1 . For decades, scientists thought of the brain as the most closely guarded organ. Locked safely behind a biological barrier, away from the disorder of the rest of the body, it was broadly free of destruction of germs (病菌) and the battles started by the immune system.

Then, 20-odd years ago, some researchers began to ask a question: is the brain really so separate? The answer, according to a growing body of evidence, is no — and has important effects on both science and health care.

The list of brain conditions that have been associated with changes elsewhere in the body is long and growing. Changes in the make-up of the microorganisms resident in the gut (肠道), for example, have been linked to disorders like Parkinson’s disease. Some researchers think that certain infections could provoke Alzheimer’s disease and some could lead to emotional disorder in babies.

The effect is two-way. There is a lengthening list of symptoms (症状) not typically viewed as disorders of the nervous system in which the brain and the neural processes that connect it to the body play a large part. For example, the development of a fever is influenced by a population of neurons (神经元) that control body temperature and appetite. The effect of brain on body is underlined by the finding that stimulating a particular brain region in mice can ‘remind’ the body of previous inflammation (炎症) — and reproduce them.

These findings and others mark a complete shift in our view of the interconnectedness of brain and body, and could help us both understand and treat illness. If some brain conditions start outside the brain, then perhaps cures for them could also reach in from outside. Treatments that take effect through the digestive system, heart or other organs, for instance, would be much easier and less striking to give than those that must cross the blood-brain barrier, the brain’s first line of defence.

In the opposite direction, the effects of our emotions or mood on our capacity to recover from illness could also be used. There is an opening work under way testing whether stimulating certain areas of the brain that respond to reward and produce feelings of positivity could enhance recovery from conditions such as heart attacks. Perhaps even more exciting is the possibility that making changes to our behaviour — to reduce stress, say — could have similar benefits.

For neuroscientists, it’s time to look beyond the brain. And clinicians treating the body mustn’t assume the brain is above getting involved — its activity could be influencing a wide range of conditions, from mild infections to long-time fatness.

1. The author writes paragraph 1 mainly to ______.

A．evaluate an argument

B．present an assumption

C．summarize the structure

D．provide the background

2. What does the underlined word “provoke” mean in Paragraph 3?

A．Delay.

B．Cure.

C．Cause.

D．Disturb.

3. What can we learn from the passage?

A．Treatments that cross brain-blood barrier are less used.

B．Previous diseases could cause the production of new ones.

C．Emotions could affect the capacity to fight against diseases.

D．Treatment of the brain takes priority over other treatments.

4. Which of the following shows the development of ideas in the passage?
I: Introduction P: Point Sp: Sub-point (次要点) C: Conclusion

A．	B．
C．	D．

2 . Researchers hope brain implants will one day help people with aphasia(失语症) to get their voice back—and maybe even to sing. Now, for the first time, scientists have demonstrated that the brain’s electrical activity can be decoded and used to reconstruct music.

A new study analyzed data from 29 people monitored for epileptic seizures(癫痫发作), using electrodes(电极) on the surface of their brain. As participants listened to a selected song, electrodes captured brain activity related to musical elements, such as tone, rhythm, and lyrics. Employing machine learning, Robert Knight from UC Berkeley and his colleagues reconstructed what the participants were hearing and published their study results. The paper is the first to suggest that scientists can “listen secretly to” the brain to synthesize(合成) music.

To turn brain activity data into musical sound, researchers trained an artificial intelligence (AI)model to decode data captured from thousands of electrodes that were attached to the participants as they listened to the song while undergoing surgery. Once the brain data were fed through the model, the music returned. The model also revealed some brain parts responding to different musical features of the song.

Although the findings focused on music, the researchers expect their results to be most useful for translating brain waves into human speech. Ludovic Bellier, the study’s lead author, explains that speech, regardless of language, has small melodic differences—tempo, stress, accents, and intonation—known as prosody(韵律). These elements carry meaning that we can’t communicate with words alone. He hopes the model will improve brain-computer interfaces (BCI), assistive devices that record speech-associated brain waves and use algorithms to reconstruct intended messages. This technology, still in its infancy, could help people who have lost the ability to speak because of aphasia.

Future research should investigate whether these models can be expanded from music that participants have heard to imagined internal speech. If a brain-computer interface could recreate someone’s speech with the prosody and emotional weight found in music, it could offer a richer communication experience beyond mere words.

