下列植物病害中，属于真菌性病原引起的是（）。A、香石竹叶斑病 B、紫薇煤污病 C、月

如图，一列简谐横波沿x轴正方向传播，实线和虚线分别表示t₁=0和t₂=0.5s（T >0.5s）时的波形，能正确反映t₃=7.5s时波形的是图

A.

B.

C.

D.

下列各句中，没有语病的一句是

A．南水北调工程由于尚未全线贯通，奥运期间北京人喝的并非真正的“南水”，而是由河北的4座水库供应的3亿多立方米的“应急水”。

B．世界水文专家协会 * * 来歇尔曾披露：全世界至少有五万人每天死于由水污染引起的各种疾病。

C．近几年来，红色文化日益深入人心，井冈商人开始意识到红色品牌的价值，纷纷抢注“同志哥”“红伢子”“黄洋界”等与红色文化有关的商标。

D．号称源自德国的欧典地板被证实其宣传的德国欧典总部根本是子虚乌有，在“3·15”打假之际被冠上了严重欺诈消费者的行为。

关于无排卵型功血的描述，下列哪项是正确的：（）

A.排卵型月经过多

B.萎缩型子宫内膜

C.子宫内膜脱落不全

D.黄体功能不全

E.排卵期出血

电力营销工作有哪些考核指标？

It was a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free trader crying foul. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided that Tesco, a British supermarket chain, should not be allowed to import jeans made by America’s Levi Strauss from outside the European Union and sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark directive that was designed to protect local, not American, manufacturers from price dumping. The idea is that any brand-owning firm should be allowed to position its goods and segment its markets as it sees fit: Levi’s jeans, just like Gucci handbags, must be allowed to be expensive.

Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands—which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice. Consumer groups and Tesco say that Levi’s case is specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging the price differential between Levi’s jeans sold in America and Europe—a service performed a million times a day in financial markets, and one that has led to real benefits for consumers. Tesco has been selling some 15,000 pairs of Levi’s jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tesco’s head of global non-food sourcing, says the ruling risks "creating a Fortress Europe with a vengeance".

The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how they are sold to protect their image, but whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this. Gucci, an Italian clothes label whose image was being destroyed by loose licensing and over-exposure in discount stores, saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.

Brand experts argue that Levi Strauss, which has been losing market share to hipper rivals such as Diesel, is no longer p enough to command premium prices. Left to market forces, so-so brands such as Levi’s might well fade away and be replaced by fresher labels. With the courts protecting its prices, Levi Strauss may hang on for longer. But no court can help to make it a great brand again.

Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1 （）

A.Consumers and free traders were very angry

B. Only the Levi’s maker can decide the prices of the jeans

C. The ruling has protected Levi’s from price dumping

D.Levi’s jeans should be sold at a high price