【推荐2】It has long been hailed(宣称) as the most crucial meal of the day, vital for getting the body going and preventing overeating later on. But breakfast may not be so vital after all, if new research is to be believed. Contrary to popular belief, the study found the first meal of the day had little impact on snacking or portion sizes later in the day. It also had no effect on metabolism(新陈代谢).

The researchers, from the University of Bath, now suggest the better health of people who eat a good breakfast may be due to their general, wider, diet regime(养生法). They found there was no change in metabolism after six weeks between those who ate nothing for breakfast and those who consumed 700 calories before 11am.The major difference was that those who abstained from breakfast ate fewer calories over the whole day.

This goes against the long-held theory that people who skip breakfast simply make up for it by gorging on food later on. However, breakfast eaters were likely to expend more energy - around 442calories - by being active, mainly in the morning after eating. They also had more stable blood sugar readings, especially by the end of the trial.

The research added: “The belief that breakfast is ‘the most important meal of the day is so widespread that many people are surprised to learn that there is a lack of scientific evidence showing whether or how breakfast may directly cause changes in our health. It is certainly true that people who regularly eat breakfast tend to be slimmer and healthier but these individuals also typically follow most other recommendation for a healthy lifestyle, so have more balanced diets and take more physical exercise. ”

In another study published this month, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham divided volunteers into three groups. One skipped breakfast, others always ate it and a third continued with their current regime. Four months later, no one in any group had lost much weight.

1. According to he new research, the people who eat breakfast tend to __________.

A．prevent overacting later on	B．expend more energy
C．have more balanced diets	D．lose more weight

2. If you want to be healthier and simmer, you should _______.

A．not eat breakfast	B．snack as frequently as possible
C．eat general, wide breakfast	D．have a healthy lifestyle

3. The underlined phrase “abstained from” in Paragraph 2 means ___________.

A．didn’t have

B．had

C．had more

D．had less

4. The best title of the passage is __________.

A．whether to have breakfast or not

B．no expected good to have breakfast

C．difference between having and not having breakfast

D．healthy diet

【推荐3】They say that an apple a day keeps the doctor away ． Well, there is one lady who believes that it’s actually chocolate．At 102 years of age, she’s living proof．

According to Boonville, Indiana’s Eunice Modlin, a daily dose of chocolate has been the key to a long and healthy life．Specifically, two pieces of dark chocolate．It’s not just Eunice who believes this．

Many scientists have attributed the sweet to health benefits such as lower chances of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes．

However, researchers believe that Eunice might be overlooking the fact that she has never smoked or drunk alcohol in her long life, and that chocolate might not be the significant cause of her longevity．

“There are so many other factors to her long life and chocolate isn’t the only one,” nutritionist Vanessa Rissetto said．“Genes, her diet in general…are probably the main reasons.”

At any rate, Eunice is still alive and kicking ． With four children, seven grandkids, 14 great-grandkids and 11 great-great grandkids, this lady has a big family．

It must be noted that Eunice was also very athletic, being an archer in her 20s ．Amazingly, she has lived through tough times such as the Great Depression and World War II ．Also, the healthy blood runs through the veins of other family members．Eunice’s brother is also still alive, at 101 years of age．

No matter what you might think, Eunice’s consumption of chocolate can’t be ignored．In 2015, a BMJ study showed that a daily treat of one small bar would give the consumer 23% less chance of having a stroke (中风)．

What is in the sweet that makes it so beneficial? Apparently, cocoa beans have flavonoids, plant nutrients that have useful antioxidants (抗氧化剂)．

“Not all chocolate is created equal,” Rissetto warns ．“Dark chocolate has more flavonoids than milk chocolate, and white chocolate—which does not actually contain chocolate—is not a good source of flavonoids.”

1. According to the article, which of the following lead to Eunice Modlin’s long and healthy life?
a．two pieces of dark chocolate       
b．genes       
c．lifelong exercise
d．good diet       
e．love of her large family

A．a, b, d	B．b, c, d
C．a, b, e	D．a, c, d

2. Rissetto thinks that ．

A．chocolate is the most important thing that affects Eunice’s health

B．no smoking or drinking contributes the most to Eunice’s longevity

C．chocolate really has nothing to do with her long and healthy life

D．Eunice’s good diet doesn’t only mean taking chocolate every day

3. What the author presented in the passage sounds ．

A．persuasive	B．objective
C．subjective	D．critical

4. From the whole passage we can conclude that______________．

A．there’s universal proof for what contributes to a long life

B．it is generally accepted that chocolate is the key to longevity

C．many factors may contribute to people’s good health

D．a bit of any chocolate a day keeps the doctor away

【推荐1】For many adolescents, “screen time” is almost a full-time job that could lead to obesity, diabetes and other health issues, a Canadian researcher says.

