Children’s lives have changed greatly over the last 50 years. But do they have a happier childhood than you or I did?
It’s difficult to look back on one’s own childhood without feeling nostalgic(怀旧的). I have four brothers and sisters, and my memories are all about being with them, playing board games on the living room floor, or spending days in the street with the other neighbourhood children, or racing up and down on our bikes. My parents hardly appear in these memories, except as providers of meals.
These days, in the UK at least, the nature of childhood has changed greatly. Firstly, families are smaller, and there are far more only children. It is common for both parents to work outside the home and there is the feeling that there just isn’t time to bring up a large family, or that no one could possibly afford to have more than one child. As a result, today’s boys and girls spend much of their time alone. Another major change is that youngsters today prefer to spend most of their free time at home, inside. More than anything this is because of the fact that parents worry far more than they used to about real or imagined dangers, so they wouldn’t dream of letting their children play outside by themselves.
Finally, the kind of toys children have and the way they play is totally different. Computer and video games have replaced(取代) the board games and more active pastimes of my childhood. The irony(讽刺) is that so many of these games are called “interactive(互动的)”. The fact that you can play computer games on your own further increases the sense of loneliness felt by many young people today.
Do these changes mean that children today have a less pleasant childhood than I had? I personally believe that they do, but perhaps every generation(一代人) feels exactly the same.
1. Why did the author mention his childhood in Paragraph 2?| A．To thank his parents. | B．To make a comparison. |
| C．To introduce some games. | D．To remember a good time in the past. |
| A．The hard time of the UK family. |
| B．The difficulties in raising children. |
| C．The most challenging thing for parents. |
| D．The reason why childhood has changed. |
| A．They are very exciting. |
| B．They are not really good. |
| C．They are too risky for children. |
| D．They help children connect with each other. |
相似题推荐
【推荐1】A new study has found that the number of young Americans who watch online videos each day has more than doubled in the past four years. The findings were based on a survey of about 1,700 young people aged 8 to 18.
Fifty-six percent of 8 to 12-year-olds taking part in the survey said they watched online videos each day. That rate (比率) jumped to 69 percent for 13 to 18-year-olds. A 2015 survey by Common Sense Media found the rate was 24 percent for 8 to 12-year-olds and 34 percent for 13 to 18-year-olds.
The survey found that overall screen time for young Americans did not change much over the past four years. On average, preteens spent just under five hours of screen time on devices (设备) each day. Teens had about seven and a half hours of screen time. The numbers did not include time young people spent doing homework, reading books or listening to music.
The findings suggest a continuing change by young people to move away from traditional television to streaming video services on their phones and other personal devices.
In answer to the survey, YouTube said the company is rethinking the way it deals with children and families. A spokesman for YouTube, Farshad Shadloo, repeated the company’s terms of use on age: "YouTube is not a site for people under 13. The company said YouTube Kids and its restriction tools are designed to limit (限制) site usage for preteens. But experts say it is easy for many children to get to the videos they want to watch, whether on YouTube or another streaming service.
Sarah Domoff is a professor at Central Michigan University who studies the effects of technology on youth and families. She told the AP that parents often do not have the time or skills to limit what their children are watching effectively.
1. What are the rates in paragraph 2 about?| A．Ages of different kids. | B．Screen time kids spend. |
| C．Kids taking part in the survey. | D．Kids watching online videos. |
| A．It has increased fast. | B．It has dropped sharply. |
| C．It remains almost the same. | D．It continues to change quickly. |
| A．Useless. | B．Wise. | C．Effective. | D．Unfair. |
| A．More and More Kids Do Their Homework on Devices |
| B．American Kids Are Spending Too Much on Online Videos |
| C．Parents Are Worrying About Children’s Use of the Internet |
| D．Number of Kids Watching Online Videos Doubled in 4 Years |
【推荐2】More time spent indoors during the COVID-19 pandemic may have caused a significant rise in childhood short-sightedness, according to a new Hong Kong study. The findings were based on the current Hong Kong Children Eye Study, which continually researches the eye conditions of children aged six to eight.
The study found that 19.5 per cent of the 709 six-year-old pupils admitted at the start of the pandemic（between December 2019 to January 2020）developed short-sightedness over the course of eight months.
The overall estimated one-year incidence of short-sightedness for them was 28 per cent — much higher than the 17 per cent found in children studied pre-pandemic.
The researchers note that these changes corresponded with a reduction in the time the children spent outdoors — from around 75 minutes a day pre-pandemic to 24 minutes during the pandemic.
Screen time among the children also dramatically increased during this period, from two and a half hours a day, to seven hours.
The authors highlight that this data relied on questionnaires, which could impact the accuracy of the research. Also, as it was a local study to Hong Kong, the researchers couldn't say whether the same results would be seen in children in other provinces of China.
“Despite all these unavoidable study limitations, our initial results still show an alarming short-sightedness progression that requires appropriate correctional action,” the researchers concluded.
