Has your mom or dad ever posted a photo of you on social media that you don’t want anyone outside your family to see? In an age when people regularly share personal information on websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, many parents post photos of their children on a regular basis. On average, a parent will post almost 1,000 photos of a child online before the children turns 5, according to a survey.
Parents often post photos on social media because they want to share their children’s milestones and special moments with friends and family. Some moms and dads do it as a way to connect with other parents. They may be seeking health tips or other parenting advice. Most parents don’t ask their children for permission before posting photos of them. They feel it is not necessary to consult the children first because the benefits outweigh (比……更重要) any possible risks.
Other parents and child experts believe that children older than age 6 should be consulted. They say that the photos can stay online for many years and that children should have some control over their online presence. Devorah Heitner is an author who runs workshops about children and digital world. She believes that parents should get their children’s consent before posting their photos. “It teaches your child that his or her image is his or her own.” she said. “It helps their child recognize that sharing is a choice and that some things are private.”
What do you think? Should parents get their children’s permission before posting photos?
1. What is the likely reason that parents put their children’s photos online?| A．Turn to others for advice on health. |
| B．To communicate with their children. |
| C．To show off their children’s pretty looks. |
| D．To share their children’s learning problems. |
| A．Moment. | B．Permission. |
| C．Advice. | D．Information. |
| A．Children have no right to post their digital photos. |
| B．Its parents’ choice whether to postpone children’s digital photos |
| C．Parents should teach their children that images are their privacy. |
| D．Parents should post children’s digital photos without hesitation. |
| A．Whether posting children’s photo online is good for them. |
| B．The benefits of posting children’s photos online. |
| C．Why parents like to post their children’s photos online. |
| D．Whether parents should get children’s permission before posting their photos. |
相似题推荐
On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicted that 42% of Americans could be overweight by 2030. Our expanding bodies not only lead to a medical problem, but also endanger personal safety in some situations—in an airplane crash, for example, according to a recent article in The New York Times.
The New York Times’ Christine Negroni reports that engineers and scientists are questioning whether airplane seats are designed to protect overweight travelers. Government standards(标准) for airplane seat strength—first set more than 60 years ago---require that the seats be made for a passenger weighing 170 pounds. Today, the average American man weighs nearly 194 pounds and the average woman 165 pounds. Negroni reports:
“If a heavier person completely fills a seat, the seat is not likely to behave as designed during a crash,” Robert Salzar, the leading scientist at the Center for Applied Biomechanics at the University of Virginia. “The energy that is built into the aircraft seat is likely to be overpowered and the passengers will not be protected properly”.
“Nor would the injury be limited to that passenger only,” Dr. Salzar said. “If a seat or a seat belt fails,”he said, “those people who are seated nearby could not be safe from the uncontrolled movements of the passenger.”
Most complaints(投诉) about airplane seats focus on their lack of comfort and high ticket price, and whether overweight passengers should be made to buy two seats. But The New York Times’ article brings up another reason to feel anxious about flying. Investigators(调查者) got in touch with the airplane seat and seat belt makers, but they refused to talk about the problem. Experts agreed that crash testing should be done. Both airplane seats and seat belts should be tested, they said.
Fortunately, however, according to Nora Marshall, a senior adviser at the National Transportation Safety Board, the board’s investigators have never seen an accident involving a commercial plane in which the weight of a passenger was a problem.
1. What is the article in The New York Times mainly about?
| A．The size of airplane seats and seat belts. |
| B．Safety of overweight airplane passengers. |
| C．Airplane crashes. |
| D．A medical problem caused by being overweight. |
| A．overweight passengers should buy two seats |
| B．the government should help produce safer planes |
| C．standards for airplane seat strength should be raised |
| D．passengers should know how to protect themselves |
| A．Experts. |
| B．Passengers. |
| C．Investigators. |
| D．The airplane seat makers. |
| A．airplane seat makers have taken action now |
| B．there are few complaints about airplane seats |
| C．those seated near the overweight may suffer , too |
| D．only a small number of airplane accidents result from the overweight |
| A．Why do passengers Feel Anxious about Flying? |
| B．Will 42% of Americans Be Overweight by 2030? |
| C．When Will the Overweight Enjoy Their Flight? |
| D．Are Airplane Seats Safe Enough for the Overweight? |
【推荐2】It is commonly believed that all over the world, boys and girls attend a mixed school, where they study together. But boys' schools are the perfect place to teach young men to express their emotions and involve them in activities such as art, dance and music.
