1 . The Poseidon Effect
Late one autumn day at the local swimming pool in Ancenis, France, an 18-year-old named Jean LeRoy came for his regular evening swim in the 25-metre pool.
When people are drowning, they don’t usually shout and
Luckily for him, the swimming pool was
Machines like Poseidon completely change how we live. Think of your life before the answering machine was invented. Think of your grandparents’ lives before the television and the airplane were introduced. The change will be just as great. It is
Soon, machines will recognize our faces and our fingerprints. They will
| A．splash | B．cry | C．yell | D．scream |
| A．soon | B．quietly | C．silently | D．simply |
| A．in | B．within | C．over | D．on |
| A．No matter how | B．However | C．Whoever | D．Whatever |
| A．established | B．installed | C．set | D．equipped |
| A．show | B．film | C．propagate | D．outline |
| A．postulated | B．made | C．programmed | D．relayed |
| A．whether | B．when | C．while | D．if |
| A．alarmed | B．beeped | C．warned | D．alerted |
| A．healthy | B．normal | C．safe | D．well |
| A．always | B．merely | C．readily | D．already |
| A．watch out | B．take care | C．look back | D．go over |
| A．terrorists | B．invalids | C．senators | D．tyrants |
| A．will send | B．to send | C．send | D．sending |
| A．recorded | B．checked | C．monitored | D．supervised |
2 . Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.
There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth’s atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made. The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, added this key point in the preface to the panel’s report: “Science never has all the answers. But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions.”
Just as on smoking, voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it’s OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the time 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.
Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it’s obvious that a majority of the president’s advisers still don’t take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research — a classic case of “paralysis by analysis.”
To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won’t take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures. A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry, is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound.
1. What was an argument made by supporters of smoking?| A．There was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death. |
| B．The number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant. |
| C．People had the freedom to choose their own way of life. |
| D．Antismoking people were usually talking nonsense. |
| A．A protector. | B．A judge. | C．A critic. | D．A guide. |
| A．Cautious. | B．Arbitrary. | C．Responsible. | D．Expericed. |
| A．They both suffered from the government’s negligence. |
| B．A lesson from the latter is applicable to the former. |
| C．The outcome of the latter aggravates the former. |
| D．Both of them have turned from bad to worse. |
3 . Although literacy appeared independently in several parts of the prehistoric world, the earliest evidence of writing is the cuneiform Sumerian script on the clay tablets of ancient Mesopotamia, which, archaeological detective work has revealed, had its origins in the accounting practices of commercial activity. Researchers demonstrated that preliterate people, to keep track of the goods they produced and exchanged, created a system of accounting using clay tokens as symbolic representations of their products. Over many thousands of years, the symbols evolved through several stages of abstraction until they became wedge-shaped (cuneiform) signs on clay tablets, recognizable as writing.
The original tokens were three-dimensional solid shapes — tiny spheres, cones, disks, and cylinders. A debt of six units of grain and eight head of livestock, for example, might have been represented by six conical and eight cylindrical tokens. To keep batches of tokens together, an innovation was introduced whereby they were sealed inside clay envelopes that could be broken open and counted when it came time for a debt to be repaid. But because the contents of the envelopes could easily be forgotten, two-dimensional representations of the three-dimensional tokens were impressed into the surface of the envelopes before they were sealed. Eventually, having two sets of equivalent symbols — the internal tokens and external markings — came to seem redundant, so the tokens were eliminated, and only solid clay tablets with two-dimensional symbols were retained. Over time, the symbols became more numerous, varied, and abstract and came to represent more than trade commodities, evolving eventually into cuneiform writing.
The evolution of the symbolism is reflected in the archaeological record first of all by the increasing complexity of the tokens themselves. The earliest tokens, dating from about 10,000 to 6,000 years ago, were of only the simplest geometric shapes. But about 3500 B.C.E., more complex tokens came into common usage, including many naturalistic forms shaped like miniature tools, furniture, fruit, and humans.