James Huang, professor of optometry (视光学) at Hong Kong University, who did not take part in the research, told CGTN “During the pandemic, lifestyles have changed, such as the amount of time spent viewing digital screens, homeschooling and the duration of time spent outdoors. At least nine peer-reviewed published studies—not including this new Hong Kong study-have identified an increase in short-sightedness progression during the pandemic.”
Fortunately, though, the effect may not be permanent. “One study found this short-sightedness progression was turned back partially after lockdown, suggesting that both eye focus spasm (痉挛) and structural changes contributed to this accelerated rate,” explained Huang.
1. What can we learn from the study?| A．Decreased time outdoors impacted children's overall health. |
| B．A majority of new primary students were already short-sighted |
| C．Children with short-sightedness were rising during the pandemic. |
| D．The eye conditions of Hong Kong teenagers were not affected at all. |
| A．eye conditions | B．six-year-olds surveyed |
| C．children studied pre-pandemic | D．the findings of the study |
| A．Only children aged six to eight are included in the study. |
| B．The exact cause of short-sightedness remains unknown. |
| C．It fails to involve experts from professional organizations. |
| D．It depends on questionnaires collected locally in Hong Kong. |
| A．There is no turning back of short-sightedness progression. |
| B．It will keep worsening until eye focus spasm can be solved. |
| C．Short-sightedness is likely to be relieved after the lockdown. |
| D．The problem will be automatically and completely solved. |
【推荐3】It’s commonly thought that boys perform better than girls in math and science. Researchers have challenged that stereotype (刻板印象) for a long time, and a recent study, published in the journal Nature Communications in September, found a new way to attack it.
The study found that women are better than men at sustaining (维持) their performance on longer tests, including math and science.
Researchers Pau Balart, from the University of the Balearic Islands in Spain, and Matthijs Oosterveen from Erasmus University in the Netherlands, analyzed (分析) data collected every three years from 2006 to 2015. The data came from 74 countries and regions, for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). This is a standardized test of 15-year-old students’ performance in reading, math and science.
Their earlier results agreed with earlier findings that boys do better than girls in math and science. But when they compared the two groups’ scores at different stages of the test, girls tended to perform more stably (稳定地) in math and science, while boys started getting fewer correct answers.
Although boys seemed to show advantages from the start in math and science, the authors wrote, “This finding suggests that longer tests shrink it in math and science,” according to Nature. To prove this, the researchers analyzed another database with over 400 math tests, which lasted longer than PISA’s two hours. They found that, at least for math, the scoring gap between boys and girls decreased.
This isn’t the observation of better test endurance (忍耐力) in women. Oxford University used to add an extra 15 minutes to its math and computer science exams. They found female students’ scores improved.
Olga Shurchkov, an associate professor at Wellesley College in the US, told Newsweek: “This study is important because it provides cross-country evidence that suggests these gender (性别) gaps can be reduced.”
In her earlier study, she found that, given more time, women tended to be more careful and make fewer mistakes. They also were less likely to quit a task early. This also supports the finding of the present study.
1. What did the new study find?| A．Boys are better than girls at math and science. |
| B．Girls usually do better than boys in shorter tests. |
| C．Girls prefer longer math and science tests than boys. |
| D．The length of a test affects girls and boys’ scores. |
| A．Make something smaller. |
| B．Make something larger. |
| C．Keep something the same. |
| D．Make something appear. |
| A．They were more likely to give up on longer tests. |
| B．They were not as quick at thinking as male students. |
| C．They tended to perform better at the beginning of a test. |
| D．They tended to be more patient and careful on longer tests. |
| A．It answered questions raised by earlier studies. |
| B．It could help to reduce gender gaps on tests. |
| C．It could attract girls to study math and science. |
| D．It is the first cross-country study of gender gaps on tests. |
【推荐1】I strongly believe that individual actions make a difference to our environment. I’ve been a vegetarian for more than two decades, choose to be child-free partially because I can’t justify my genes’ importance over the shocking amount of resources needed for raising another American, and haven’t owned a car in four years. Those things, over time, will absolutely reduce my impact on our beautiful world, and the more people do them, the greater the impact is.
But it’s not nearly enough.
While I will continue to do my part to fight climate change, I have to wonder why there isn’t an equal effort by those who have the biggest impact. According to a recent report, 71% of greenhouse gases are produced by just 100 companies. Surely, working to minimize their emissions (排放物) will do far more, much faster than me talking people’s ears off on Facebook about eating less meat. After all, I have been doing that kind of work for 20 years now, and we are still headed towards climate disaster.
Why should so much of the solution to global warming be on the shoulders of individuals?
When President Kennedy decided we needed to beat the Russians to the moon landing, he didn’t encourage housewives to figure out bow to get there. He got the smartest and most talented people together to solve the challenges. NASA got us there, with lots of hard work and late nights, and also full encouragement and funding from the US government.
