What is it about kids these days that makes older generations so easily angry? In some way or another, older generations have been disappointed at the youth's decline since the earliest days of civilization. Even Aristotletalked smack abouthow young folks thought they knew everything back in the 4th century BC.
So why do people throw all the shade on the next generation? A study out last month in Science Advances shows that negative opinions about kids aren't always based on their actions; it's more about how adults praise their past and current selves.
In the study, researehers looked at a trio of characteristics in three groups of US adults: respect for elders or authoritarianism（权威主义），intelligence, and enjoyment of reading. The team, led by John Protzko, a cognitive scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, asked the participants whether they thought kids in the modern age shared the same qualities. They found that adults who tested especially strong in one of the categories tended to see children today as weak in il. For example, if an adult got tagged or self-identified as intelligent, they were more likely to see "kids these days" as less intelligent than they used to be. This, Protzko thinks, is because they remembered their younger selves to be smarter, whether true or not. What's more, they only reserved their strong opinion for characteristics they related to.
In another stage of the study, the authors assigned random scores to participants to trick them into thinking how well-read they were. Many of the adults changed their opinions on kid's reading ability as a result, Protzko speculates that there are two reasons for the shift: How memories can go wrong and the lack of objective knowledge of what childhood is really like. "People who are high in a trail are imposing（迫使）their current high standing in that trait back in time, thinking 'Oh this must have been what all kids were like,' " he says. Over the years, the same memory bias（偏见）keeps occurring, making it seem like kids are somehow failing more and more. In fact,（he older a participant was, the more heavily this bias came into play, Protzko says.
While there's still a lot to learn about why adults might see younger generations as mediocre, this researeh can hint that an age-old phrase can boil down to one classic human trail：vanity（自负）.
―From Popular Science
1. What does the underlined phrase in the first paragraph mean?| A．Expressed his a flection for . | B．Talked positively about. |
| C．Spoke ill of. | D．Thought highly of. |
| A．Negative opinions about kids come from their ill behavior. |
| B．Adults always keeps their previous and present glories in mind. |
| C．Adults hold positive opinions about kids for their actions. |
| D．Kids are always blamed by adults who are more outstanding. |
| A．Because adults got tagged or self-indentified as intelligent. |
| B．Because adults thought they themselves much smarter. |
| C．Because adults hold the view that kids were weaker than them. |
| D．Because adults only remembered their own strengths subjectively. |
| A．Adults hold the bias that kids these days are failing. |
| B．Adults probably forgot all kids have the same characteristics. |
| C．That the same memory bias keeps occurring led to kid's failure. |
| D．The participants ignored the bias as they grew older. |
| A．①②--③④⑤ | B．①--②③④---⑤ |
| C．①②③--④---⑤ | D．①---②---③---④⑤ |
相似题推荐
【推荐1】British children used to play conkers (板栗游戏) in the autumn when the horse-chestnut trees started to drop their shiny brown nuts. They would select a suitable chestnut, drill a hole in it and thread it onto a string, then swing their conker at that of an opponent until one of them broke. But the game has fallen out of favour. Children spend less time outdoors and rarely have access to chestnut trees. Besides, many schools have banned conkers games, worried that they might cause injuries or nut allergies.
That sort of risk-averseness(规避风险) now spreads through every aspect of childhood. Playgrounds have all the excitement designed out of them to make them safe. Many governments, particularly in societies such as America, have tightened up their rules, requiring parents to supervise(监管) young children far more closely than in the past. Frank Furedi of the University of Kent, a critic on modern parenting, argues that allowing children to play unsupervised or leaving them at home alone is increasingly described as a symptom of irresponsible parenting.
In part, such increased caution is a response to the huge wave of changes. Large-scale urbanization, smaller and more mobile families, the move of women into the labor market and the digitization of many aspects of life have unavoidably changed the way that people bring up their children. There is little chance that any of these trends will be changed, so today's more intensive(精细化的) parenting style is likely to go on.
Such parenting practices now embraced by wealthy parents in many parts of the rich world, particularly in America, go far beyond an adjustment to changes in external conditions. They mean a strong bid to ensure that the advantages enjoyed by the parents’ generation are passed on to their children. Since success in life now turns mainly on education, such parents will do their best to provide their children with the schooling, the character training and the social skills that will secure access to the best universities and later the most attractive jobs.
