根据以下材料，回答36-40题
Although ethics classes are common around the world, scientists are unsure if their lessons can actually change behavior，evidence either way is weak，relying on contrived laboratory tests or sometimes unreliable self-reports. But a new study published in Cognition found that ,in at least one real-world situation, a single ethics lesson may have had lasting effects.
The researchers investigated one class session's impact on eating meat. They chose this particular behavior for three reasons, according to study co-author Eric Schwitgebel, a philosopher at the University of Califomnia, Riverside: student's attitudes on the topic are variable and unstable, behavior is easily measurable, and ethics literature largely agrees that eating less meat is good because it reduces environmental harm and animal suffering. Half of the students in four large philosophy classes read an article on the ethics of factory-farmed meat, optionally watched an 11-minute video on the topic and joined a 50-minute discussion. The other half focused on charitable giving instead. Then, unknown to the students, the researchers studied their anonymized meal-card purchases for that semester —nearly 14.000 receipts for almost 500 students.
Schwitzgebel predicted the intervention would have no effect; he had previously found that ethics professors do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors，including voting rates, blood donation and returning library books. But among student subjects who discussed meat ethics, meal purchases containing meat decreased from 52 to 45 percent — and this effect held steady for the study's duration of several weeks. Purchases from the other group remained at 52 percent.
"That's actually a pretty large effect for a pretty small intervention" Schwizgebel says. Psychologist Nina Strohminger at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, says she wants the effect to be real but cannot rule out some unknown confounding variable. And if real, she notes, it might be reversible by another nudge: "Easy come, easy go".
Schwitzgebel suspects the greatest impact came from social influence —— classmates or teaching assistants leading the discussions may have shared their own vegetarianism, showing it as achievable or more common. Second, the video may have had an emotional impact. Least rousing, he thinks, was rational argument, although his co-authors say reason might play a bigger role. Now the researchers are probing the specific effects of teaching style, teaching assistants' eating habits and students' video exposure. Meanwhile, Schwitzgebel — who had predicted no effect—will be eating his words.
Eric Schwitzgebel's previous findings suggest that ethics professors
?
Schwitzgebel predicted the intervention would have no effect; he had previously found that ethics professors do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors，including voting rates, blood donation and returning library books.施维茨格贝尔预测干预不会产生任何效果；他之前曾发现，伦理学教授在一系列行为上与其他教授没有区别，包括投票率、献血和归还图书馆书籍。 也就是说伦理老师不会成为一个干扰因素，因为他们跟其他老师在一系列行为上没什么不同，所以D正确，
如何理解今年一季度经常账户逆差的原因和影响？
M 公司是一个无负债公司，其每年预期税息前收益为 10000 元，股东要求的 权益回报率为 16%，M 公司所得税率为 35%，但没有个人所得税，设所有交易 都在完善的资本市场中运行，问： A.M 公司的价值为多少？ B.如果 M 公司借入面值为无负债公司价值的一半的利率为 10%的债务，债务 没有风险，并且所筹集的债务资金全部用于赎回股权，则此时公司的价值变为多 少？而权益资本成本为多少
中美贸易失衡的原因并评价特朗普的贸易政策？
TF 公司正在决定是否执行其豪华办公大楼的建设决定，如果放弃该项权利可以以 5 万美 金的价格转让给开发商。该大楼建设耗资 1000 万美金，两年后可以以 1200 万美金价格卖出。 目前折现率是 10%，但可能变动为 8%或者 12%，两种情况概率对等。如果你是 TF 公司的 CEO，该如何决策？
当前你正在评估一项泰国项目。假设即期汇率1 泰铢=0.5 美金。 泰国通胀率高出美国25%， 即美国通胀 10%的时候，泰国通胀为 12.5%。该项目花费 1000 泰铢，未来三年每年产生 300 泰铢现金流，并在项目结束后以 400 泰铢卖出，该项目对应美金表示现金流适当折现率为 12%。假设相对购买力平价关系成立，求： A.该项目生命期结束预期汇率是多少？ B.该项目以美元表示的净现值是多少？以泰铢表示净现值是多少？
当预期证券市场行情将上升时，市场时机选择者将选择（）的证券组合
对于某只股票而言，判断它的价格是否被低估取决于（ ）值的大小。
某公司普通股的现金股利按照每年 5%的固定速率增长，目前该公司普通股股票的市价为 每股20元，预期下期股利为每股2元，那么该公司以当前价格发行股票筹资的成本为（ ）