Always boys at single-sex schools were said to be more likely to get involved in cultural and artistic activities that helped develop their emotional expressiveness, rather than feeling they had to correspond to(和…相符) the "boy code" of hiding their emotions to be a "real man".
Surprisingly, the findings of the study go against received wisdom that boys do better when taught alongside girls.
George Carl, headmaster of Eton, warned that boys were being failed by the British education system because it had become too focused on girls. He criticized teachers for failing to recognize that boys are actually more emotional than girls.
The research argued that boys often perform badly in mixed schools because they become discouraged when girls do better earlier in speaking and reading skills.
But in single-sex schools teachers can adjust lessons to boys' learning style, letting them move around the classroom and getting them to compete in teams to prevent boredom, wrote the study's author, Abigail James, of the University of Virginia.
Teachers could encourage boys to enjoy reading and writing with "boy-focused" approaches such as themes and characters that appeal to them. Because boys generally have more acute vision, learn best through touch, and are physically more active, they need to be given "hands-on" lessons where they are allowed to walk around. "Boys in mixed schools view classical music as feminine (女性的) and prefer the modern genre (类型) in which violence and sexism are major themes," James wrote.
Single-sex education also made it less likely that boys would feel that they had to be "masterful and in charge" in relationships. "In mixed schools, boys feel forced to act like men before they understand themselves well enough to know what that means," the study reported.
1. The writer argues that a single-sex school would ________.| A．force boys to hide their emotions to be "real men". |
| B．help boys to be more competitive in schools. |
| C．encourage boys to express their emotions more freely |
| D．naturally strengthen boys’ traditional image of a man |
| A．perform relatively better. | B．behave more responsibly. |
| C．grow up more healthily. | D．receive a better education. |
| A．boys can choose to learn whatever they are interested in |
| B．teaching can be adjusted to suiting the characteristics of boys |
| C．boys can focus on their lessons without being distracted |
| D．teaching can be designed to promote boys' team spirit |
| A．lovely | B．sharp |
| C．serious | D．dull |
【推荐3】In the early times, the music industry was afraid of taping, thinking that customers would just copy music, or record from the radio. But that never really happened, at least not enough to cause any real hardship to anyone in the music business.
The same argument arose over technologies like MiniDisc and recordable CDs. But the thing that frighten the music industry more than anything else was the arrival of services like Napster, which allowed people to share music over the Internet without costing them anything. The music industry was shocked; it saw people exchanging digital copies that didn't lower the grade with each transfer, something that stopped tapes being a huge threat.
But it wasn't the Internet that killed the music industry. In fact, everything is still looking optimistic for many musicians. Taylor Swift has had a good year, and her latest album is likely to be making her very rich indeed. And that won't change in all likelihood, not for Swift, and not for those who come after her. There is always going to be public demand for music.
However, the technology will simply destroy the record company. The reason is simple. Record companies are a man in the middle that simply doesn't need to exist anymore. The same way we buy our flights direct, and get our shopping online and have things delivered from Amazon instead of going to a local shop. We have always been willing to enjoy cost reductions at the expense of the middleman, and the record companies are that kind of middleman.
What does the record industry offer? Well, surprisingly little these days. It used to be the case that record companies would go and find new talents. Of course this still happens, but more likely is that an artist will be discovered by the public through YouTube, or even from friends on Facebook or Twitter. Record companies also used to have an important role in producing the music. But countless artists are making their own way through software or any of the other amazing music development apps, without any help from the record companies.