To some extent that has always been the case. But there are more such parents now, and they are competing with each other for what economists call positional goods. This competition starts even before the children are born. The wealthy classes will take their time to select a suitable spouse and get married, and will start a family only when they feel ready for it.
Children from less advantaged backgrounds, by contrast, often appear before their parents are ready for them. In America 60% of births to single women under 30 are unplanned, and over 40% of children are born outside marriage. The result, certainly in America, has been to widen already massive social inequalities yet further.
All the evidence suggests that children from poorer backgrounds are at a disadvantage almost as soon as they are born. By the age of five or six they are far less “school-ready” than their better-off peers, so any attempts to help them catch up have to start long before they get to school. America has had some success with various schemes involving regular home visits by nurses or social workers to low-income families with new babies. It also has long experience with programmes for young children from poor families that combine support for parents with good-quality child care. Such programmes do seem to make a difference. Without extra effort, children from low-income families in most countries are much less likely than their better-off peers to attend preschool education, even though they are more likely to benefit from it. And data from the OECD’s PISA programme suggest that children need at least two years of preschool education to perform at their best when they are 15.
So the most promising way to ensure greater equality may be to make early-years education and care for more widely available and more affordable, as it is in the Nordics. Some governments are already rethinking their educational priorities, shifting some of their spending to the early years.
Most rich countries decided more than a century ago that free, compulsory education for all children was a worthwhile investment for society. There is now an argument for starting preschool education earlier, as some countries have already done. In the face of crushing new inequalities, a modern version of that approach is worth trying.
1. What can we learn from the first two paragraphs?| A．More attention is placed on children’s safety. |
| B．More and more parents are becoming irresponsible. |
| C．Children are no longer interested in outdoor activities. |
| D．Parents are advised to spend more time with their children. |
| A．Chances are that this style could be changed. |
| B．Financial pressure forces parents to be stricter. |
| C．Rich families adopt such style to keep their advantages. |
| D．Such style is largely influenced by the size of the family. |
| A．Economists offer practical advice to guide parenting. |
| B．A happy marriage secures children’s social positions. |
| C．Unfair division of social resources drives parents mad. |
| D．Parents are struggling for their children’s edge over peers. |
| A．Parents are persuaded to give birth to babies in their later years. |
| B．Funds are provided for poor children after they are admitted to school. |
| C．New babies in low-income families are sent to nurses or social workers. |
| D．Children from low-income families are ensured to receive early education. |
| A．Supportive | B．Disapproving |
| C．Skeptic | D．Unconcerned |
| A．show competition overweighs cooperation |
| B．imply educational inequalities should be broken |
| C．make readers aware of the rules of the game |
| D．indicate the game has lost its appeal to children |
【推荐2】Robert F. Kennedy once said that a country’s GDP measures “everything except that which makes life worthwhile.” With Britain voting to leave the European Union, and GDP already predicted to slow as a result, it is now a timely moment to assess what he was referring to.
The question of GDP and its usefulness has annoyed policymakers for over half a century. Many argue that it is a flawed concept. It measures things that do not matter and misses things that do. By most recent measures, the UK’s GDP has been the envy of the Western world, with record low unemployment and high growth figures. If everything was going so well, then why did over 17 million people vote for Brexit, despite the warnings about what it could do to their country’s economic prospects?
A recent annual study of countries and their ability to convert growth into well-being sheds some light on that question. Across the 163 countries measured, the UK is one of the poorest performers in ensuring that economic growth is translated into meaningful improvements for its citizens. Rather than just focusing on GDP, over 40 different sets of criteria from health, education and civil society engagement have been measured to get a more rounded assessment of how countries are performing.
While all of these countries face their own challenges, there are a number of consistent themes. Yes, there has been a budding economic recovery since the 2008 global crash, but in key indicators in areas such as health and education, major economies have continued to decline. Yet this isn’t the case with all countries. Some relatively poor European countries have seen huge improvements across measures including civil society, income equality and the environment.
This is a lesson that rich countries can learn: When GDP is no longer regarded as the sole measure of a country’s success, the world looks very different.