1. Which of the following is NOT mentioned about clay envelopes?| A．They contained batches of tokens. | B．They could be reused frequently. |
| C．They had markings on the outside. | D．They could be used to record debts. |
| A．Later tokens were made of many different materials, but earlier ones were made only of clay. |
| B．Later tokens often looked like the commodities that they represented, but earlier ones did not. |
| C．Later tokens represented agricultural products, but earlier ones represented finished products. |
| D．Later tokens were based on pictographs, but earlier ones were based on naturalistic forms. |
| A．Sumerian script, the earliest known form of writing among prehistoric writing systems, was first used on clay tablets for accounting purposes. |
| B．Although the earliest Sumerians engaged in commercial activity and practiced accounting, they were not as literate as people in other parts of the prehistoric world. |
| C．Archaeologists have discovered that literacy was developed in several parts of the world, including ancient Mesopotamia. |
| D．Archaeological detective work has revealed the commercial accounting practices of the Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia and provided a written record of their intense commercial activity. |
| A．Evidence of the Earliest Writing | B．A long history of tokens |
| C．Evolution of the symbolism | D．Origins of the symbols |
4 . Does a happy person live longer? Many studies have convinced us that happiness brings good health, which has resulted in an increasing demand for speakers and products encouraging positive thinking. However, being happy does not promise that one is going to be healthy. There are other factors that influence one’s health and long life such as a person’s genes or even a person’s socio-economic condition.
Some research even suggests that positive thinking can be dangerous. Positive thinking, when taken to the extreme, can cause a person to be separated from reality. For example, a person who thinks that staying happy and positive can help him recover from an illness like cancer but later fails to recover from it, may blame himself for not being happy. In this case, positive thinking may potentially make the victim disregard other factors. Sometimes the pursuit of happiness is even associated with serious mental health problems such as depression.
All types of happiness are not good for us either. For example, pride, a pleasant feeling, can sometimes rob us of the ability to empathize with others or understand another’s viewpoint. This anti-social behavior can cause people around us to turn away from us, and this could, in turn, make us feel lonely and do harm to our mental and even physical health.
Moreover, unpleasant feelings can be beneficial to a person’s well-being. Researchers believe that unpleasant feelings can help us make sense of our challenges and experiences in a way that supports psychological well-being. For example, if I have behaved badly towards my good friend, the feelings of guilt and sadness might motivate me to apologize and ask for forgiveness. The rebuilding of a broken relationship can be a lift to one’s mental well-being.
In trying to experience happiness, we should remember that seeking for happiness as an end in itself can be self-defeating, and does not necessarily lead to better health. After all, one will surely experience setbacks and conflicts in life. Instead, learning to cope with negative emotions with a realistic positive attitude is key to a person’s good health.
1. What’s the writer’s opinion in this passage?| A．Negative thinking can be dangerous. |
| B．Staying happy can bring good health. |
| C．Unpleasant feelings cannot be beneficial. |
| D．Happiness cannot ensure one’s good health. |
| A．When we use it with a realistic attitude to solve problems. |
| B．When we focus on it as an only determinant of happy life. |
| C．When we think it one of the necessary factor for good health. |
| D．When we realize it may rob us of the ability to understand others. |
| A．They rebuild a broken relationship. |
| B．They lead to self-reflection and personal growth. |
| C．They help keep the problems and challenges away. |
| D．They prevent long-term negative effects on mental health. |
| A．An ultimate goal. | B．An individual plan. |
| C．A final decision. | D．A great start. |
5 . Lying in the Mexican state of Oaxaca, the fishing village Huatulco is home to nine bays, 36 beaches and thousands of baby turtles that apparently needed me. I had three open days on my calendar, and a desire to save some turtles. And so, away I went to Huatulco with Wildcoast, a group of champions-for-change who were protecting coastal and marine ecosystem in the U. S. and Mexico.
I was taken to La Escobilla to experience Wildcoast in action. Just one hour north of Huatulco, this protected beach is where mass turtle nesting happens. This natural phenomenon lasts just four days during rainy season, hundreds of thousands of female sea turtles swinging their way ashore to lay their eggs.