Several barriers remain before we can put this technology in the hands—or brains— of patients. The current model relies on surgical implants. As recording techniques improve, the hope is to gather data non-invasively, possibly using ultrasensitive electrodes. However, under current technologies, this approach might result in a lower speed of decoding into natural speech. The researchers also hope to improve the playback clarity by packing the electrodes closer together on the brain’s surface, enabling an even more detailed look at the electrical symphony the brain produces.

1. What can we learn from the study?

A．Electrodes can analyze musical elements.

B．The decoding of brain data helps recreate music.

C．Machine learning greatly enhances brain activity.

D．The AI model monitors music-responsive brain regions.

2. What hopefully makes it possible to expand the model to speech?

A．The prosody of speech.	B．The collection of brain waves.
C．The emotional weight of music.	D．The reconstruction of information.

3. Which of the following would be the best title for the passage?

A．Unlocking the Secrets of Melodic Mind	B．Brain Symphony: Synthesized Human Speech
C．BCI Brings Hope to People with Aphasia	D．Remarkable Journey: Decoding Brain with AI

3 . Have we reached the peak of the culture war? Looking at my social media feeds, it seems that polarised thinking and misinformation have never been more common. How am I supposed to feel when users I once admired now draw on questionable evidence to support their beliefs?

Perhaps it is time for us all to adopt a little “existential humility”. I came across this idea in a paper by Jeffrey Greenat Virginia from Common Wealth University and his colleagues. They build on a decade of research examining the benefits of “intellectual humility” more generally — our ability to recognise the errors in our judgement and remain aware of the limits of our knowledge.

You can get a flavour of this research by rating your agreement with the following statements, ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very like me): I question my own opinions because they could be wrong; I recognise the value in opinions that are different from my own; in the face of conflicting evidence, I am open to changing my opinions.

People who score highly on this assessment are less likely to form knee-jerk reactions on a topic, and they find it easier to consider the strengths or weaknesses of a logical argument. They are less likely to be influenced by misinformation, since they tend to read the article in full, investigate the sources of a news story and compare its reporting to other statements, before coming to a strong conclusion about its truth.

Developing “intellectual humility” would be an excellent idea in all fields, but certain situations may make it particularly difficult to achieve. Greenat points out that some beliefs are so central to our identity that any challenge can activate an existential crisis, as if our whole world view and meaning in life are under threat. As a result, we become more insistent in our opinions and seek any way to protect them. This may reduce some of our feelings of uncertainty, but it comes at the cost of more analytical thinking.

For these reasons, Greenat defines “existential humility” as the capacity to entertain the thought of another world view without becoming so defensive and closed-minded. So how could we achieve it? This will be the subject of future research, but the emotion of awe (a feeling of great respect and admiration) may offer one possibility. One study found that watching awe-inspiring videos about space and the universe led to humbler thinking, including a greater capacity to admit weaknesses.

Perhaps we could all benefit from interrupting our despair with awe-inspiring content. At the very least, we can try to question our preconceptions before offering our views on social media and be a little less ready to criticize when others disagree.

1. Regarding the culture war on social media, the author is _______.

A．embarrassed

B．concerned

C．panicked

D．stressed

2. What can be inferred from the passage?

A．Existential humility reduces the threat to identity.

B．People with intellectual humility tend to jump to conclusions.

C．Awe could promote existential humility by encouraging modest thinking.

D．The higher you score on the assessment, the more you stick to your values.

3. Which would be the best title for the passage?

A．Overcome an Existential Crisis	B．Show a Little Humility
C．The Path to Screening Information	D．The Approach to Achieving Humility

4 . When I teach research methods, a major focus is peer review. As a process, peer review evaluates academic papers for their quality, integrity and impact on a field, largely shaping what scientists accept as “knowledge”- By instinct, any academic follows up a new idea with the question, “Was that peer reviewed?”

Although I believe in the importance of peer review and I help do peer reviews for several academic journals-I know how vulnerable the process can be.

I had my first encounter with peer review during my first year as a Ph. D student. One day, my adviser handed me an essay and told me to have my -written review back to him in a week. But at the time, I certainly was not a “peer”-I was too new in my field. Manipulated data (不实的数据) or substandard methods could easily have gone undetected. Knowledge is not self-evident. Only experts would be able to notice them, and even then, experts do not always agree on what they notice.

Let’s say in my life I only see white swans. Maybe I write an essay, concluding that all swans are white. And a “peer” says, “Wait a minute, I’ve seen black swans.” I would have to refine my knowledge.

The peer plays a key role evaluating observations with the overall goal of advancing knowledge. For example, if the above story were reversed, and peer reviewers who all believed that all swans were white came across the first study observing a black swan, the study would receive a lot of attention.