So, what Kennedy was referring to was that while GDP has been the most common method for measuring the economic activity of nations, as a measure, it is no longer enough. It does not include important factors such as environmental quality or education outcomes—all things that contribute to a person’s sense of well-being.
The sharp hit to growth predicted around the world and in the UK could lead to a decline in the everyday services we depend on for our well-being and for growth. But policymakers who refocus efforts on improving well-being rather than simply worrying about GDP figures could avoid the forecasted doom and may even see progress.
1. Robert F. Kennedy is cited because he ________.| A．praised the UK for its GDP |
| B．identified GDP with happiness |
| C．misinterpreted the role of GDP |
| D．had a low opinion of GDP |
| A．the UK is reluctant to remold its economic pattern |
| B．GDP as the measure of success is widely disapproved in the UK |
| C．the UK will contribute less to the world economy |
| D．policymakers in the UK are paying less attention to GDP |
| A．It is sponsored by 163 countries. |
| B．It excludes GDP as an indicator. |
| C．Its criteria are questionable. |
| D．Its results are enlightening. |
| A．the UK is preparing for an economic boom |
| B．high GDP foreshadows an economic decline |
| C．it is essential to consider factors beyond GDP |
| D．it requires caution to handle economic issues |
【推荐3】Eventually, the changes that will strengthen stepfamilies will likely come from shifts in cultural prejudices. Such change is slow, but there are signs that some movement along this line is beginning to take place. For instance, Roger Coleman, a clergyman in Kansas City, Mo., performs marriage ceremonies specifically designed to include children when a parent remarries. In years of officiating second marriages, he says, he became keenly aware of the confusion and insecurities of the children, and the ceremony — which includes a special medal worn by the child — aims to celebrate the “new family” and move the church beyond mere criticism of divorce. This year, Coleman says, over 10,000 families across the country will use the medal in their remarriage ceremony.
Similar changes are occurring in public schools around the country. One of the difficulties for stepfamilies is that schools and other public institutions have typically not recognized the stepparent as a valid parent; school registration forms, field trip permission slips, health emergency information — none of these required or acknowledged the stepparent. The message, whether intended or not, has been that only biological parents count. It’s a message that the stepparent and stepchild internalize, worsening what’s often an already difficult relationship, and one which the larger community takes as another sign that stepfamilies are not legally recognized in American society. Through the efforts of the Step-family Association of America and other advocates, schools around the country have begun changing their policies to acknowledge the increasingly important role of stepparents.
Change is also evident in a marketplace eager to exploit this wide social trend. In a particularly American sign of the times, the Hallmark greeting card company, is about to launch a line of cards devoted entirely to non- traditional families. The cards never use the word “step”, but most of the “Ties That Bind” line is clearly aimed at people who have come together by remarriage rather than biology — or, as one card puts it, “Thrown together without being asked, no chance of escape.” Some are straightforward (“There are so many different types and ways to be a family today”), while others are more indirect (“It’s like at a puzzle where the pieces aren’t where they used to be”). But all are aimed at the vast and growing market of people who don’t identify with the old definitions of family, and who are finding ways to make their new families work. Who knows — soon there may even be a card Tori La Londe can send to her former husband’s former mother-in-law.
1. The marriage ceremonies performed by Roger Coleman _________.| A．always make children feel confused and insecure |
| B．are more romantic than any other marriage ceremony |
| C．are designed to include some children to create an exciting atmosphere |
| D．are arranged to let children attend their parent’s remarriage ceremonies |
| A．biological parents are irreplaceable in the growth of a child |
| B．stepparents are no substitute for the biological ones |
| C．traditional views on the family structure still persist |
| D．efforts are made to facilitate the present situation |
| A．Businesses can benefit more from new patterns of families |
| B．People begin to be open to different new definitions of family |
| C．Sending cards is a good way to tie the bond of the family |
| D．Ex-husband’s ex-mother-in-law plays an important role in the family |
| A．The increasingly important role of stepparents. |
| B．The practical ways to strengthen the stepfamilies. |
| C．The difficulties that are facing the stepfamilies. |
| D．People’s gradual recognition towards stepfamilies. |
【推荐1】What if a rollercoaster ride looked like this: no rails, no trains, just a chair on a mechanical arm (机械手臂) and a pair of glasses—VR glasses meaning virtual reality? That’s how it is in Nanchang, China, where a new amusement park relies entirely on digital entertainment.