Between threats of dogs, crabs, development and oil spills, the little creatures have the whole world against them. As recently as 2002, turtles hunting was not only a common practice, but an important part of the culture and diet in the Oaxaca communities. Luckily, Wildcoast rescues turtle eggs and recreates habitats by monitoring temperatures and humidity. Thanks to their efforts, the sea turtles have made a major comeback, with now over 72 million turtles being born on the beaches that Wildcoast protects.
I got to hold 50 of the tiny creatures in a bowl. Despite an average laying of 100 eggs, just one in 1, 000 baby turtles will make it to adulthood. Gazing into the bowl, I so badly wanted them to taste the sea and find shelter somewhere deep in the ocean. Finally, it was time to liberate those little creatures. Out spilled the creatures, some moving full steam ahead while others barely paddled in place. Literally, hundreds of them began to spread out across the beach.
With each set of waves, we witnessed the survival of the fittest, some pushing past the whitewash while others crashed back to shore. Their fight for life made my eyes wet. A flock of birds were ready to dive into the sea for their moving targets. “One in 1, 000.” Nature was cruel and compassionate at the same time. After 30 long minutes, the last creature made his way to the sea.
1. The baby turtles are threatened by various factors except ________.| A．the cruel hunters | B．the rapid development |
| C．the extreme weather | D．the oil-polluted ocean |
| A．With slow pace and fear. | B．With all energy and enthusiasm. |
| C．With full caution and curiosity. | D．With great satisfaction and responsibility. |
| A．One baby turtle in 1,000 can make his way to the sea. |
| B．Thousands of baby turtles were crashed back to shore. |
| C．The struggle of baby turtles for life touched the author. |
| D．Baby turtles can hardly survive the harsh living conditions. |
| A．Think twice before you leap. | B．God helps those who help themselves. |
| C．Cease to struggle and you cease to live. | D．When the buying stops, the killing can too. |
6 . I had not visited Eton for many years. When one day passing from the Fellows’ Library into the Gallery, I caught sight of the
This portrait-gallery of old Etonians is very
| A．statue | B．character | C．portrait | D．theme |
| A．valuable | B．distinguished | C．familiar | D．gracious |
| A．wholly | B．partly | C．curiously | D．secretly |
| A．peers | B．chairman | C．leader | D．companion |
| A．judgment | B．thought | C．memories | D．behaviour |
| A．hurriedly | B．freshly | C．anxiously | D．eagerly |
| A．selective | B．splendid | C．handsome | D．challenging |
| A．Yet | B．Therefore | C．Thus | D．However |
| A．because | B．why | C．that | D．what |
| A．observed | B．captured | C．illustrated | D．guarded |
| A．operate | B．promote | C．justify | D．permit |
| A．appreciation | B．reason | C．cause | D．effect |
| A．devotion | B．ambition | C．imagination | D．symbol |
| A．brought about | B．stood for | C．stood out | D．brought in |
| A．interpret | B．grant | C．appoint | D．identify |
7 . Ramirez Castañeda, a Colombian biologist, spends her time in the Amazon studying how snakes eat poisonous frogs without getting ill. Although her findings come in many shapes and sizes, she and her colleagues have struggled to get their biological discoveries out to the wider scientific community. With Spanish as her mother tongue, her research had to be translated into English to be published. That wasn’t always possible because of budget or time-and it means that some of her findings were never published.
“It’s not that I’m a bad scientist,” she says. “It’s just because of the language.”
Castañeda is not alone. There is plenty of research in non-English-language papers that gets lost in translation, or is never translated. A research looked through more than 400, 000 peer-reviewed papers in 16 different languages and found 1, 234 studies providing evidence on biodiversity conservation which, because they weren’t in English, may have been overlooked. These included Japanese-language findings on the effectiveness of relocating the endangered Blakiston’s fish owl, the largest owl species.
Some experts argue that for the sake of the bigger picture, scientific knowledge should converge (转换) into one common language. Science is very globalised and becoming more so, so the use of a global language is enormous for that.