So why was a first-year graduate student getting to stand in for an expert? Why would my review count the same as an expert’s review? One answer: The process relies almost entirely on unpaid labor.

Despite the fact that peers are professionals, peer review is not a profession. As a result, the same over-worked scholars often receive masses of the peer review requests. Besides the labor inequity, a small pool of experts can lead to a narrowed process of what is publishable or what counts as knowledge, directly threatening diversity of perspectives and scholars. Without a large enough reviewer pool, the process can easily fall victim to biases, arising from a small community recognizing each other’s work and compromising conflicts of interest.

Despite these challenges, I still tell my students that peer review offers the best method for evaluating studies aird advancing knowledge. As a process, peer review theoretically works. The question is whether the issues with peer review can be addressed by professionalizing the field.

1. What can we learn about peer review in the first paragraph?

A．It generates knowledge.	B．It is commonly practiced.
C．It is a major research method.	D．It is questioned by some scientists.

2. What can be inferred about the example of swans?

A．Complexity of peer review ensures its reliability.

B．Contradictions between scientists may be balanced.

C．Individuals can be limited by personal experiences.

D．Experts should detect unscientific observation methods.

3. What is the author’s major concern about peer review?

A．Workload for scholars.	B．Toughness of the process.
C．Diversification of publications.	D．Financial support to reviewers.

4. The passage is mainly about ______.

A．what fuels peer review	B．why peer review is imperfect
C．how new hands advance peer review	D．whether peer reviewers are underrated

5 . While some allergies (过敏症) disappear over time or with treatment, others last a lifetime. For decades, scientists have been searching for the source of these lifetime allergies.

Recently, researchers found that memory B cells may be involved. These cells produce a different class of antibodies known as IgG, which ward off viral infections. But no one had identified exactly which of those cells were recalling allergens or how they switched to making the IgE antibodies responsible for allergies. To uncover the mysterious cells, two research teams took a deep dive into the immune (免疫的) cells of people with allergies and some without.

Immunologist Joshua Koenig and colleagues examined more than 90, 000 memory B cells from six people with birch allergies, four people allergic to dust mites and five people with no allergies. Using a technique called RNA sequencing, the team identified specific memory B cells, which they named MBC2s that make antibodies and proteins associated with the immune response that causes allergies.

In another experiment, Koenig and colleagues used a peanut protein to go fishing for memory B cells from people with peanut allergies. The team pulled out the same type of cells found in people with birch and dust mite allergies. In people with peanut allergies, those cells increased in number and produced IgE antibodies as the people started treatment to desensitize them to peanut allergens.

Another group led by Maria Curotto de Lafaille, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, also found that similar cells were more plentiful in 58 children allergic to peanuts than in 13 kids without allergies. The team found that the cells are ready to switch from making protective IgG antibodies to allergy-causing IgE antibodies. Even before the switch, the cells were making RNA for IgE but didn’t produce the protein. Making that RNA enables the cells to switch the type of antibodies they make when they encounter allergens. The signal to switch partially depends on a protein called JAK, the group discovered. “Stopping JAK from sending the signal could help prevent the memory cells from switching to IgE production,” Lafaille says. She also predicts that allergists may be able to examine aspects of these memory cells to forecast whether a patient's allergy is likely to last or disappear with time or treatment.

“Knowing which population of cells store allergies in long-term memory may eventually help scientists identify other ways to kill the allergy cells,” says Cecilia Berin, an immunologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “You could potentially get rid of not only your peanut allergy but also all of your allergies.”

1. Why did scientists investigate the immune cells of individuals with and without allergies?

A．To explore the distinctions between IgG and IgE.

B．To uncover new antibodies known as IgG and IgE.

C．To identify cells responsible for defending against allergies.

D．To reveal cells associated with the development of allergies.

2. What does the word “desensitize” underlined in Paragraph 4 most probably mean?

A．Make. . . less destructive.	B．Make. . . less responsive.
C．Make. . . less protective.	D．Make. . . less effective.

3. What can we learn from the two research teams’ work?

A．MBC2s make antibodies and proteins that prevent allergies.

B．Memory B cells generate both RNA for IgE and the corresponding protein.

C．JAK plays a role in controlling antibody production when exposed to allergens.

D．Allergists are capable of predicting whether an allergy will last or disappear.