Compared with a traditional theme park, this VR theme park takes up smaller space and much less time to build, but it brings visitors similar playing experience. The park uses VR for a variety of attractions, including the roller coaster ride, a musical video game where you have to hit the right notes, and a shooter in a completely unreal environment. It really gives you the feeling of reality.
The park wants to invest in a future technology and hopes to keep people’s fascination with virtual reality of life. For the technology, it is still highly experimental. What we want to do with virtual reality is to experience things in and beyond reality, but in fact the VR we can experience right now has a lot of limits. For example, although on the visual front, we can say we’ve broken past reality in our visual experience, there’s still a lack of physical feedback, meaning we can see the virtual world around us but we can’t feel them. That limits the technology’s appeal from many applications.
For now, one of its main uses is in professional training. For example, for pilots in a Boeing VR simulator(模拟器), a real touchable interface is combined with a virtual world outside. Some significant development is still needed before we can virtually wander around in our houses, go for a walk without leaving the house or actually hold a product in our hands before buying it online. Nanchang hopes to become a significant VR player in the future not just with digital rollercoasters.
1. What can be an advantage of the VR theme park over traditional ones?| A．Its lower cost. | B．Its shorter building time. |
| C．Its larger area. | D．Its more exciting attractions. |
| A．The limits of the present VR technology. |
| B．The uses of VR technology in the future. |
| C．The vivid experience of playing a VR roller coaster. |
| D．The experiments done to improve VR technology. |
| A．Playing a musical instrument. | B．Walking out without leaving the house. |
| C．Training pilots in a simulator. | D．Touching a product when shopping online. |
| A．A Roller Coaster without Rails |
| B．Nanchang: the Next King of VR Technology |
| C．Virtual Reality: Advantages and Disadvantages |
| D．VR Brings Theme Park Visitors New Experience |
【推荐2】When a laptop or smartphone battery starts losing its power, the only options are to buy an expensive replacement, or just keep it plugged in all the time. But a woman Mya Le Thai may have found the answer to this problem.
Thai was frustrated that the batteries for her wireless devices degraded over time, until they failed to charge fully. She did not like having to keep her laptop connected to an electrical outlet to keep it powered on. So, she decided to do something about that problem. At first, she and her team at UC Irvine thought about inventing a new battery. But as they experimented, Thai discovered something that might permit lithium-ion(锂离子) batteries to last forever.
Lithium-ion batteries power most wireless devices. Over time, the batteries lose the ability to hold a charge. Most of these batteries have a life span of about 7,000 charging cycles before they die. One of the reasons lithium-ion batteries degrade is their use of nanowires to carry electricity. Nanowires are extremely thin. A human hair is thousands of times thicker, for example. Nanowires are extremely efficient carriers of electricity, which makes them useful in batteries.
But, Thai had a theory-the nanowires might last longer if covered with a gel(凝胶). She and her team tested this theory. “It was a long process and a lot of work,” Thai said. The team tried many coverings for the wires. PMMA, a type of plastic, was one of them. The nanowires were coated with PMMA and cycled through charges 200,000 times. The PMMA-coated nanowires showed no evidence of damage. The results suggest that batteries could last forever, without losing charging ability.
Thai hopes to continue her research to understand why this gel works so well and to see if any other gel could create better results and she is enjoying the publicity about her discovery. She said she never expected her research to get media coverage. “It’s kind of cool,” she said. “I’m really glad people are showing interest in my work and not just in the work itself, but also in technology and energy.”
1. What can we infer about nanowires?| A．They last only 7,000 charging cycles. | B．They are too weak to carry electricity. |
| C．They are not suitable to use in batteries. | D．Their thinness is a cause of batteries degrade. |
| A．Coating nanowires in gel. | B．A new kind of battery. |
| C．New materials for batteries. | D．A new way of charging batteries. |
| A．The options of batteries for wireless devices | B．A woman invents a life-long battery. |
| C．Mya Le Thai discovered Nanowires | D．The reasons for batteries degrading |
【推荐3】The vaccine (疫苗) news continues to seem very encouraging. Britain started its mass vaccination effort and the U.S. isn’t far behind.