Of course, scientists can work with an English partner, or use a translator-but this ultimately strengthens the cycle of dependency on the global north, leading to inequality in international influence. The specific meanings of words can also pose a problem in translation. For example, it is difficult to find in English one single word to describe forest snakes and frogs in the work Castafieda does with indigenous (土著的) communities in the Amazon.
“So we’re losing observations for science, too, ” says Castañeda. “For me, it’s not possible to just have everything translated into English. We need multilingual (多语种的) science, and we need people that feel comfortable doing science in their own languages. It could be possible to switch to a world where, say, Chinese, English and Spanish are the three languages of science, just as English, French and German were the languages of science in the 19th century.”
1. What prevented Castañeda’s discoveries from being more widely known?| A．Poor management. | B．Opposition from her colleagues. |
| C．Her bad reputation. | D．The language barrier. |
| A．Inefficient wildlife conservation. |
| B．A knowledge gap in the scientific world. |
| C．A growing interest in non-English papers. |
| D．Inadequate job opportunities for translators. |
| A．The urgency to protect rare species. |
| B．The need to adopt one global language. |
| C．The challenges in translating scientific texts. |
| D．The biodiversity on the South American continent. |
| A．A potential solution. | B．A theoretical model. |
| C．A popular belief. | D．A global trend. |
8 . Human responses to moral dilemmas (道德困境) can be influenced by statements written by the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT, according to a study published in Scientific Reports. The findings indicate that users may undervalue the extent to which their own moral judgments can be influenced by the chatbot.
Sebastian Krigel and colleagues asked ChatGPT multiple times whether it is right to sacrifice (牺牲) the life of one person in order to save the lives of five others. They found that ChatGPT wrote random statements arguing both for and against sacrificing one life, indicating that it is not biased towards a certain moral stance (立场).
The authors then presented 767 U.S. participants, who were on average 39 years old, with a dilemma whether to sacrifice one person’s life to save five others. Before answering, participants read a statement provided by ChatGPT arguing either for or against sacrificing one life to save five. Statements were from either a moral advisor or ChatGPT. After answering, participants were asked whether the statement they read influenced their answers.
Eighty percent of participants reported that their answers were not influenced by the statements they read. However, the authors found that the answers participants believed they would have provided without reading the statements were still more likely to agree with the moral stance of the statement they did read than with the opposite stance. This indicates that participants may have underestimated the influence of ChatGPT’s statements on their own moral judgments.
The authors suggest that the possibility for chatbots to influence human moral judgments highlights the need for education to help humans better understand artificial intelligence. They propose that future research should design chatbots that either decline to answer questions requiring a moral judgment or answer these questions by providing multiple arguments and warnings.
1. What are ChatGPT’s answers to a certain moral stance?| A．changeable. | B．valuable. | C．creative. | D．simple. |
| A．They admitted the power of ChatGPT. |
| B．They were interviewed by a moral advisor. |
| C．They were affected by ChatGPT unknowingly. |
| D．They were presented with different moral dilemmas. |
| A．Different findings of the study. | B．Future possibility for chatbots. |
| C．Major focuses of future education. | D．Solutions to the impact of chatbots. |
| A．ChatGPT Tends to Cause Moral Panics. |
| B．ChatGPT: Is It Likely to Affect Our Life? |
| C．ChatGPT:Why Is It Making Us So Nervous? |
| D．ChatGPT Can Influence Human Moral Judgments. |
9 . There are close to 7, 000 languages spoken on Earth. However, it’s estimated that by the end of this century, up to 50% of them may be lost.
It’s commonly thought that majority languages tend to be valued for being useful and for promoting progress, while minority languages are seen as barriers to progress, and the value placed on them is seen mainly as sentimental (感情用事的). But is sentimentality really the only motivation for preserving language diversity?
Speakers of endangered languages often live in remote areas with unique landform. It is quite common for these languages to distinguish between hundreds more types of plants and animals than those known to modern science. For example, in Southeast Asia, some tribes have discovered the medicinal properties of over sixty-five hundred plant species. This has led to many of landmark achievements in medicine.
