1 . Children’s Acquiring the Principles of Mathematics and Science

It has been pointed out that learning mathematics and science is not so much learning facts as learning ways of thinking. It has also been emphasized that in order to learn science, people often have to change the way they think in ordinary situations. These changes in ways of thinking are often referred to as “conceptual changes”. But how do “conceptual changes” happen? How do children change their ways of thinking as they learn in school?

The psychologist Piaget suggested an interesting hypothesis (假说) relating to the process of cognitive (认知的) change in children. Cognitive change was expected to result from the pupils’ own intellectual activity. When met with a result that challenges their thinking, that is when faced with conflict, pupils realize that they need to think again about their own ways of solving problems, regardless of whether the problem is one in mathematics or in science. He hypothesised that conflict brings about unbalance, and then triggers processes that ultimately produce cognitive changes. For this reason, pupils need to be actively engaged in solving problems that will challenge their current mode of reasoning. However, Piaget also pointed out that young children do not always abandon their ideas in the face of conflicting evidence. They may actually abandon the evidence and keep their theory.

Piaget’s hypothesis about how cognitive change occurs was later translated into an educational approach which is now termed “discovery learning”. Discovery learning initially took what is now considered the “lone learners” route. The role of the teacher was to select situations that challenged the pupils’ reasoning; and the pupils’ peers had no real role in this process. However, it was subsequently proposed that interpersonal conflict, especially with peers, might play an important role in promoting cognitive change. This hypothesis has been investigated in many recent studies of science teaching and learning.

Christine Howe and her colleagues, for example, have compared children’s progress in understanding several types of science concepts when they are given the opportunity to observe relevant events. In one study, Howe compared the progress of 8 to 12-year-old children in understanding what influences motion down a slope. In order to figure out the role of conflict in group work, they created two kinds of groups according to a pre-test: one in which the children had dissimilar views, and a second in which the children had similar views. They found support for the idea that children in the groups with dissimilar views progressed more after their training sessions than those who had been placed in groups with similar views. However, they found no evidence to support the idea that the children worked out their new conceptions during their group discussions, because progress was not actually observed in a post-test immediately after the sessions of group work, but rather in a second test given around four weeks after the group work.

1. Which of the following statements is in line with Piaget’s hypothesis?

A．Teachers play a big role in learning by explaining difficult concepts.

B．Teaching should be consistent in order to easily acquire knowledge.

C．Children can help each other make cognitive progress.

D．Cognitive progress mainly relies on children’s own intellectual activity.

2. The lone learner’ route is an educational approach which ________.

A．was adopted during discovery learning early on

B．requires help from the pupils’ peers

C．relies on how the teacher guides the students heavily

D．played an important role in cognitive change

3. Which statement describes Howe’s experiment with 8 to 12-year-old children correctly?

A．The most active children made the least progress according to a pre-test.

B．The children were evaluated on their abilities to understand a physics phenomenon.

C．The teacher aided the children to understand a scientific problem in group work.

D．All the children were working in mixed-ability groups to work out new conceptions.

4. It can be inferred from the last paragraph ________.

A．that children acquire more when learning in groups

B．that children opposing each other would learn slower

C．that the children were given a total of three tests, at different times

D．that there can be a satisfying result thanks to the duration of test

2 . Cancer-fighting genes in elephants could help tackle one of the biggest killers of people, according to research. Despite their large bodies and long lifespans, elephants are much less likely to die from cancer than humans, with death rates of less than 5 percent.

The paradox has puzzled scientists because more cells lead to greater replications (复制), which increases the possibility of the body failing to detect damaged DNA or a faulty cell that can result in tumors(肿瘤). Elephants live for almost as long as humans and weigh up to five tons.

However, a group of British and European scientists say they have taken a big step towards solving Peto’s paradox, named after the British epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto. Elephants, they say, carry a much larger more diverse group of tumor-fighting proteins.

The findings, published last week in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, raise hopes that the cancer fighting genes in elephants could be the key to tackling cancer, which kills about 167, 000 Britons yearly. Cells keep dividing throughout an organism’s life, each carrying the risk of producing a tumor. One of the body’s weapons is a gene called p53 known as the “guardian of the genome”, which hunts cells with faulty DNA. It encourages the cell to repair itself or self-destruct, keeping the cell from combining with others and producing tumors.

Humans have two versions of p53 but elephants have 40, said the researchers. Biochemical analysis and computer simulations also showed that an elephant’s p53 genes are structurally slightly different, providing a much larger anti-cancer toolkit. The researchers suspect that while faulty cells might be able to skirt two p53 versions, they cannot combine with other cells as easily in the face of dozens.

