吧。但是售票员可没说完,她说了那多余的最后一句话:“拿着地图都看不明白,还看个什么劲儿啊!”售票员姑娘眼皮都不抬。

    外地小伙儿可是个有涵养的人,他嘿嘿笑了一笑,把地图收起来,准备下一站下车换车去。

    旁边有个大爷可听不下去了,他对外地小伙子说:“你不用往回坐,再往前坐四站换904也能到。”要是他说到这儿也就完了,那还真不错,既帮助了别人,也挽回北京人的形象。可大爷哪儿能就这么打住呢,他一定要把那多余的最后一句话说完:“现在的年轻人哪,没一个有教养的!”

    我心想,大爷这话真是多余,车上年轻人好多呢,打击面太大了吧。可不,站在大爷旁边的一位小姐就忍不住了。“大爷,不能说年轻人都没教养吧,没教养的毕竟是少数嘛,您这么一说我们都成什么了!”这位小姐穿得挺时髦,两细带子吊个小背心,脸上化着鲜艳的浓妆,头发染成火红色。可您瞧人这话,不像没教养的人吧,跟大爷还“您”啊“您”的。谁叫她也忍不住非要说那多余的最后一句话呢!“就像您这样上了年纪看着挺慈祥的,一肚子坏水儿的可多了呢!”

    没有人出来批评一下时髦的小姐是不正常的。可不,一个中年的大姐说了:“你这个女孩子怎么能这么跟老人讲话呢!要有点儿礼貌嘛,你对你父母也这么说吗?”

    您瞧大姐批评得多好!把女孩子爹妈一抬出来,女孩子立刻就不吭气了。要说这会儿就这么结了也就算了,大家说到这儿也就完了,大家该干嘛干嘛去。可不要忘了,大姐的“多余的最后一句话”还没说呢。“瞧你那样,估计你父母也管不了你。打扮得跟鸡似的!”

    后面的事大家就可想而知了,简单地说,出人命的可能都有。

    这么吵着闹着,车可就到站了。

    车门一开,售票员小姑娘说:“都别吵了,该下的赶快下车吧,别把自己正事儿给耽误了。”当然,她没忘了把最后一句多余的话给说出来:“要吵统统都给我下车吵去,不下去我车可不走了啊!烦不烦啊!”

    烦不烦?烦!不仅她烦,所有乘客都烦了!整个车厢这可叫炸了窝了,骂售票员的,骂外地小伙子的,骂时髦小姐的,骂中年大姐的,骂天气的,骂自个儿孩子的,真是人声鼎沸,甭提多热闹了!

    那个外地小伙子一直没有说话,估计他受不了了,他大叫一声:“大家都别吵了!都是我的错,我自个儿没看好地图,让大家跟着都生一肚子气!大家就算给我面子,都别吵了行吗?”

    听到他这么说,当然车上的人都不好意思再吵,声音很快平息下来,少数人轻声嘀咕了两句也就不说话了。但你们不要忘了,外地小伙子的“多余的最后一句”还没说呢。“早知道北京人都是这么一群不讲理的王八蛋,我还不如不来呢!”

    我那天的事情没有办成,大伙儿先被带到公安局录了口供,然后到医院外科把头上的伤给处理了一下,我头上的伤是在混战中被售票员小姑娘用票匣子给砸的。

    你们可别认为我参与了他们打架,我是去劝架来着。我呼吁他们都冷静一点儿,有话好好说,没什么大事儿,没什么必要非打个头破血流。

    我多余的最后一句话是这么说的:不就是售票员说话不得体吗?你们就当她是个傻瓜,和她计较什么呢?!

同类题4

阅读理解

    Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring one of the two, Australia, gave up the bad distinction by setting up paid family leave starting in 2011. I wasn't surprised when this didn't make the news here in the United States — we're now the only wealthy country without such a policy.

    The United States does have one explicit family policy, the Family and Medical Leave Act, passed in 1993. It entitles workers to as much as 12 weeks' unpaid leave for care of a newborn or dealing with a family medical problem. Despite the modesty of the benefit, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups fought it bitterly, describing it as “government-run personnel management” and a “dangerous precedent (先例).” In fact, every step of the way, as (usually) Democratic leaders have tried to introduce work-family balance measures into the law, business groups have been strongly opposed.

    As Yale law professor Anne Alstott argues, justifying parental support depends on defining(定义) the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for. Parents are burdened in many ways in their lives: there is “no exit” when it comes to children. Society expects — and needs — parents to provide their children with continuity of care. And society expects — and needs — parents to persist in their roles for 18 years, or longer if needed.

    While most parents do this out of love, there are public punishments for not providing care. What parents do, in other words, is of deep concern to the state, for the obvious reason that caring for children is not only morally urgent but important to the future of society. To classify parenting as a personal choice for which there is no collective responsibility is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting; really, it is to steal those benefits because they accrue (累积) to the whole of society as today's children become tomorrow's citizens. In fact, by some estimates, the value of parental investments in children, investments of time and money, is equal to 20-30% of GDP. If these investments bring huge social benefits — as they clearly do — the benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much clearer.