巴朗托福听力文本-Test 4(上)

巴朗托福听力文本-Test 4(上) Professor's Office

Professor: So what did you want to see me about Ernie?

$ Student: My grade. I'm not doing very well in this class.

$ Professor: Well, that's not exactly true. You were doing very well until the last test.

$ Student: I got a D. Professor Adams, I've never gotten a D in my life . . . before this, I mean. So that's why I'm here. I hope you can give me some advice.

$ Professor: Well, from my class book, I see that your attendance is excellent. No absences, so that's not the problem.

$ Student: No, I never miss class. I'm a serious student. I just don't know what happened on that test.

$ Professor: Did you bring it? The test?

$ Professor: Okay. I think I remember this, but there were almost a hundred tests to grade, so let's have a look at it.

$ Student: Thanks.

$ Professor: Well, Ernie . . . let's see . . . Here it is. Yes, I do recall this test. You didn't finish it. You stopped after question 15. So you had 5 questions that were counted wrong because they . . . because you didn't complete the test.

$ Student: I know. I didn't watch the time, and I just couldn't believe it when you asked us to hand in the tests.

$ Professor: Yes, I see. But you did a good job on the questions that you did respond to.

$ Student: Professor Adams, maybe you won't believe me, but I know the answers to the questions that I . . .

that . . . that . . .

$ Professor: The ones that you left blank at the end.

$ Student: Yeah. So now I need some advice about how to bring up my grade because a D is going to make a big difference.

$ Professor: This test counts 25 percent so, uh, . . . you're right. It will bring it down at least a letter.

$ Student: I know.

$ Professor: Okay then. The first thing is to learn something from this. You have to find a way to pace yourself through tests or you're going to have this problem again.

$ Student: I know, and believe me, I learned that already.

$ Professor: Okay. That's good. Now, uh, what about the grade for this class?

$ Student: I was hoping you might give me a chance to . . . to maybe do an extra credit assignment.

$ Professor: Hummm. I don't know about that.

$ Student: Oh.

$ Professor: But here's what we can do. If you want to finish the test right now, and your answers are satisfactory, then I'll add some points to your grade.

$ Student: You will? I know the answers. Really . . .

$ Professor: . . . I can't give you full credit for your answers. That wouldn't be fair to the other students, but I can add some points, and that should help you somewhat.

$ Student: Wow. This is great.

$ Professor: Okay. Just take your test over there and finish it. You had about an hour to complete 20 questions, so, uh, . . . that would be 15 minutes to finish the 5 questions you left blank. And Ernie . . . pace yourself.

$ Student: I will! Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Anthropology Class

Professor:

Let’s just pick up where we left off last week. Okay, as you’ll recall, earlier theories about the development of agriculture tended t o view it as a progressive event, or even as a catalyst for everything from art to industry, but I’m going to share a rather different view with you. From a revisionist perspective, the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago didn’t improve the l ives of early farmers. On the contrary, when hunter-gatherers abandoned the

age-old method of foraging for food and began to cultivate crops, they put their health at risk. Now I know it’s just the opposite of . . . it’s quite a different viewpoint let’s s ay, so . . . why would this be so . . . why would their health decline when agriculture provided people with an efficient way to get more food for less work?

Clearly, cultivated fields yield more food per acre than uncultivated land with undomesticated patches of berries and nuts. Well, first let’s consider the conditions that are necessary for agriculture to flourish. In order to have enough labor to plant, tend, and harvest crops, a larger number of people must well, . . . they have to cooperate. That means that the density of the population must increase in the area surrounding the cultivated farms. And, as we know, crowding contributes to the transmission of infectious diseases. So when hunter-gatherers were wandering in small bands, the likelihood of an epidemic was slight, but after the agricultural revolution, tuberculosis . . . and diseases of the intestinal tract . . . these began to reach epidemic proportions in the crowded agricultural communities. And in addition, because the population was no longer mobile and . . . and relied on trade to inject variety into the lives and diets of the farmers, that meant that disease was also transmitted through the exchange of goods.

Now, the revisionists also argue that the content of the diet for early farmers was inferior to that of the

hunter-gatherers. You’ll recall that hunter-gatherers enjoyed a variety of foods selected from wild plants and game, and in studies of modern tribes that have continued the tradition of hunting and gathering food, it appears that those . . . the hunters and gatherers . . . they have a better balance of nutrients and even more protein than tribes that have adopted agricultural lifestyles. Today, three grain crops . . . wheat, corn, and rice . . . these account for the bulk of calories consumed by farming societies.

$ So, consider the implications. Extrapolating from this and from evidence that early farmers raised only one or two crops, we can conclude that a disproportionate amount of carbohydrates formed the basis of their diets.

Now another interesting series of studies involve the skeletal remains of hunter-gatherers as compared with their agricultural relatives. And one such study from Greece and Turkey . . . it indicates that the average height of

hunter-gatherers at the end of the Ice Age was . . . let me check my notes . . . yes, it was 5'9" for men and 5'5" for women. And their bones were strong, healthy, and athletic. But, after the agricultural revolution, skeletal remains revealed that height had diminished to a s hocking 5'3" for men and 5′ for women. And evidence from bone samples suggests that they suffered from diseases caused by malnutrition, like anemia. And this is interesting. Further studies

from paleontologists at the University of Massachusetts project life expectancies for hunter-gatherers at about

twenty-six years, but post agricultural life expectancies were less than twenty years. Let me just read you something from one of the studies by George Armelagos, and I quote, “episodes of nutritional stress an d infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive.” And he’s referring to early farmers here.