1. What is Napster most probably?| A．A radio show. | B．A CD player. | C．A software. | D．A tape recorder. |
| A．It was hard to transfer. | B．It was strictly controlled. |
| C．It didn't save much money. | D．It couldn't keep the quality of music. |
| A．The Internet won't destroy the music industry. |
| B．The musicians will benefit a lot from the Internet. |
| C．The sales of albums are badly affected by the Internet. |
| D．The demand for music will change due to the Internet. |
| A．They will sell latest albums online. |
| B．They will become less important in the Internet society. |
| C．They will cut the expense on producing the music. |
| D．They will go and find new music talents through the Internet. |
【推荐1】Future history books might record that we were robbed of the use of our eyes. In our hurry to get from one place to another, we fail to see anything on the way. Air travel gives you a bird’s—eye view of the world—— or even less if the wing of the aircraft happens to get in your way. When you travel by car or train, you are moving so quickly that you do not see the countryside clearly. Car drivers are forever thinking about going on and on; they never want to stop. Is it the great motorways, that attract them, or what? And as for sea travel, it hardly deserves mention. It is perfectly summed up in the words of the old song, “I joined the navy to see the world, and what did I see? I saw the sea.” You mention the place names in the world like EI Dorado, Kabul and someone is sure to say “I’ve been there” meaning “I drove through it at 100 miles an hour on the way to somewhere else.”
When you travel at high speed, the present means nothing: you live mainly in the future because you spend most of your time looking forward to arriving at some other places. But actual arrival, when it is achieved, is meaningless. You want to move on again. By traveling like this, you suspend (中止) all experience; the present stops being a reality: you might just as well be dead.
The traveler on foot, on the other hand, lives constantly in the present. For him traveling and arriving are one and the same thing: he arrives somewhere with every step he makes. He experiences the present moment with his eyes, his ears and the whole of his body. At the end of his journey he feels a delicious physical tiredness. Satisfying sleep will be his: the just reward of all true travelers.
1. The underlined words “get in your way” in Paragraph 1 can be replaced by ________| A．prevent you from going out of the plane halfway | B．expand your range of vision |
| C．block your sights | D．make your travel continue |
| A．They fail to see the scenery with their hearts. |
| B．They make full use of their eyes. |
| C．They get a good view of the landscape. |
| D．They are eager to see everything on the way. |
| A．Because we change our aims all the time. |
| B．Because we cannot enjoy the experience we have had. |
| C．Because we are looking forward to the future life. |
| D．Because we are eager to go to another place. |
| A．To go hiking in the mountain. |
| B．To travel at high speed. |
| C．To travel by car or train. |
| D．To go around the world. |
| A．Different Travelers | B．True Traveling |
| C．Ways of Traveling | D．The Use of Eyes |
【推荐2】The concept of a “born leader” seems so fanciful that it belongs on the cover of a bad business book. But it turns out that born leaders are real, and researchers have discovered a key factor, which isn’t genes, parents, or peers, but birth order.
First-born children are 30 percent more likely to be CEOs or politicians, according to a new paper by several economists, Sandra E. Black at the University of Texas-Austin, and Bjorn Ockert and Erik Gronqvist at Sweden’s Institute for Evaluation of Labor Market and Education Policy. The paper, which only looked at boys, found that first-borns stay in school longer, make more money, have a higher IQ, and even spend more time on homework than on television,
The idea that birth order might shape personality goes back at least to the 1920s, when Alfred Adler theorized that first-born children develop a “taste for power” at a young age, since they can dominate their younger siblings. He went on to say young children are spoiled and become dependent on their parents (the “baby of the family” effect), while middle children, being often in a war for their parents’ attention, are status-conscious and naturally competitive.
Obtaining personality from birth may strike you. But Adler’s hypotheses (假说) have held up in numerous studies. In a 2013 paper, “Strategic Parenting, Birth Order and School Performance,” V. Joseph Hotz, a professor of economics at Duke University, and Juan Pantano, a professor of economics at Washington University in St. Louis, used American data to show that school performance declines with birth order.