The findings will open the way for research on how p53 genes of elephants are activated and on medical treatment for humans.

1. What has puzzled scientists?

A．Few elephants end up dying from cancer.	B．Elephants live long and weigh enormously.
C．More cells lead to higher chances of tumors.	D．A larger body is less likely to discover faulty cells.

2. What can be learnt from Paragraph 4?

A．How many Britons die each year.	B．How the anti-cancer gene works.
C．How the research was carried out.	D．What the findings have been applied to.

3. What does the underlined word “skirt” in Paragraph 5 probably mean?

A．Strengthen.

B．Detect.

C．Escaped.

D．Cure.

4. Which is the text mainly about?

A．Scientists find elephants live longer than humans.	B．P53 genes play essential role in preventing cancer.
C．Elephant genes could be key to fighting cancer.	D．Groundbreaking treatment for cancer is on the way.

3 . Researchers at the University of Sussex, Imperial College London and Nanyang Technological University in Singapore have for the first time used game theory (博弈论) to allow robots to assist humans safely and variously.

The research team used adaptive control (自适应控制) and Nash equilibrium (纳什均衡) to program a robot that can understand its human users’ behavior in order to better foresee their movements and respond to them. The researchers believe the breakthrough could make robots help humans do things better in many areas, such as sport training, body recovery or shared driving.

Lead author Dr Yanan Li, Lecturer in Control Engineering at the University of Sussex, said, “It is still very early days in the development of robots and at present, those robots for work are not intuitive enough to work closely and safely with human users. By allowing the robot to identify human users’ behavior and make use of game theory to let the robot react to them in the best way, we have developed a system where robots can work along with humans as humans do.”

To successfully apply game theory to the interaction of a robot and its human users, the researchers had to overcome the problem that the robot cannot know the humans’ intentions. The researchers thus had to develop a method allowing the robot to identify the human partner while safely and efficiently interacting with their motion.

The reactive robotic programming system allows a robot to continuously learn the human users’ control and adapt its own control accordingly. The robot is able to understand the human users’ action and then respond to it and help them to perform tasks successfully with minimal effort.

Professor Etienne Burdet, senior author of the paper, added: “Game theory has had important influences on economics during the last century and lead to several Nobel prizes.”

1. What can be known about the programmed robot according to paragraph 2?

A．It goes out of style quickly.

B．It is no better than other robots.

C．It can help humans in many ways.

D．It never knows its human users’ control goals.

2. The key to successfully applying game theory to human-robot interaction is to make robots_____.

A．know the human’s intentions	B．respond to the human users’ action
C．work along with humans closely and safely	D．complete tasks perfectly with the least effort

3. What makes it possible for robots to identify the human users’ behavior?

A．The human users’ hand gestures.	B．The human users’ facial expressions.
C．The method of using the game theory.	D．The reactive robotic programming system.

4. Which of the following can be the best title for the text?

A．How did game theory come into being?

B．Game theory has important influences on sport training

C．How can game theory bring humans and robots closer?

D．Game theory can make a big difference to body recovery

4 . We are in the midst of a battle for our attention. Our devices have affected our brains and destroyed our collective ability to concentrate. Journalist Johann Hair’s new book, Stolen Focus, has just joined the voice s complaining about the great influence of the digital age. His and other recent books reflect a public perception that our focus is under attack.

Indeed, in out new research, we found some clear concerns. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2,093 UK adults in 2021. Half of those surveyed felt their attention ans were shorter than they used to be, compared with a quarter who didn’t. And three quarters of participants agreed we’re living through a time when there’s non-stop competition for our attention between a variety of media channels and information outlets (渠道).

There has long been a worry about the threat to attention brought by new cultural forms, whether that’s social media or the cheap paperback sensation novels of the 19th century. Even as far back as ancient Greece, the philosopher Socrates complained that the written words created “forgetfulness in our souls”. There has always been a tendency to fear the effects that new media and technologies will have on our minds.

The reality is that we simply don’t have long-term studies that tell us whether our attention spans have actually shrunk. What we do know from our study is that people overestimate some of the problems. There’s no such thing as an average attention span. Our ability to focus varies hugely depending on the individual and the task at hand.

It’s also important not to ignore the many benefits that technology brings to our life. Much of the public surveyed recognized these, so while half thought big tech and social media were ruining young people’s attention spans, roughly another half felt that being easily distracted was more to do with people’s personalities than any negative influence that tech ho logy may or may not have. Also, half of the public believed multitasking at work and switching frequently between emails, phone calls, and other tasks can create a more efficient and satisfactory work experience.