But there is still one dark cloud hanging over the vaccines that many people don’t yet understand.
The vaccines will be much less effective at preventing death and illness in 2021 if they are introduced into a population where the coronavirus is still severe—as is now the case in the U.S.
A vaccine is like a fire hose (消防龙头). A vaccine that’s 95 percent effective, as Moderna’s and Pfizer’s versions appear to be, is a powerful fire hose. But the size of a fire is still a bigger determinant of how much destruction occurs.
At the current level of infection in the U.S. (about 200,000 confirmed new infections per day), a vaccine that is 95 percent effective—distributed at the expected pace—would still leave a terrible toll (伤亡人数) in the six months after it was introduced. Almost 10 million or so Americans would catch the virus, and more than 160,000 would die.
This is far worse than the toll in a different situation where the vaccine was only 50 percent effective but the U.S. had reduced the infection rate to its level in early September (about 35,000 new daily cases). In that case, the death toll in the next six months would be kept to about 60,000.
It’s worth pausing for a moment on this comparison. If the U.S. had maintained its infection rate from September and Moderna and Pfizer had announced this fall that their vaccines were only 50 percent effective, a lot of people would have panicked.
But the reality we have is actually worse.
How could this be? No vaccine can get rid of a pandemic immediately, just as .no fire hose can put out a forest fire. While the vaccine is being distributed, the virus continues to do damage.
There is one positive way to look at this: Measures that reduce the virus’s spread—like mask-wearing, social distancing and rapid-result testing—can still have great consequences. They can save more than 100,000 lives in coming months.
1. How does the author mainly present his argument?| A．By giving definitions. | B．By categorizing facts. |
| C．By drawing comparisons. | D．By appealing to emotions. |
| A．Improving the effectiveness of the vaccines. |
| B．Producing a greater variety of vaccines. |
| C．Looking at the situation in a positive way. |
| D．Wearing masks and practicing social distancing. |
| A．The vaccines are less effective than expected. |
| B．The US have controlled the spread of the coronavirus. |
| C．The death toll in the next six months will be about 60,000. |
| D．Fewer people will die if the infection rate is lower. |
| A．The vaccine is the hope of wiping out the pandemic. |
| B．The public are optimistic about the effects of the vaccine. |
| C．The public are concerned about the high infection rate. |
| D．The distribution of vaccine will end the pandemic quickly. |
【推荐1】By now you’ve probably heard about the “you’re not special” speech, when English teacher David McCullough told graduating seniors at Wellesley High School: "Do not get the idea you're anything special, because you're not." Mothers and fathers present at the ceremony — and a whole lot of other parents across the internet — took issue with McCullough's ego-puncturing words. But lost in the anger and protest was something we really should be taking to heart: our young people actually have no idea whether they're particularly talented or accomplished or not. In our eagerness to elevate their self-esteem, we forgot to teach them how to realistically assess their own abilities, a crucial requirement for getting better at anything from math to music to sports. In fact, it's not just privileged high-school students: we all tend to view ourselves as above average.
Such inflated (膨胀的) self-judgments have been found in study after study, and it's often exactly when we're least competent at a given task that we rate our performance most generously. In a 2006 study published in the journal Medical Education, for example, medical students who scored the lowest on an essay test were the most charitable in their self-evaluations, while high-scoring students judged themselves much more strictly. Poor students, the authors note, "lack insight" into their own inadequacy. Why should this be? Another study, led by Cornell University psychologist David Dunning, offers an enlightening explanation. People who are incompetent, he writes with co-author Justin Kruger, suffer from a "dual burden": they're not good at what they do, and their wry ineptness (笨拙) prevents them from recognizing how bad they are.
In Dunning and Kruger's study, subjects scoring at the bottom of the heap on tests of logic, grammar and humor "extremely overestimated" their talents. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they guessed they were in the 62nd. What these individuals lacked (in addition to clear logic, proper grammar and a sense of humor) was "metacognitive skill" (元认知技巧): the capacity to monitor how well they're performing. In the absence of that capacity, the subjects arrived at an overly hopeful view of their own abilities. There's a paradox (悖论) here, the authors note: “The skills that develop competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain. "In other words, to get better at judging how well we’re doing at an activity, we have to get better at the activity itself.