4. Which could be the best title for the passage?

A．RNA Sequencing Is Applied in Immunology Research

B．Specific Cells Related to Peanut Allergies Are Identified

C．Unmasking Cells’ Identities Helps Diagnose and Treat Allergies

D．Newfound Immune Cells Are Responsible for Long-lasting Allergies

8 . Golf has a length problem. The farther players drive the ball, the longer holes need to be, so that skills like iron play and putting (打球入洞) remain important. But the longer courses are, the more they cost to maintain and the worse their environmental impact. They also become more daunting for recreational golfers, who keep them in business.

In 2004, golf’s regulators introduced limits on the size of clubs (球杆), hoping to slow the trend of ever-longer drives. Nonetheless, the inflation has continued quickly. On November 15th a famous record tumbled (下跌): someone completed the Masters Tournament in fewer than 270 strokes, the mark Tiger Woods set when he won his first major title in 1997. The new low of 268 belongs to Dustin Johnson, who has averaged more than 300 yards a pop throughout his career. He achieved the feat even though the Augusta National course is 8% longer than in 1997.

How have golfers continued to blast the ball farther than ever? The PGA Tour publishes ball-tracking statistics, which suggest that, although better equipment may have helped, players’ recent gains stem largely from their technique — and even bigger improvements now appear inevitable.

The data come from ShotLink, a system that tracks how fast a golfer swings (“clubhead speed”), his ball’s trajectory (“launch angle”) and its rotation speed (“spin rate”). A statistical model using these metrics was built to predict driving distances. Together, the three factors explained 70% of the differences between players’ distances, and almost all of the increase in length over time.

The model’s lessons are intuitive. To thump the ball as far as possible, one should maximise clubhead speed and launch angle while minimising spin. However, most players face a trade-off between these goals. Harder impacts usually mean flatter trajectories.

One golfer, however, has escaped this constraint. Bryson DeChambeau, a physics graduate with oddly designed club, is nicknamed the “Mad Scientist”. He gained 18kg of weight while the PGA Tour was suspended. This has allowed him to swing faster than anyone else. But he has also managed to smash the ball with a high launch angle — an unprecedented combination that might owe something to his unusually stiff wrists and robotic technique. Using both his brains and his brawn, Mr DeChambeau is now hitting 15 yards farther than his closest competitors do.

Mark Broadie, a golf statistician, reckons that other professionals will try to beef up. But golf history is full of players who lost their edge after making small changes to their swings. And time may yet show that the risks of Mr DeChambeau’s bombs-away approach offset some of the rewards. He strayed into the rough (球场长草区) often at the Masters.

Nonetheless, the Mad Scientist’s breakthrough is bad news for course designers. They will probably have to keep fiddling with their fairways on the golf courses for years to come.

1. The author mentions Tiger Woods in Paragraph 2 to show ________.

A．golf drives are increasingly farther	B．the number of records is falling
C．game time is lengthening gradually	D．golf courses are growing longer

2. Recent golfers’ improving performance is mainly the result of ________.

A．finer equipment

B．longer courses

C．larger build

D．better techniques

3. What can we know about Bryson DeChambeau?

A．He has invented the never-failing bombs-away approach.

B．He is a golf statistician who spends a lot of time in the gym.

C．He actively urges course designers to update the golf courses.

D．He has managed to swing the ball fast without flatter trajectories.

4. Which would Mark Broadie most likely to agree with?

A．Changes to the swing shall be made with great caution.

B．Longer courses will cause more problems than benefits.

C．Professionals should follow Mr DeChambeau’s lead.

D．Other golfers should be brave enough to take risks.

9 . Faced with an attempt by a new chatbot to imitate (模仿) his own songs, the musician Nick Cave delivered a strong response: it was “an absolutely horrible attempt”. He understood that AI was in its babyhood, but could only conclude that the true horror might be that “it will forever be in its babyhood”. While a robot might one day be able to create a song, he wrote, it would never grow beyond “a kind of burlesque (滑稽的模仿)”, because robots-being composed of data-are unable to suffer, while songs arise out of suffering.

Fans of Cave and his band will agree that his music is inimitable, but that doesn’t mean they would necessarily be able to tell the difference. A few days before Cave’s remarks, experts were asked to distinguish between four genuine artworks and their AI imitations. Their conclusions were wrong five times out of 12, and they were only unitedly right in one of the four picture comparisons.

These are party games, but they point to an unfolding challenge that must be managed as a matter of urgency because, like it or not, AI art is upon us. The arrival of the human-impersonating ChatGPT might have increased general awareness, but artists across a wide range of disciplines are already exploring its potential, with the dancer Wayne McGregor and London’s Young Vic Theatre among those who have created AI-based works.