Adolescents now spend an average of six hours a day in front of some type of screen, whether it’s a television or computer screen or one of the many portable devices now popular with young people, studies done by Dr. Ian Michael Janssen show. “They spend more hours daily in front of a screen than they do in a classroom in a given year,” said Janssen, a researcher at Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada. The result is a rise in obesity rates among adolescents. Unfortunately, fixing the problem isn’t as easy as simply cutting down screen time, Janssen cautions. “Decreasing screen time will not automatically increase physical activity levels,” said Janssen, Some active kids also spend a lot of time in front of television and computer screens, and some kids who have low screen times also have low levels of physical activity, he points out.

As well, screen time is not necessarily bad, Janssen said. “The tricky part is that children today need to be using computers,” he said. Computers are required for schoolwork, and technological skills are important for future job prospects. The quality of screen time matters too, along with the quantity---consider the negative health messages found in food advertising during children’s shows, he said. Ideally, children should aim for no more than two hours of recreational screen time a day.

Janssen’s real worry about the rise in childhood obesity rates is not that there are now rare cases of type diabetes in kids, where once there were none, but the health problems these children are likely to face in the future as adults, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.

1. Which one doesn’t belong to “screen time” according to the passage?

A．Watching TV.	B．Surfing the Internet.
C．Seeing a film on an MP4.	D．Making a telephone call.

2. In Janssen’s opinion, kids had better          to keep healthy.

A．lose weight.	B．decrease screen time
C．take physical activities	D．go on a diet

3. What’s the researcher’s attitude towards “screen time of adolescents" ?

A．Concerned.	B．Passive.
C．Positive.	D．Frightened.

4. We can learn from the passage that          .

A．many of the people having full-time jobs suffer from obesity and diabetes.

B．decreasing screen time can’t really solve the problem

C．children today most use computers to finish their school work

D．a new type of obesity in kids becomes Janssen’s real worry

【推荐1】请认真阅读下面短文，并根据所读内容在文章后表格中的空格里填入一个最恰当的单词。 注意：请将答案写在答题卡上相应题号的横线上。每个空格只填一个单词。

Many of today's young people have a difficult time seeing any moral dimension to their actions. There are a number of reasons why that’s true, but none more important than a failed system of education that avoids teaching children the traditional moral values that bind Americans together as a society and a culture. That failed approach, called ''decision-making'', was introduced in schools 25 years ago. It tells children to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. It replaced ''character education'', which didn't ask children to reinvent the moral wheel, but encouraged them to practice habits of courage, justice and self- control.

Decision-making curriculums pose ethical dilemmas to students, leaving them with the impression that all morality is problematic and that all questions of right and wrong are based on people's own ideas. Youngsters are forced to question values and virtues they've never acquired in the first place. The assumption behind this method is that students will arrive at good moral conclusions if they are given the chance. But the actual result is moral confusion.

This kind of confusion further encouraged by values-education programs that are little more than courses in self-worth. These programs are based on the questionable assumption that a child who feels good about himself or herself won't want to do anything wrong. But it is just as reasonable to make an opposite assumption: namely, that a child who always believes in and accepts himself will conclude that he or she can't do anything bad.

It is time to throw ''decision-making'' and ''none-judgementalism'' into the rubbish heap of failed policies, and return to a proved method. Character education provides a much more realistic approach to moral formation. It is built on an understanding that we learn morality not by debating it, but by practicing it.

Children Must Be Taught to Distinguish Right from Wrong

Problem	Many young people find it     1     to see their actions in a moral way.
Reason	Replacing character education, the decision-making approach does not teach children     2     morality but emphasizes subjective judgment on right and wrong.
Consequences	●     3     decision-making curriculums were meant to give students the chance to       4    good moral conclusions by themselves, they make students     5     confused, due to the     6     of criteria on what's right and wrong. ● Values-education programs     7     students' moral confusion. Those with self-acceptance will make the assumption that they can't do anything wrong. ● Public education based on decision-making approach, which     8     to guide youngsters on the right track, fuels the explosion of serious     9     problems.
Solution	An immediate shift back to character education is needed. Moral formation can be achieved by means of     10    .

【推荐2】In so many ways, cyberspace (网络空间) mirrors the real world. People ask for information, play games, and share hobby tips. Others buy and sell products. Still others look for friendship, or even love.

Unlike the real world, however, your knowledge about a person is limited to words on a computer screen. Identity (身份) and appearance mean very little in cyberspace. Rather, a person’s thoughts—or at least the thoughts they type—are what really count. So even the shyest person can become a chat-room star.

Usually, this “faceless” communication doesn’t create problems. Identity doesn’t really matter when you’re in a chat room discussing politics or hobbies. In fact, this stress on the ideas themselves makes the Internet a great place for exciting conversation. Where else can so many people come together to chat?

But some Internet users want more than just someone to chat with. They’re looking for serious love relationships. Is cyberspace a good place to find love? That answer depends on whom you ask. Some of these relationships actually succeed. Others fail.

Supporters say that the Internet allows couples lo gel lo know each other intellectually (智力地) first. Personal appearance doesn’t get in the way. Bill others argue that no one can truly know another person in cyberspace. Why? Because the Internet gives users a lot of control over how others view them. Internet users can carefully change their words to fit whatever image (形象) they want to give. In a sense, they’re not really themselves.

