组卷网 > 高中英语综合库 > 主题 > 人与社会 > 科普与现代技术 > 科普知识
题型:阅读理解-阅读单选 难度:0.4 引用次数:167 题号:19129601

A strong sense of smell is a key component of a healthy and enjoyable life. Yet our sense of smell is in decline as a result of an unnoticed threat to our health: air pollution.

Scientists are finding that anosmia, a loss of the sense of smell, is becoming a widespread problem among people of all ages exposed to PM2. 5 pollutants constantly, which are tiny particles (微粒) that can enter our bodies with every breath we take.

The reason, they suggest, is that the olfactory bulbs (嗅球), which are located in our noses and packed with nerve endings, are affected by exposure to air pollution. The tiny particles cause illness either in the bulbs themselves or in the brain, impacting our sense of smell over time, “Our data show the risk of developing anosmia with constant particulate pollution is 1.6 to 1.7 times higher,” says Ramanathan, a doctor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, America.

Ramanathan is an author of a recent study of nearly 2,700 patients, a fifth of whom had anosmia despite many of them being non- smokers.’ When he and his colleagues looked into the backgrounds of the affected patients, they found most of them lived in neighborhoods with significantly higher levels of air pollution.

The findings prove other studies with similar findings. One of these studies, conducted in a town in Italy, found that more than 200 teenagers and young adults between the ages of 15 and 25 suffered olfactory damage as a result of exposure to NO2, a common component in traf-fic emissions. “This is alarming as olfactory loss affects patient safety, well-being, and it is a predictor of poor health,” says Ramanathan.

Yet the loss of a sense of smell is a condition that is often overlooked though it can bring about numerous health problems. A sense of smell is linked to memory as well and life is a lot less fun without it. “People don’t remember what the pastry that they ate in childhood looked like, but they remember what the shop smelled like,” says Ramanathan.

1. How air pollution negatively influences our sense of smell!?
A.It blocks the inside transport of information.
B.It prevents the nerve system functioning normally.
C.It leads to the brain requiring more time to respond.
D.It results in diseases in the olfactory bulbs or the brain,
2. What can we conclude from the two studies?
A.Air pollution can rob us of our sense of smell.
B.Smokers are more likely to suffer from anosmia.
C.Traffic emissions contribute a lot to air pollution.
D.Exposure to PM2.5 pollutants occasionally is harmless.
3. What does Ramanathan think of the loss of people’s sense of smell?
A.Confusing and astonishing.B.Complicated but treatable.
C.Critical and concerning.D.Disturbing but temporary.
4. From which is the text probably taken?
A.A travel brochure.B.A science website.
C.A biology textbook.D.An art magazine.

相似题推荐

阅读理解-阅读单选(约430词) | 较难 (0.4)
名校

【推荐1】Even if we used to know the truth, our brains can start repeating false information that is against the facts.

Our brains are wired to believe information automatically — even if it’s false — because it helps us learn efficiently. “In many instances it’s a useful skill for us to accept what people tell us, because often what people tell us is true,” says David Rapp, PhD, a psychology and education professor at Northwestern University in Illinois, US.

When we hear new information, those fresh facts don’t override what we already knew before. Instead, both the new and old information live together in our minds. A few factors determine which one we’ll draw on when the situation comes up.

Oftentimes, we’ll quote (引用) the information we heard most recently — even if it’s wrong. Because they’re fresher in our minds, short-term memories are easier for our brains to access than facts we heard longer ago. We’d have to think back further to remember previous knowledge, so people will often ignore those facts in favour of new inaccurate information, says Dr Rapp, who recently published an article on recalling inaccurate information in the journal Current Directions in Popular Science. “Previous knowledge isn’t difficult to recall, but it isn’t as readily available,” he says.

We are also used to buying into the facts that seem more believable.Often,this means they fit better with what we want to believe, which could explain why people quote such different facts in political debates. “Both candidates said something that was objectively true or not, but people would ignore that information and go with their hopes, wishes, or preferences because it goes along with what they hope to be true,” says Dr Rapp.

You’re especially unlikely to bother thinking critically about information when you’re reading for pleasure, like with a novel or a We-Chat status, because your brain is in the mindset of relaxing, not keeping an eye out for falsehood, says Dr Rapp.

With all that potentially false information overload, it’s worth putting in the extra effort to double-check information that strikes you as doubtful. Seek out reliable sources that back up what they say with data, quotes and other evidence, says Dr Rapp. “With the ease that we can look things up on the internet, there’s no reason not to,” he says.

1. According to the passage, when we get new information, ________.
A.our mind evaluates its reliability
B.our previous knowledge is replaced
C.it stays together with previous knowledge
D.we still believe in our previous knowledge
2. What can we learn from the passage?
A.People mind accuracy when they read for pleasure.
B.We vote for a candidate because what he says is true.
C.Our short-term memory is more reliable when we quote.
D.Believing what people tell us often improves learning efficiency.
3. What does the author intend to tell us in the last paragraph?
A.The methods of dealing with doubtful information.
B.The results of believing in false information.
C.The effect of overloaded information.
D.The source of right information.
4. Which of the following is the best title for the passage?
A.Where do we find reliable information?
B.How do we choose proper information?
C.Why do we remember false information?
D.Whether should we believe fresh information?
2021-12-25更新 | 136次组卷
阅读理解-阅读单选(约370词) | 较难 (0.4)
名校
文章大意:本文是一篇说明文。文章讲述了一项新的研究发现,即记忆训练并不能让人变得聪明。

【推荐2】Some evidence that certain memory exercises make people smarter has stimulated the rise of online brain-training programs such as Lumosity. But at least one type of brain training may not work as advertised, a new study finds.