It was once believed that the limits of one’s language defined the limits of one’s thought. This theory, called the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis (假说), has been largely rejected in favor of the improved version, which assumes that the language we speak does not set the limits of our thoughts, but it does direct our focus in certain ways. For example, English is a tense-based language. It’s nearly impossible to talk about doing something without specifying the time — i. e. I went to the party(past), I’m going to the party(present), or I’ll go to the party (future). This differs from Chinese, where it’s perfectly reasonable to say, “I go to the party” without defining the “when”. Thus, part of the richness of language is that it allows us to organize the world in so many unique ways.
Some languages categorize the world in ways so different from our own that they are difficult to conceptualize (概念化). The United States employed native Navajo speakers to create a system of message coding during the Second World War. The Japanese were never able to break it, and the “code talkers” are often cited today as having helped decide the outcome of the war.
As we’ve already seen, minority languages are valuable for many practical reasons. In conclusion, I’d say the short answer is yes — dying languages are certainly worth saving!
1. What do people tend to think of minority languages?| A．Valueless. | B．Time-honored. | C．Informal. | D．Stable. |
| A．We can discover drugs in a much safer way. |
| B．We don’t have to rely on modern medicine. |
| C．We can acquire a broad knowledge of nature. |
| D．We can learn how to protect plants and animals. |
| A．To correct the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis. |
| B．To prove the value of minority languages. |
| C．To show wars’ role in preserving a language. |
| D．To explain ways to conserve some languages. |
| A．Are majority languages worth valuing? |
| B．Are we willing to save dying languages? |
| C．Should endangered languages be saved? |
| D．Is the future of minority languages bright? |
10 . Generative A.I., the software engine behind ChatGPT, is seen as an exciting new wave of technology. But companies in every industry are mainly trying out the technology and thinking through the economics. Widespread use of it at many companies could be years away.
Generative A.I., according to forecasts, could sharply boost productivity and add trillions of dollars to the global economy. Yet the lesson of history, from steam power to the Internet, is that there is a long lag between the arrival of major new technology and its broad adoption — which is what transforms industries and helps fuel the economy.
The investment craze is going on right now. In the first half of 2023, funding for generative A.I. start-ups reached $15.3 billion, nearly three times the total for last year. Company technology managers are sampling generative A.I. software from a host of suppliers and watching to see how the industry develops.
In November, when ChatGPT was made available to the public, it was a “Netscape moment” for generative A.I., said Rob Thomas, IBM’s chief commercial officer, referring to Netscape’s introduction of the browser in 1994. “That brought the Internet alive,” Mr. Thomas said. But it was just a beginning, opening a door to new business opportunities that it took years to create.
In a recent report, a timeline for the widespread adoption of generative A.I. application was presented. It assumed steady improvement in currently known technology, but not future break-throughs. Its forecast for main-stream adoption was neither short nor precise, a range of 8 to 27 years. The broad range is explained by plugging in different assumptions about economic cycles, government regulation, company cultures and management decisions. “We’re not modeling the laws of physics here; we’re modeling economics and societies, and people and companies,” said Michael Chui, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute. “What happens is largely the result of human choices.”
1. How are the companies reacting after the introduction of generative A.I.?| A．Adopting the new technology widely. | B．Making a high profit from the technology. |
| C．Staying cautious about the new technology. | D．Postponing generative A.I.’s wide adoption. |
| A．The arrival of major new technology. | B．The broad adoption of new technology. |
| C．The lag between the major technologies. | D．The invention of steam power in history. |
| A．To show the Internet came alive in the 1990s. |
| B．To mention A.I. has brought important benefits. |
| C．To explain the present situation is just a beginning. |
| D．To prove the new business opportunities are enormous. |
| A．It needs steady improvement instead of break-throughs. |
| B．It should model the laws of physics and economics. |
| C．It will be widely adopted in over 3 decades. |
| D．It is influenced mostly by human factors. |