The researchers chalked their findings up to what they called the “reputational model of strategic parenting.” Put simply, parents invest a lot of time in establishing rules for their first child, building a reputation for toughness that they hope will pass down to later children. As a result, first-borns are doubly blessed — having too much of their parents’ attention, and then entrusted to act as the rules enforcer of the family, which helps them build intelligence, discipline, and leadership qualities. In the survey, parents report that they consider their older children more successful, and they are less likely to discipline their later-born children for improper behaviors, such as acting up or not doing homework.
This new study relies on Swedish data, and it comes to a similar conclusion. First-borns aren’t just healthier or smarter, but also they score higher on “emotional stability, persistence, social outgoingness, willingness to assume responsibility and ability to take the initiative.” Its researchers ruled out genetic factors; in fact, they uncovered evidence that later-born children might be healthier than first-borns.
Instead, the differences among siblings had everything to do with family dynamics in the children’s early years. First, having more children means parents can spend less time on each child, and as the parental investment declines, so may IQ.
Second, the most important effect, the researchers said, might not be the “strategic parenting” but something more like “strategic brothering.” As siblings compete for their parents’ love (or ice cream, or toys), they occupy certain positions---older siblings demonstrate their competence and power, while younger siblings develop more creative strategies to get attention. This effect seems particularly strong among later-born boys with older brothers. Younger brothers are much more likely to enter “creative” occupations — like architect, writer, actor, singer, or photographer — if they have older brothers, rather than older sisters. In other words, among young brothers, specialization within the family forecasts specialization in the workforce.
There is a considerable implication in this idea that family dynamics during childhood can shape adult personality. Young children are highly sensitive to their environment, in ways that often have lasting effects.
1. First-born children are more likely to be CEOs or politicians because _____.| A．they are born to have leadership qualities |
| B．teachers and parents invest more time in educating them |
| C．later-born children need them to set good examples |
| D．they have a lot of practice in bossing around their younger siblings |
| A．His research was based on American data. |
| B．His hypotheses were applied in many studies. |
| C．He held the idea that first-born children should be independent. |
| D．He thought that children’s personality was affected by birth order. |
| A．has a lower IQ and EQ |
| B．is badly treated by school teachers |
| C．receives less attention from his parents |
| D．is spoiled too much by other family members |
| A．Swedish data on boys. |
| B．Controlled experiments on children. |
| C．Differences between first-born and later-borns. |
| D．The observation of children’s development across Sweden. |
| A．feel disappointed at their parents’ attitude to them |
| B．are always in a process of self-discovery |
| C．may be more trustworthy and creative |
| D．might be physically strong |
| A．parents should create a good family environment for their children |
| B．children should be given equal attention by their parents |
| C．girls’ development is seldom affected by birth order |
| D．boys should be forbidden to order others around |
【推荐3】There are quite a few advantages of wearing school uniforms (校服). The idea may seem disagreeable at first, but thinking all the good results of wearing uniforms, you would be more likely to enjoy them.
Teachers love school uniforms because they provide a good learning environment for students. And they can pay their attention to study rather than style.
Buying school uniforms is easy and needs less thought. No matter what the school rules are, there are only basic pieces to the clothes that are necessary, and school uniforms can last a long time, so it won’t break the bank. Parents could also enjoy an easy morning, as it will take less time to choose a set of clothes for the school day.
Students wearing uniforms will feel easier about choosing what to wear. Some students may not like the lack of individuality (个性) with uniforms, but some school dress rules may offer them the chance to show their unique (独特的) styles. And uniforms today are also becoming more fashionable and can be found in many areas of pop culture. Superstars and fashion designers (设计师) are using uniforms as encouragement for new looks which also interest students.
1. Teachers think that wearing school uniforms ________.| A．is just a tradition |
| B．makes students feel uncomfortable |
| C．helps students pay attention to their study |
| D．makes students lose unique styles |
| A．a school uniform doesn’t cost a lot of money |
| B．students should wear uniforms every day |
| C．parents have to go to the bank many times |
| D．parents working in a bank can afford the uniform |
| A．will be designed by students |
| B．are not popular with superstars |
| C．are not accepted by parents |
| D．will be more fashionable in the future |
| A．bad | B．good | C．tiring | D．awful |