1. What might be the theme of the books mentioned in Paragraph 1?

A．The main focus of social media.

B．The great influence of public opinion.

C．The attention crisis in the digital age.

D．The fierce competition in the digital age.

2. What can we know about some of the participants in the new research?

A．They were frequently disturbed by digital devices.

B．They felt it hard to acquire useful information online.

C．They had shorter attention spans than average people.

D．They felt challenged by fierce competition from others.

3. Why does the author mention Socrates in Paragraph 3?

A．To stress new cultural forms have limitations.

B．To show worry about attention is an age-old problem.

C．To prove the important role he played in literary history

D．To explain cultural differences between the past and the present.

4. What can be inferred from the last paragraph?

A．People tend to overestimate their ability es.

B．Digital distractions might have potential benefits.

C．Technology’s benefits have been largely ignored.

D．Switching between different tasks frequently is difficult.

5. What message does the author want to convey?

A．Digital devices can benefit our work.

B．We should say “No” to digital devices.

C．We should think highly of new cultural forms.

D．Digital distractions really affect us so much.

6 . The world has faced a food crisis of unprecedented(前所未有的) proportions in 2022—the largest in modern history, as conflict, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate crisis and rising costs have combined to pose great risks for hungry people across the world. As many as 828 million people go to bed hungry every night. The number of those facing acute food insecurity has risen from 135 million to 345 million since 2019. A total of 49 million people in 49 countries are suffering hunger, according to figures from the United Nations’ World Food Programme.

“We are facing an unprecedented global food crisis and all signs suggest we have not yet seen the worst. For the last three years, hunger numbers have repeatedly hit new peaks,” WFP Executive Director David Beasley said. He warned that things can and will get worse unless there is a large-scale and coordinated(协调一致的) effort to address the causes of this crisis.

There are many reasons for prevailing high levels of food insecurity. These reasons include conflicts, climate changes and weather extremes, economic slowdowns and downturns. In addition, these drivers often do not act alone. For instance, conflicts are often accompanied by economic downturns, which affect livelihoods and the ability of people to earn resources, leading to increasing poverty levels and higher prevalence(流行) of food insecurity.

Unfortunately, the main reasons for high levels of food insecurity have not improved this year. People in the Horn of Africa are facing a fifth consecutive(连续的) failed rain season in parts of Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, which will constrain their production, and is likely to push many people deeper into food insecurity.

Moreover, there is uncertainty about the weather. And climatic shock affecting any major producer or exporter will introduce additional uncertainty into production and consequently prices, which in turn impact the ability to purchase food, particularly of the most vulnerable people.

1. How does the author lead in the topic?

A．By making a comparison.	B．By sharing personal experience.
C．By giving opinions with evidence.	D．By listing facts and accurate figures.

2. What can we know from David Beasley’s words?

A．This global food crisis won’t last longer.

B．It’s certain that the global food crisis will get worse.

C．We need to work together to deal with the global food crisis.

D．There will be another new peak of hunger numbers in three years.

3. What does the underlined word in Paragraph 3 mean?

A．Characters.

B．Operators.

C．Factors.

D．Activities.

4. What is the best title for the passage?

A．The Issue of Food Safety	B．The Unprecedented Food Crisis
C．Conflicts Causing Food Shortage	D．Efforts Put into the Study of Food Insecurity

7 . A good gift is one that is more valuable for the recipient than it is for the giver. But most gifts destroy value rather than create it. Think of the Christmas-tree-shaped cookie jar that cost your aunt 530 but is worth considerably less than zero to you, posing a moral conundrum (难题): Do you throw it right into the trash or wait a couple of months? The economist Joel Waldfogel calls this discrepancy the “deadweight loss” of gifts, and estimates that, on average, it is from 10 percent to a third of a gift’s price.

One explanation for the deadweight loss is a mismatch between desirability and feasibility. Consider n gadget that is useful (high disability) but difficult to set up and time-consuming to use (low feasibility). Scholars have found that givers usually focus on desirability, and receivers are more aware of feasibility. Your friend who bought you a fancy wearable fitness tracker probably thought it was a really cool and helpful gift; to you, it seems like a massive headache to figure out, requires an app download and a monthly fee, and offers data that will either make you feel terrible about yourself or turn into a life-ruining obsession. That’s why it is still sitting in your drawer in its original package.

Another happiness-killing mismatch can occur between the receiver’s initial reaction and their long-term satisfaction. As Anna Goldfarb noted in The Atlantic a few weeks ago, givers tend to look for “reaction-maximizing gifts” (such as the wife’s over-the-top response to the car) as opposed to “satisfaction-maximizing gifts.” Once the giver is not present to see the receiver’s reaction, the receiver might not actually be that excited about socks with her best friend’s face on them.