There are a couple of ways out of this double bind (两难). First, we can learn to make honest comparisons with others. Train yourself to recognize excellence, even when you yourself don't possess it, and compare what you can do against what truly excellent individuals are able to accomplish. Second, seek out feedback that is frequent, accurate and specific. Find a critic who will tell you not only how poorly you're doing, but just what it is that you're doing wrong. As Dunning and Kruger note, success indicates to us that everything went right, but failure is more ambiguous: any number of things could have gone wrong. Use this external feedback to figure out exactly where and when you screwed up.
If we adopt these strategies — and most importantly, teach them to our children — they won't need parents, or a commencement(毕业典礼) speaker, to tell them that they're special. They'll already know that they are, or have a plan to get that way.
1. The underlined phrase "took issue with" in paragraph 1 most probably means .| A．totally approved of | B．disagreed with |
| C．fully understood | D．held discussion about |
| A．we don’t know whether our young people are talented or not |
| B．young people can't reasonably define themselves |
| C．no requirement is set up for young people to get better |
| D．we always tend to consider ourselves to be privileged |
| A．They lack the capacity to monitor how well they are performing. |
| B．They usually give themselves high scores in self-evaluations. |
| C．They tend to be unable to know exactly how bad they are. |
| D．They are intelligently inadequate in tests and exams. |
| A．are not confident about their logic and grammar |
| B．tend to be very competent in their high-scoring fields |
| C．don't know how well they perform due to their stringent self-judgment |
| D．is very careful about their self-evaluations because they have their own limits |
| A．the best way to recognize excellence is to study past success and failure |
| B．through comparison with others, one will know where and when he fails |
| C．we need internal honesty with ourselves and external honesty from others |
| D．neither parents nor a commencement speaker can tell whether one is special |
| A．Special or Not? Teach Kids To Figure It Out |
| B．Let's Admit That We Are Not That Special |
| C．Tips On Making Ourselves More Special |
| D．Tell The Truth: Kids Overestimate their Talents |
Innocence is such a precious gift. It’s explained as freedom from guilt or wrong doing. Just imagine never having to worry about anything and having a guilt free mind. Some people wish to save this kind of innocence from being lost from childhood to adulthood.
What would the world be like if innocence were never lost? One way it would benefit humanity is the lack of hatred （仇恨）among the world. During youth, there may be an occasional argument, even a little physical fight, but nothing like firing a handgun at a fellow human being. And children are blind towards the racial differences of others. A kid will hang out with any other kid. It is the lack of innocence and the ignorance we learn from adults that influence children otherwise. Another benefit is the constant desire for fun and adventure. With very little if any time at all for fun，the adventurous mind is lost in time with the responsibilities placed upon adults. If innocence were kept alive, these ambitions would never depart from our lives.
However, other people actually hate the idea of innocence lasting for ever. They feel that the lack of organization and mental power of those with innocence would cause extremely destructive consequences to society in general. A large number of individuals would never have the urge to learn, work, and act upon the necessary needs for humanity to survive. Without a proper education which is usually provided by those who no longer live in a world of innocence, people would not have the desire to succeed, get a good job in life, or provide income for their families, which would hurt the lives of children.
The lack of a good education and career would also harm the economy. As long as innocence is kept alive, no one would be terribly angered at the lack of effort people put out in the workplace, resulting in a strong decline in production and quality of needed goods.
Maybe it is wrong in wanting to save innocence. It sure is a nice thought, though. Perhaps innocence was meant to be lost. It was God’s will to make things the way they are, and there is a good purpose for everything. All that remains to be said about innocence is to enjoy it while it lasts.
1. Author believes that the loss of innocence in adulthood should be _____.| A．avoided | B．ignored |
| C．accepted | D．encouraged |
| A．proper education would be provided |
| B．there would be no racial discrimination |
| C．more happy families would be guaranteed |
| D．people would realize their childhood dreams |
| A．motivational will |
| B．mental ability |
| C．adventurous ambitions |
| D．needed goods |
CP: Central Point P: Point Sp: Sub-point (次要点) C: Conclusion
A． | B． |
C． | D． |
【推荐3】The vaccine (疫苗) news continues to seem very encouraging. Britain started its mass vaccination effort and the U.S. isn’t far behind.