As expected, practicing improved volunteers’ performance on tests of memory and the ability to locate items quickly in busy scenes, say psychologist Thomas Redick of Indiana University Purdue University Columbus and his colleagues. That improvement did not, however, translate into higher scores on tests of intelligence and multitasking, the researchers report in the May Journal of Experimental Psychology General.

Redick’s investigation is part of a growing scientific debate about brain training, which is promoted by some companies as having a variety of mental benefits. Some researchers say that extensive instruction and training on memory tasks can indeed fortify reasoning and problem solving. Others are doubtful that active memory sessions may boost their working memory, the ability to keep in mind and compare several pieces of information.

Redick’s team studied 73 young adults, aged 18 to 30, divided into three groups. One group completed 20 training sessions over about six weeks on a task aimed at boosting working memory, the ability to keep in mind and compare several pieces of information.

A second group in the new study received 20 training sessions aimed at improving the ability to pick out novel shapes from large arrays (阵列) of similar-looking shapes. This group provided a comparison to see whether the effects of memory training differed from training on a different mental skill. A third group received no training.

In the two training groups, volunteers improved with practice on the task they were learning but showed no increases in tests of intelligence and of the total amount of information that could be held in mind.

Participants in the new study didn’t receive enough instruction and practice before memory sessions to benefit from the intervention (介入), Jaeggi says. Redick’s group also gave volunteers limited time to complete a series of shortened versions of standard intelligence tests, which probably limited any potential for scoring increases, she asserts.

But until larger studies with longer follow-ups are completed, Redick cautions against assuming that memory training smartens people up.

1. What can we learn about the study?
A.73 young adults received memory training.
B.The second group was aimed at testing memory skill.
C.Volunteers showed no improvements in tests of intelligence.
D.Further studies have been completed to support Redick’s findings.
2. What does the underlined word “fortify” mean?
A.increase.B.dominate.C.restore.D.boost.
3. Where is the text most likely from?
A.A personal diary.B.A biology textbook.C.A science magazine.D.A finance report.
2022-05-29更新 | 66次组卷
阅读理解-阅读单选(约350词) | 较难 (0.4)
名校
文章大意:本文是一篇说明文。文章主要围绕精神疾病的根源展开,讲述了研究人员提出了一些新的理论,并希望多了解精神疾病的病理生理特征,从而研制出有效的药物和疗法的内容。

【推荐3】A study led by Plana-Ripoll, a psychiatrist (精神病医生) at Aarhus University in Denmark, tries to deal with a fundamental question that has bothered researchers for more than a century—What are the roots of mental illness?

In the hope of finding an answer, scientists have piled up a large amount of data over the past decade, through studies of genes (基因), brain activity and neuroanatomy (神经解剖学). They have found evidence that many of the same genes underlie seemingly distinct disorders and that changes in the brain's decision-making systems could be involved in many conditions.

Researchers are also rethinking theories of how our brains go wrong. The idea that mental illness can be classified into distinct, separate categories such as “anxiety” or “psychosis” has been disproved to a large extent. Instead, they’ve found that disorders shade into each other, and there are no hard dividing lines.

Now, researchers are trying to understand the biology that underlies mental illness.

They have a few theories. Perhaps there are several dimensions of mental illness—so, depending on how a person scores on each dimension, they might be more prone (易患) to some disorders than to others. An alternative idea is that there is a single factor that makes people prone to mental illness in general; which disorder they develop is then determined by other factors. Both ideas are being taken seriously, although the former one is more widely accepted by researchers.

The details are still vague, but most psychiatrists agree that one thing is clear: The old system of categorizing mental disorders into neat boxes does not work. They are also hopeful that, in the long run, replacing this framework with one that is grounded in biology will lead to new drugs and treatments. Researchers aim to reveal, for instance, the key genes, brain regions and neurological (神经的) processes involved in psychopathology (精神病理学), and target them with therapies (疗法). Although it might take a while to get there, they are long-term optimistic if the field really does its work.

1. What have researchers found in their study?
A.There exist links between mental disorders.B.Genes are different in distinct mental disorders.
C.Brain function has little to do with mental illness.D.Mental illness is classified into different categories.
2. Researchers more widely accept _________.
A.the theory of genetic influencesB.the belief of brain abnormalities
C.the concept of multiple dimensionD.the idea of the determined risk factor
3. What can we infer about mental illness from the last paragraph?
A.Its genes are too complex to study.B.Hunting for its biology might help.
C.Scientists are clear about its details.D.Its new drugs can be available soon.
4. What's the text mainly about?
A.The categories of mental illness.B.The symptoms of mental illness.
C.The theories of mental illness.D.The roots of mental illness.
2022-03-29更新 | 202次组卷
共计 平均难度:一般