Someone looking for a big reaction might be tempted to buy a wildly expensive gift, which poses its own emotional problems. In the worst cases, they may even be trying to exert dominance over you, or manipulate you into doing them a favor later. Either way, receiving a gift that’s too nice might make you feel guilty. According to one 2019 survey from CompareCards, 46 percent of respondents felt guilty for being unable to give a gift worth as much as the one they received.

In truth, the biggest benefit to most gift giving is to the giver herself. Generosity is truly a way to buy happiness. As my colleague Michael Norton and his co-authors showed in the journal Science in 2008, although spending money on oneself is weakly related to happiness, spending money on others significantly rises the giver’s well-being. Neuroscientists have shown that charitable giving to others engages the reward system, inducing pleasure in one of the same ways that alcohol and certain drugs do. (Maybe this is the real reason Santa is so jolly.)

1. What does “deadweight loss” of gifts in para.1 refer to?

A．The value the gift creates rather than destroys.

B．The money the giver spends on a meaningful gift

C．The good-will and thoughtfulness of the gift giver.

D．The loss of the gift value in the eyes of the receiver.

2. How would the receiver describe the ‘fancy wearable fitness tracker’ as a gift?

A．Fashionable and practical.	B．Unfriendly and upsetting.
C．Desirable and satisfactory.	D．Expensive and unworthy.

3. What makes the receiver not excited about socks printed with her best friend’s face?

A．That the giver is not present to see the receiver’s reaction.

B．That the receiver was expecting something wildly expensive.

C．Thot the giver is confused about what gift brings satisfaction.

D．That the receiver was expecting something he/she truly wants.

4. Which of the following best describes the main idea of this article?

A．It is in giving that givers receive.

B．Gift-giving is in most cases a win-win situation.

C．The greatest gift you can give is your time and attention.

D．Presents are generally terrible, but they can still bring you joy.

8 . Arguably, the biggest science development of the year to date has been the images of the very depths of the universe taken by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Those images beg a comparison between the external and internal universes that science is bent on observing and understanding.

Decades ago, astrophysicist Carl Sagan famously said, “The universe is also within is. We’re made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself. ” He was commenting then on the reality that our internal universe was as complex and as fantastic as the outer space.

There are many similarities between the progress we’ve made in understanding the universe and in piecing together life’s inner workings. Like the technological developments that took us from Galileo’s telescope to the Hubble to the JWST, life science tools have also improved rapidly. From early light microscopes to modern super-resolution ones, these developments have afforded researchers a deep look into biology’s infinitesimal (无限小的) landscape. Learning that living things were composed of cells was, not a terribly long time ago, a revolutionary observation. Since then, scientists have been able to dive ever deeper into the components of life.

Going beyond merely observing the complicated makeup of organisms, life scientists can now discover the workings of molecules (分子). And that is where scanning the universe differs from peering into biology. Understanding the universe, especially from a functional standpoint, is not necessarily an immediate urgency. Understanding biology on that level is. Simply observing the amazing internal structure of cells is not enough. Biologists must also characterize how all those parts interact and change in different environments and when faced with various challenges. Being able to image a virus or bacterium is nice at the level of basic science. But knowing how viruses gain entry into cells and spread, infect, and disable can literally save lives. Through time, biology has risen to this mechanistic challenge. Not only can life science tools produce images of cell components, even more importantly, they can help predict the effects of drugs on receptors, of immune cells on foreign invaders (入侵者), and of genetic perturbations (基因干扰) on development and aging.

This is not to belittle the work of scientists researching into universe. They should rightly be praised for delivering views of impossibly distant, impossibly massive phenomena. My aim is to celebrate these accomplishments while at the same time recognizing that science’s inward search for detail and insight is equally impressive and, in my view, more urgent. The output of both the outward and inward explorations should stimulate wonder in everyone. After all, it’s all star-stuff.

1. Why does the author quote Carl Sagan’s comment in Paragraph 2?

A．To introduce the background.	B．To prove an assumption.
C．To make a comparison.	D．To present an idea.

2. Like the study of the universe, life science has been advancing in ________.

A．study approaches	B．system management
C．research facilities	D．technology integration

3. We can infer from Paragraph 4 that biologists’ work is ________.

A．practical

B．risky

C．flexible

D．popular

4. As for life science, which would the author agree with?

A．It has received universal recognition.	B．It should enjoy priority in development.
C．It can be applied in the majority of areas.	D．It is more complicated than space science.