So, let’s see where we are. Oh, yes. Consider that hunter-gatherers had the advantage of mobility.

So if food wasn’t plentiful, they brok e camp and moved on in search of an area with a larger food supply.

$ And, if one type of food were in short supply, for example . . . well, berries, then they wouldn’t eat berries but there would probably be a good supply of another type of food, like nuts. Or hunting might compensate for a bad year for plant foods. But farmers were very vulnerable to crop failures. Remember, most early farmers cultivated only one or two crops. If there was a drought and the grain harvest failed, they didn’t have other resources and that’s why they were subject to malnutrition or even starvation. So, as you see, revisionists have made a rather convincing case. To sum it up, according to the revisionists, the development of agriculture put the health of early farmers at risk.

Business Class

Professor:

$ In your textbook, the author states that “companies sell products but companies market brands.” And several of you have asked me about that distinction . . . between selling products and marketing brands. . . . I thought we ought to take some time to talk about it in class. So, let me give you an example. Suppose that we have a company, and the product is chicken. Then it’s easy to understand that we’re selling chicken. Maybe we’re even selling a special preparation of chicken-barbecued chicken-and maybe we include lemonade and a hot roll free with our barbecued chicken. We may even have the best service. But, we’re still selling chicken, even though it’s a special preparation and even though we’ve provided an attractive package with free additional products and good service. All of that is still selling.

$ But what’s marketing then? Well, when we market a product, we have to create meaning that attaches itself to the product . . . something that makes the product more unique and more desirable than other similar products. Maybe this chicken was a family recipe that was handed down from Aunt Ruby. So this isn’t just chicken. It’s Aunt Ruby’s recipe. And eating it is special because she doesn’t give the recipe to anyone b ut family, and being in the restaurant is just like being in Aunt Ruby’s kitchen.

$ How you interpret the experience is just as important as how you view the product. See what I mean?

$ Take a look at commercials on television if you really want to understand marketing because these commercials almost always represent the product as something else—success, sex, youth. All of these are important to the consumer. So, when a car is marketed, for example, it’s shown in the context of a successful crowd o f people in an upscale neighborhood, or the man who buys the car gets the woman, or the woman who buys the car is young, beautiful, and desirable while she’s driving it. And marketing is what attaches that meaning to the product. You may not be able to buy youth, but you can buy products, and the message is that these products will get you what you really want.

Okay, so marketing is selling an image or a benefit . . . something that’s really attractive and larger than the product itself, and by attaching it to the product, we can give that larger meaning to what we want to sell. Go back to the car commercial for a minute. We want to sell cars, but we market them by selling something bigger first, and by association, we sell the cars.

$ This brings us to the term branding. Now branding is similar to marketing because the customer perceives the product as being valuable. So then, branding is more about the customer than it is about the product. It’s the personality of the product that people relate to. Thin k Allstate Insurance, and you’ll probably come up with “You’re in good hands,” and their competitor, State Farm will remind you, “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.” This is an emotional relationship that customers have with the personality of the product. Rob Frankel is probably one of the most widely respected business consultants in the area of product branding. In his book, The Revenge of Brand X, he says, “business is about relationships, not about transactions.” That’s not an exact quote but it’s close. And he’s so right on. Branding isn’t about the product or even about the customer service. It’s about the customer’s perception of the product and the relationship with the personality of the product. And that’s how branding works.

So it’s not a logo, it’s not a name, although name recognition or the familiarity of a logo is helpful. It’s not a commercial or even a string of commercials in a marketing plan. It’s more about loyalty and confidence and all of the things that make a relationship good.

$ Customers have to do more than recognize the brand. They have to be motivated to buy it . . . and . . . and continue to buy it, over time. In a way, it’s a telegraphic marketing message that’s easy to understand and speaks to the customer, and it has to be a consistent message. I mean that to build a brand, and more important, brand loyalty, you have to repeat that message over and over. Say it loud enough and long enough and it starts to sound right, and even more important, it starts to echo in yo ur customers’ heads when they think about making a purchase.

So what’s the result that we’re going for? It’s when the customer will wait until the store gets more of it instead of buying a different brand, or if the price goes up, the customer will pay extra instead of buying a cheaper brand. And this is brand loyalty, which is especially important in an industry where there isn’t very much difference in the competing products. Laundry detergent . . . now that’s really a very similar product across brands . . . but people tend to buy the same one.

Okay then. How do we give our products a personality so we can develop a relationship with customers?

$ Well, Aunt Ruby is someone that we can relate to when we think about chicken. But celebrity spokespersons are an even more obvious option. When kids think about Nike shoes, do they want a relationship with a shoe, with Nike, or with Michael Jordan? It’s pretty obvious that Air Jordan shoes are all about the basketball player. That’s taking branding to its logical conclusion.