All of this may be fine if the relationship stays in cyberspace. But not knowing a person is a big problem in a love relationship. With so many unknowns, it’s easy to let one’s imagination “fill in the blanks.” This unavoidably leads to disappointment when couples meet in person. How someone imagines an online friend is often quite different than the real person.

So, before looking for love in cyberspace, remember the advice of Clifford Stoll: “Life in the real world is far richer than anything you’ll find on a computer screen.”

1. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?

A．It is possible that people can’t find true love online.

B．Appearance and identity is of little importance for relationship online.

C．A shy person will surely become talkative online.

D．Internet users are encouraged to create images in cyberspace.

2. What’s the main idea of Paragraph 5?

A．Cyberspace mirrors the real world.

B．Don’t judge a book by its cover.

C．Inner beauty is more important than appearance.

D．Things are not always what they seem.

3. What does “this” in Paragraph 6 refer to?

A．The online friend.	B．One’s imagination.
C．Love relationship.	D．The real friend.

4. What is the author’s attitude towards looking for love cyberspace?

A．He is against it.	B．He supports it.
C．He cares little about it.	D．He is interested in it.

【推荐3】The age of adulthood is by definition arbitrary (武断的). If everyone matured at the same, fixed rate, it wouldn’t be a human process. Indeed, maturation happens at varying speeds across different categories within the same individual, so I’d say I was easily old enough to vote at 16, but nobody should have given me a credit card until I was 32, and I’ve got the county court judgment to prove it.

However, we broadly agree that there’s a difference between a child and an adult, even if we might argue about the transition point. So the political theorist David Runciman’s view that six-year-olds should be allowed to vote goes against any standard argument about the age of civic responsibility. Nobody would say that a six-year-old could be held criminally responsible, could be sent to war, could be capable of consent, could be given responsibility for anything. So allowing them the vote — along with, unavoidably, seven-year-olds who are even sillier, if anything — is quite an amusing proposal.

Runciman’s argument is that this is the only way to rebalance political life, which is currently twisted in favor of the old, who don’t (he added) ever need to demonstrate mental capacity, even long after they’ve lost it.

The first part of his case is self-evident: pensions (养老金) are protected while children’s centers are closed, concepts such as sovereignty (最高权威) are prioritized over the far more urgent business of the future: climate change. Nostalgia (怀念) for a past the young wouldn’t even recognize plays a central role, which is completely unfair.

Most of the arguments against giving six-year-olds a vote are that children would end up voting for something damaging and chaotic, if someone made unrealistic promises to them, which could never be realized. Well, it’s not children’s fault.

Having said that, children do tend towards the progressive, having a natural sense of justice (which kicks in at the age of six months, psychologists have shown, by creating scenes of great unfairness to babies, and making them cry) and an underdeveloped sense of self-interest. My kid, when he was six, made quite a forceful case against private property, on the basis that, since everybody needed a house, they shouldn’t cost money, because nobody would want anyone else not to have one. Also, food should be free. It was a kind of pre-Marx communism, where you limit the coverage of the market to only those things that you wouldn’t mind someone else not having.

On that particular day, when we were registered as voters, my kid was quite far to the left of me, but in the normal run of things, we’re united, which brings us to the point of the problem: children obey you on almost nothing, but they do seem to believe in your politics until they’re adolescent. So giving kids the vote is really just a way of giving parents extra votes. And what can stop us having even more children, once there’s so much enfranchisement (选举权) in it for us?

Now, if parents could be trusted to use their influence wisely, and hammer into children the politics it will take to assure a better future, then I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with that, apart from, obviously, that culture is already wildly twisted towards parents, and I can imagine a few non-parents boiling with fierce anger. But that’s not worth talking about anyway, because parents can’t be trusted, otherwise we’d all already vote Green (绿党).

In short: no, six-year-olds should not get the vote; but while we’re here, if any votes come up in the near future, which will have an impact on the next five decades of British political life, alongside EU migrants, 16-year-olds certainly should be enfranchised.

1. The author refers to his age of adulthood to prove that ________.

A．a credit card is more difficult to get than the vote	B．there’s a common standard for the age of adulthood
C．people mature at different rates in various aspects	D．certain rights are granted at different stages of life

2. The author talks about his kid to indicate that ________.

A．children are good-natured and like to help people in need

B．children are simple-minded and can fall for an adult’s trick

C．children are innocent and don’t want to be involved in politics

D．children are in favor of a just society and tend to be idealistic

3. The author thinks allowing children the vote may lead to ________.

A．twisted culture

B．misuse of rights

C．parents’ objections

D．unusual maturation

4. What is the main point of the passage?

A．The definition of adulthood is quite arbitrary.

B．There is a difference between adults and children.

C．Parents should introduce politics to their children.

D．Allowing children the vote is not altogether ridiculous.