But there is still one dark cloud hanging over the vaccines that many people don’t yet understand.
The vaccines will be much less effective at preventing death and illness in 2021 if they are introduced into a population where the coronavirus is still severe—as is now the case in the U.S.
A vaccine is like a fire hose (消防龙头). A vaccine that’s 95 percent effective, as Moderna’s and Pfizer’s versions appear to be, is a powerful fire hose. But the size of a fire is still a bigger determinant of how much destruction occurs.
At the current level of infection in the U.S. (about 200,000 confirmed new infections per day), a vaccine that is 95 percent effective—distributed at the expected pace—would still leave a terrible toll (伤亡人数) in the six months after it was introduced. Almost 10 million or so Americans would catch the virus, and more than 160,000 would die.
This is far worse than the toll in a different situation where the vaccine was only 50 percent effective but the U.S. had reduced the infection rate to its level in early September (about 35,000 new daily cases). In that case, the death toll in the next six months would be kept to about 60,000.
It’s worth pausing for a moment on this comparison. If the U.S. had maintained its infection rate from September and Moderna and Pfizer had announced this fall that their vaccines were only 50 percent effective, a lot of people would have panicked.
But the reality we have is actually worse.
How could this be? No vaccine can get rid of a pandemic immediately, just as .no fire hose can put out a forest fire. While the vaccine is being distributed, the virus continues to do damage.
There is one positive way to look at this: Measures that reduce the virus’s spread—like mask-wearing, social distancing and rapid-result testing—can still have great consequences. They can save more than 100,000 lives in coming months.
1. How does the author mainly present his argument?| A．By giving definitions. | B．By categorizing facts. |
| C．By drawing comparisons. | D．By appealing to emotions. |
| A．Improving the effectiveness of the vaccines. |
| B．Producing a greater variety of vaccines. |
| C．Looking at the situation in a positive way. |
| D．Wearing masks and practicing social distancing. |
| A．The vaccines are less effective than expected. |
| B．The US have controlled the spread of the coronavirus. |
| C．The death toll in the next six months will be about 60,000. |
| D．Fewer people will die if the infection rate is lower. |
| A．The vaccine is the hope of wiping out the pandemic. |
| B．The public are optimistic about the effects of the vaccine. |
| C．The public are concerned about the high infection rate. |
| D．The distribution of vaccine will end the pandemic quickly. |
【推荐1】If you wear glasses, chances are you are smarter. Research published in the famous British journal Nature Communications has found that people who displayed higher levels of intelligence were almost 30 percent more likely to wear glasses.
The scientists studied the genes of thousands of people between the ages of 16 and 102.The study showed intelligence can be connected to physical characteristics. One characteristic was eyesight. In out of 10 people who were more intelligent, there was a higher chance they needed glasses. Scientists also said being smarter has other benefits. It is connected to better health.
It is important to remember these are connections which are not proven causes. Scientists call this correlation. Just because something is connected to something else does not mean one of those things caused the other. And it’s worth noting that what constitutes intelligence is subjective and can be difficult, if not impossible, to measure.
Forget genes though. Plenty of proof shows wearing glasses makes people think you are more intelligent, even if you do not need glasses. A number of studies have found people who wear glasses are seen as smarter, hard-working and honest. Many lawyers use this idea to help win their cases. Lawyer Harvey Solves explained this. Glasses soften their appearance. He said Sometimes there has been a huge amount of proof showing that people he was defending broke the law. He had them wear glasses and they weren’t found guilty.
Glasses are also used to show someone is intelligent in movies and on TV. Ideas about people who wear glasses have begun to shift. People who do not need glasses sometimes wear them for fashion only. They want to look worldly or cool. But not everyone is impressed by this idea, though. GQ magazine said people who wear glasses for fashion are trying too hard to look smart and hip (时髦的). However, that hasn’t stopped many celebrities from happily wearing glasses even if they do not need them. Justin Bieber is just one high-profile fan of fashion glasses.