But this is not the case with climate change. Big companies are let off the hook while we take on the huge burden of dealing with the emissions of the biggest and most powerful. That strikes me as just plain unfair. The serious threats of climate change require an all-hand-on-deck response. Corporations need to do their part, because I can’t do it on my own.
1. Why does the author choose not to have a child?| A．America doesn’t have large amounts of resources. |
| B．A child can’t justify the importance of her genes. |
| C．She tries to avoid the trouble of raising a child. |
| D．She wants to reduce her impact on the environment. |
| A．Minimizing companies’ emissions. |
| B．Recommending a vegetarian diet. |
| C．Talking with friends on Facebook. |
| D．Heading towards climate disaster. |
| A．To praise housewives’ contribution. |
| B．To remember a former president. |
| C．To stress the importance of government’s role. |
| D．To encourage NASA to take on the challenge. |
| A．Far from enough | B．Satisfied |
| C．Relieved | D．Ironic (讽刺) |
【推荐2】Science is a process that builds upon existing theories and knowledge by continuously revising them. Every aspect of scientific knowledge can be questioned, including the general rules of thinking that appear to be most certain. So why is science trustworthy if it is always changing? If tomorrow we will no longer see the world as Newton or Einstein found it to be, why should we take seriously today’s scientific description of the world?
The answer is simple: Because at any given moment of our history, this description of the world is the best we have. The fact that it can be made better can’t diminish (降低) the fact that it is a useful instrument for understanding the world.
Consider a folk healer’s herbal medicine. Can we say this treatment is “scientific”? Yes, if it is proven to be effective, even if we have no idea why it works. In fact, quite a few common medications used today have their origin in folk treatments, and we are still not sure how they work. This does not imply that folk treatments are generally effective. To the contrary, many of them are not. What distinguishes scientific medicine is the readiness to seriously test a treatment and to be ready to change our minds if something is shown not to work. A research doctor in a modern hospital must be ready to change his theory if a more effective way of understanding illness, or treating it, becomes available.
What makes modern science uniquely powerful is its refusal to believe that it already possesses ultimate truth. The reliability of science is based not on certainty but on a complete absence of certainty. As John Stuart Mill wrote in “On Liberty” in 1859, “The beliefs which we have most warrant (依据) for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded.”
1. What is the author’s purpose of raising the two questions in paragraph 1?| A．To add some humor. | B．To express doubts. |
| C．To introduce the topic. | D．To present background. |
| A．It can be timeless. | B．It can be improved. |
| C．It is of little value. | D．It is the best at any moment. |
| A．Science is based on existing and unchangeable knowledge. |
| B．All of the medications used today are generally efficient. |
| C．What Newton or Einstein found in science can be questioned. |
| D．What makes science unique is the fact that it possesses top truth. |
| A．It is unwise to believe in science. |
| B．Too much uncertainty lies in science. |
| C．The foundation of science is unfounded. |
| D．The lack of certainty makes science credible. |
【推荐3】Visitors to Henn-na, a restaurant outside Nagasaki, Japan, are greeted by an unusual sight: their food being prepared by a row of humanoid robots. The “head chef”, named Andrew, is using his two long arms; he stirs batter (面糊) in a metal bowl, then pours it onto a hot grill. In a nearby hotel, robots check guests into their rooms and help with their luggage.
CEO Hideo Sawada, who runs the restaurant and the hotel, predicts that 70% of the jobs at Japan’s hotels will be automated (自动化) in the next five years. He said, “Since you can work them 24 hours a day, and they don’t need vacation, eventually it’s more cost-efficient to use the robot.”
This is seemingly worrying. In fact, in America, automation helps the food-service and accommodation sector continue to grow. In the company Panera, because of its new kiosks, an app that allows online ordering, the chain is now processing more orders overall, which means it needs more total workers to meet consumer demand. Starbucks customers who use the chain’s app return more frequently than those who don’t, the company has said, and the greater efficiency that online ordering allows has boosted sales at busy stores during peak hours. Starbucks employed 8% more people in the U.S. in 2016 than it did in 2015, the year it launched the app.
Of course, whether automation is a net benefit for workers in restaurants and hotels, and not just a competitive advantage for one chain over another will depend on whether an improved customer experience makes Americans more likely to dine out and stay at hotels, rather than brown-bagging it or finding an Airbnb to book unique homes.
1. Why does the writer describe the unusual sight in Paragraph 1?| A．To promote robots. | B．To introduce the topic. |
| C．To voice his opinion. | D．To show the background. |
| A．Automation may be a challenge to human jobs. |
| B．Automation may increase business costs. |
| C．Workers may fail to focus on their tasks. |
| D．Many companies may fail to survive. |
| A．The two companies are trying to take over the market competitively. |
| B．Automation could open up more job chances for humans. |
| C．Starbucks employed more people than Panera did in 2016. |
| D．Automation helps the shops become famous online. |
| A．Critical. | B．Negative. | C．Objective. | D．Indifferent. |
