不知道中国建筑设计研究院2020年考研成绩查询地址?进来看看!

发布时间:2020-02-29


各位小伙伴想知道如何查询中国建筑设计研究院2020年研究生考试初试成绩吗?一起来看看吧!

登录中国建筑设计研究院查询入口:https://cadri.cn/cn/job/309 进行成绩查询。

考研成绩查询注意事项:

(1)一般来说,各大考研院校均不再另行寄发书面成绩单,以打印的成绩单为准。

(2)成绩为-1表示缺考,-2表示违纪。

(3)对初试成绩有疑义的考生,可申请复查,具体时间、要求请随时关注网上通知。

(4)如要打印成绩单,请用A4纸横向打印。(打印时,请在文件”->“页面设置中设置页边距的上下左右值均为15毫米。若使用非IE浏览器,请自行调节成绩单上下页边距使其为一页。)

以下是考研复试需要避开的雷区,小伙伴们复试时千万不要犯下面的错误!

1.紧张忘词,说不出话来

有些同学在复试前,背了无数遍知识点,模拟了N次面试现场,但在真正上考场时依旧十分紧张,在自我介绍时还报错了自己的信息,回答问题时也磕磕绊绊,有的甚至一个字也说不出来。复试时大家普遍都会紧张,但太过紧张导致忘词就不好了,这将会严重影响你的成绩。

遇到以上这种情况,不妨握握拳头做个深呼吸,先让心情平稳下来,然后面带微笑组织好语言,让自己的表达清晰有条理。通常情况下,太过紧张是由于对自己的要求太高,或担心自己准备不足,可以适当降低要求,尽量保持平常心去参加复试。

2.急于表现,咄咄逼人

与紧张忘词的表现相反,有一类考生是急于表现自己,在导师问题还没问完便滔滔不绝回答,或是老师还在对你的回答发表见解,你觉得不认同时就立马打断,继续长篇大论发表自己的观点。

这是最为典型的作死表现,虽然看起来像勇于表现自己,但其实是一种不尊重人的行为,你的形象在导师心中将会大打折扣。因此最好要认真听完导师的提问,回答时注意语气,太过尖锐的反驳会显得咄咄逼人。另外,注意要让你的观点有理有据,逻辑清晰。

不知道这篇文章是否有帮到大家呢?如果各位小伙伴还想知道更多关于研究生入学考试的资讯,随时可以到51题库考试学习网进行咨询哦!


下面小编为大家准备了 研究生入学 的相关考题,供大家学习参考。

请举例说明费斯廷格的认知失调理论。

答案:
解析:
认知失调理论是一种认知一致性理论,由费斯廷格提出。认知失调是指由于做了一项与态度不一致的行为而引发的不舒服的感觉。费斯廷格认为,通常人们的态度和行为是一致的,但有时候态度和行为也会有不一致的情况,于是就会产生认知失调。例如,司马紫衣一直认为抽烟影响健康,从不抽烟,但最近司马紫衣开始抽烟了,于是有时候会觉得很别扭。费斯廷格认为,为了克服认知失调带来的紧张,人们需要采取一些办法来减少认知失调。方法如下:①改变态度:司马紫衣可以改变对吸烟的态度,认为适度吸烟其实对健康影响不大,于是态度和行为重新协调起来。②增加认知:司马紫衣发现吸烟能够让人放松、提神,还有助于保持体型,于是态度和行为的不一致性降低了。③改变认知的重要性:司马紫衣觉得健康是一件复杂的事情,吸烟的危害并不比其他行为诸如喝酒、熬夜大,因此认知失调造成的不舒服感下降了。④突出被迫感:司马紫衣的吸烟是因为领导递烟造成的,不得不吸,在其他时候并不吸烟,于是认知失调也没那么严重了。⑤改变行为:司马紫衣决定通过戒烟来降低不舒服感。

从肾小球滤出的HCO3-在近端小管重吸收的主要形式是
A.CO2 B.H+ C.HCO3- D.H2CO 3

答案:A
解析:
参阅【2005N014】。从肾小球滤出的:HCO3-约80%被近端小管重吸收,是以CO2的形式被重吸收的,而不是以原形被重吸收的。

Text 3 Recently,a coalition of business and advocacy groups from around Washington gathered to kick off a campaign to enact a carbon pricing program Known as the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act of D.C.,the plan would place a new tax on all fossil fuels bought or sold,with the hope of ultimately discouraging the use of these polluting energy sources.The big-picture goal of this campaign is admirable:to address the everdeepening crisis of climate chaos by dissuading the continued use of coal,oil and gas.But unfortunately,the approach-one based in a world of financial markets,trading schemes and enticing new public revenue streams-is inherently flawed.Simply put,carbon pricing is a false solution to climate change and a distraction from real,effective climate solutions we must urgently pursue.To date,there is scant evidence to indicate that carbon taxes lower greenhouse gas emissions.In fact,the opposite is true.Recently Food&Water Watch reviewed the British Columbia carbon tax program,often cited by advocates as an example of success.From 2009(the first full year of the tax)t0 2014,emissions from taxed sources grew by 4.3 percent.And in the seven years after the carbon tax took effect,total gasoline sales increased by 7.37 percent.Supporters of such plans like to focus on a deceivingly simple notion that increasing the price of a consumer good will automatically reduce its use.But this just isn't the case when it comes to the purchase of necessities.People must heat their homes in winter,and they must commute to work,regardless of the cost.Those backing the D.C.carbon pricing plan like to note that revenue from the new tax would go toward investment in clean energy sources.But only 20 percent of the generated funds would be allocated in this manner.The rest would be shared out in tax breaks for businesses and rebates for consumers,another factor undercutting the notion that increased costs up front would change consumer behavior in the long run.Meanwhile,fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil are increasingly coming out in support of carbon pricing.This should be cause for alarm for anyone concerned with stamping out the use of the dirty energy sources these corporations profit from.Exxon knows that carbon taxes will do little to change the business-as-usual dependence on oil and gas that it relies on to continue operating and enriching shareholders.Furthermore,corporations such as Exxon rightly view carbon pricing schemes as a means of diverting energy and interest from tougher regulations that might actually encroach on their business plans and bottom lines.Despite what well-intentioned activists want to believe,there is no convenient,market-friendly solution to our serious climate condition.There is only the hard truth that we must tackle the problem at its source:We must stop using fossil fuels,and soon.The latest science indicates that in order to avoid the worst effects of deepening climate chaos,society must transition completely to clean,renewable energy by 2035.
Which of the following is true,according to Paragraphs 4 and 5?

A.Consumers will use less of a good when its price increases.
B.Carbon taxes will benefit the development of clean energy.
C.Increased cost will do little to change the use of necessities.
D.The dependence on fossil fuels will decrease automatically.
答案:C
解析:
[信息锁定]第四段首先介绍一种错误认识“提升某一消费品的价格会自动降低人们对它的使用”。随后作者指¨{其漏洞“对于必需品购买并非如此。无论花费多少,人们必须取暖、通勤(必须使用燃料)”。可见成本提升几乎不会影响人们对必需品的使用,C.正确。[解题技巧]A.为第四段①句碳税方案支持者(Supporters)的观点,但无论是句中deceivingly、还是转折之后内容,都表明本文作者对此观点持反对态度。B.符合第五段①句特区方案支持者(Those backing the D.C.carbon pricing plan)的观点,但转折之后作者否定了这一认识。D.糅杂文中dependence on oil and gas、automatically形成干扰,实际上文中并未提及对化石燃料的依赖将会自动降低。

声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:contact@51tk.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。