A strongly-worded report from Communications and Digital Committee (CDC) issued a wake-up call to the government, urging it to raise its game in educating future generations of tech-savvy professionals, and tackling key regulatory challenges. These included reviewing reforms to intellectual property law, strengthening the rights of performers and artists, and taking action to support the creative sector in adapting to the disturbances caused by swift and stormy technological change.

While developing AI is important, it should not be pursued at all costs, the CDC stressed. It deplored the failure of the Department for Digital, Culture, and Media to offer a defence against proposed changes to intellectual property law that would give copyright exemption (版权豁免) to any work, anywhere in the world, involving AI text and data mining.

The challenges of AI are both philosophical, as Cave suggested, and practical. They will unfold over the short and long term. State-of-the-art creative industries have a key role to play in shaping and exploring the philosophical ones, but they must have the practical help they require to survive and be successful. They need it now.

1. Why does the author mention the four picture comparisons in Paragraph 2?

A．To stress the similarities between AI art and human art.

B．To argue that human art will be replaced by AI art.

C．To prove AI is stretching the boundaries of art.

D．To imply AI art cannot be underestimated.

2. What does the underlined word “deplored” in Paragraph 5 probably mean?

A．Clearly analyzed.	B．Bravely suffered.
C．Strongly criticized.	D．Accurately perceived.

3. What can be inferred from the passage?

A．Some artists see AI as a tool even though it is a threat.

B．Creative industries are responsible for causing the AI problem.

C．Tech professionals need more training to better understand AI art.

D．The quality of AI art dismisses concerns about intellectual property.

4. Which would be the best title for the passage?

A．The Creative Thief: AI Makes Perfect Art

B．AI in Art: A Battle That Must Be Fought

C．Threat or Opportunity: The Impact of AI on Art

D．The Rise of AI Art: What It Means to Human Artists

10 . Laughing together is an important way for people to connect and bond. And though the causes of laughter can vary widely across individuals and groups, the sound of a laugh is usually recognizable between people belonging to different cultures.

But what about animals? Do they “laugh”? And are the causes of animal and human laughter alike? In humans, people may laugh when they hear a joke, or when they see something that they think is funny, though it’s unknown if animals’ intelligence includes what humans would call a sense of humor.

However, many animals produce sounds during play that are unique to that pleasant social interaction. Researchers consider such vocalizations to be similar to human laughter. Recently, scientists investigated play vocalization to see how common it was among animals. The team identified 65 species that “laughed” while playing — most were mammals (哺乳动物), but a few bird species demonstrated playful laughter too. Reports of playful laughter were notably absent in studies describing fish, perhaps because there is some question as to whether or not play exists at all in that animal group. This new study could help scientists to analyze the origins of human laughter.

But how can we identify play? Unlike fighting, play is usually repetitive and happens independently of other social behaviors, said lead study author Sasha Winkler, a doctor of biological anthropology at the University of California. When it comes to identifying it, “you know it when you see it,” Winkler told Live Science. One sign is that primates — our closest relatives — have a “play face” that is similar to the expressions of humans who are playing.

When Winkler previously worked with rhesus macaques, she had noticed that the monkeys panted (喘气) quietly while playing. Many other primates are also known to vocalize during play, she said, so a hypothesis (laughter in humans is thought to have originated during play) supported by the play-related panting laughter of many primate species was put forward.

People now still laugh during play, but we also integrate laughter into language and non-play behaviors, using laughter in diverse ways to express a range of emotions that may be positive or negative. Human laughter notably differs from other animals’ laughter in another important way: its volume. People broadcast their laughter loudly, often as a way of establishing inclusion. By comparison, when most animals laugh, the sound is very quiet — just loud enough to be heard by the laugher’s partner.

“It’s really fascinating that so many animals have a similar function of vocalization during play,” Winkler told Live Science. “But we do have these unique parts of human laughter that are also an important area for future study."

1. What is the main purpose of the passage?

A．To explain causes of animal and human laughter.

B．To assess complexities regarding animal laughter.

C．To present findings on the existence of animal laughter.

D．To analyze differences between animal and human laughter.

2. What can we learn from this passage?

A．Animal laughter is even noticeable in fish.

B．Animal laughter is hard to recognize during play.

C．People have learned to combine play with laughter.

D．People laugh loudly because they want to involve others.

3. What is probably the focus of future study on laughter?

A．Distinctive features of human laughter.

B．Different functions of animal laughter.

C．The origin and development of human laughter.

D．The relationship between animal laughter and intelligence.