1. What does the new study show?| A．People wearing glasses are smarter. |
| B．People wearing glasses are healthier. |
| C．Wearing glasses can make people cleverer. |
| D．Wearing glasses is associated with higher IQ. |
| A．Shift. | B．Link. | C．Proof. | D．Consequence. |
| A．Because it can create a moral image. |
| B．Because it can mislead the witnesses. |
| C．Because it can highlight clients’ qualities. |
| D．Because it can prove the clients’ innocence. |
| A．Positive. | B．Negative. | C．Mixed | D．Indifferent. |
【推荐2】Eggs make for a delicious meal, and for the past few years, we’ve been able to enjoy them guilt-free. Now, they are declared as “bad egg” again.
Researchers from Northwestern University collected data from six previous studies that tracked the health of 29, 615 adults for about 18 years on average. After gathering results from the various studies, they concluded that 300 milligrams of cholesterol (胆固醇) per day slightly raised a person’s risk of heart disease. One egg contains about 186 milligrams of cholesterol.
“These participants weren’t given periodic questionnaires, they were given one questionnaire,” says Lauren Slayton, a nutritionist. “That’s like drawing conclusions about someone’s fashion sense by what they wore 20 years ago.” No one followed up to see if the diet reports were accurate or to find out whether people changed their diet.
Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, told NPR: “So much data have already been published on this topic, which generally show that low-to-moderate egg consumption (no more than one egg per day) is not associated with increased risk of heart attack.” Plus, there are also many other risk factors that contribute to heart disease.
Before you quit your breakfast favorite, you should know that this research is far from the last word on eggs. In other words, don’t feel like you have to drop eggs from your diet based on one study. If you’re concerned about your cholesterol, discuss your diet with your doctor—and consider your exercise routine and other health factors, too. If your heart risk is rising, you may want to check out the best—and worst—diets for your heart.
1. What is the writing purpose of the text?| A．To test what previous studies found. |
| B．To discourage people from eating eggs every day. |
| C．To measure how much cholesterol an egg contains. |
| D．To show the link between egg-eating and health risk. |
| A．The findings are out of date. | B．This kind of research is limited. |
| C．No one cares about the research. | D．The results should be tested again. |
| A．Consult the doctor often. | B．Seek for professional aid. |
| C．Do exercise on a daily basis. | D．Have a sharp mind in your diet. |
| A．Cold. | B．Uncertain. | C．Doubtful. | D．Positive. |
【推荐3】As the international demand for narrative(叙事的) film/TV content continues to increase with popular streaming services like Netflix and others the two questions then come: will the coming generations receive most of their entertainment through visual means rather than through the written word and will such an increase of narrative film/ TV reduce the importance of reading?
Growing examples of this trend include the diminishment(减少) of fiction in the common core (核心的)curriculum, the ever－rising culture of computer games, the wave of streaming services of wide international reach, and movies filled with special effects made for children and teenagers. Nor must we ignore the economic dangers that lie ahead for the written word. The narrative film industry is a moneymaker that dwarfs(使相形见绌) the publishing industry.
The other underlying question, of course, is “does it really matter if the written word bows to the world of film/TV?” From my point of view, any diminishment of fiction delivered by words is a loss for mankind.
There is no greater human feature than the imagination. It lies at the very soul of the human species. It is the brain’s most powerful engine. It is the essential muscle of life and like all muscles it must be exercised and strengthened.
Writing and reading are the principal tools that inspire, create and empower our imagination. Anything that diminishes that power is the enemy of mankind.
It should be known that I am not opposed to new media and technological advances. Instead, I have always felt it necessary to adapt to advancing technology. In fact, a number of my novels are in various stages of development for film, TV, and live stage productions. My hope is that the written word will only stand to be complemented(补充)by its visual counterparts(对应物), not pushed to the edge of extinction.
Of course, there are those who will present arguments for the superiority of the moving image over the written word. Each has its place. My argument is for finding the right balance between it and the moving image.
1. In what way does narrative film/TV embarrass the written word?| A．Economic benefits | B．International reach |
| C．Cultural influence | D．Educational importance |
| A．It strengthens our muscles. | B．It helps sharpen imagination. |
| C．It distinguishes man from each other. | D．It paves the way for narrative film/TV. |
| A．Cautious | B．Skeptical |
| C．Positive | D．Critical |
| A．The fate of reading. | B．The extinction of fiction. |
| C．The impact of the written word. | D．The future of the moving image. |
