1 . The Greek philosopher Heraclitus once said that you can’t step into the same river twice, for you aren’t the same person at each visit and the water is ever flowing. It is a powerful way to show the reality that everything is always changing. Yet so many people have unpleasant relationships with change. We resist it or attempt to control it, the result of which is almost always some combination of stress, anxiety, and burnout. It doesn’t have to be that way.
No doubt, change can, and often does, hurt; but with the right mindset, it can also be a force for growth. A concept called allostasis can help. Developed in the late 1980s by neuroscientist Peter Sterling and biologist Joseph Eyer, allostasis is based on the idea that rather than being rigid, our healthy baseline is a moving target. Allostasis is defined as “stability through change”—the way to stay stable through the process of change is by changing.
From neuroscience to pain science and psychology, allostasis has become the dominant model for understanding change in the scientific community. The brain is at its best when it is constantly rewiring itself and making new connections. Overcoming pain is not about resistance or trying to get back to where you were but about balancing acceptance with problem-solving and moving forward to normal.
The time to start practicing is now. Over the past few years, the river of change has been flowing, and it shows no signs of letting up. Our ability to work with these changes is directly related to our life satisfaction. Given all this, simply creating a stable expectancy around change goes a long way. So does realizing that the allostasis mindset doesn’t ask us to do nothing. Rather, it asks us to partake in change by focusing on what we can control and trying to let go of what we can’t. When I catch myself resisting change, in my head I say the following: “This is what is happening right now. I’m doing the best that I can. What, if any, skillful actions can I take?” Do this repeatedly and finally you start to get better at it.
To thrive in our lifetime — and not just survive —we need to transform our relationship with change, leaving behind rigidity and resistance. We are always shaping and being shaped by change, often at the very same time.
1. What’s the common practice toward change?| A．To welcome it. | B．To reject it. |
| C．To overlook it. | D．To adapt to it. |
| A．One size fits all. | B．Time works great changes. |
| C．Respond to change by changing. | D．It’s never too late to change. |
| A．Stopping. | B．Dashing down. |
| C．Going up. | D．Widening. |
| A．Repetition makes up for rigidity. | B．It matters to focus on what we can’t. |
| C．Changes promote life satisfaction. | D．It makes sense to embrace changes. |
2 . Scientists have designed a tiny, shape-shifting “spider-robot” that can passively use its body as it navigates its environment. The robot is a pioneer that could one day perform surgery or hunt for survivors in a disaster zone, its inventors say.
The robot, mCLARI, is 0.8 inch long, weighs less than 0.03 ounces and can scurry at a maximum speed of 2.4 inches per second, according to the research. The tiny robot is the smaller, faster successor to CLARI, which was designed by the same team. It also passively changes its shape in multiple dimensions to fit through gaps.
“In the long term, we believe such robots to be effective at navigating through human bodies and performing automated surgery such as clearing blocks in blood or removing a tumor (肿瘤). Because of the robot’s small size and the ability to shape change, we foresee applications of this technology in the following four major domains of socioeconomic importance.” Study lead author Kaushik Jayaram, a mechanical engineering professor at the University of Colorado, told Live Science in an email. These include disaster response, high-value possession inspection, environmental monitoring and precision medicine.
With mCLARI, Jayaram’s team is inching closer to creating robots that can navigate complex environments — just like the organic creatures they’re inspired by. mCLARI robot has four leg modules that can move in two different dimensions. The robot can move in tight spaces by switching between running forward and side-to-side and can adopt multiple poses and rushing speeds. Its legs fasten to its body through passive joints, which enables mCLARI to alter its body shape based on the environment it encounters. For instance, its legs can stretch up to 50% in certain spaces.
As follow-up work, the scientists want to give mCLARI more power and sensing ability. “We are also excited about understanding the effect of shape change on enhancing motion ability,” Jayaram said.
1. Why does the author use numbers to describe mCLARI?| A．To illustrate its importance. |
| B．To explain its high speed. |
| C．To show its beautiful shape. |
| D．To highlight its advancement. |
| A．Move. | B．Change. | C．Transform. | D．Leap. |
| A．Replacing doctors. |
| B．Helping out in surgery. |
| C．Predicting natural disasters. |
| D．Evaluating family property. |
| A．Unclear. | B．Demanding. | C．Promising. | D．Dismissive. |
3 . People solve some new problems readily without any special training or practice by comparing them to familiar problems and extending the solutions to the new problems. That process, known as analogical reasoning (类比推理), has long been thought to be an ability only humans have. But now people might have to make room for a new kid on the block.
Psychologists from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) claim that, astonishingly, the artificial intelligence (AI) language model GPT-3 performs about as well as college undergraduates when asked to solve the sort of reasoning problems that typically appear on intelligence tests and standardized tests.
But the psychologists raise the question: Is GPT-3 copying human reasoning as a by-product of its massive language training data set or using a fundamentally new kind of cognitive (认知的) process? They also say that although GPT-3 performs far better than they expected at some reasoning tasks, the popular AI tool still fails completely at others. “It can do analogical reasoning, but it can’t do things that are very easy for people, such as using tools to solve a physical task,” says Taylor Webb, a UCLA postdoctoral researcher in psychology.
Webb and his colleagues tested GPT-3’s ability to solve a set of problems inspired by a test known as Raven’s Progressive Matrices, which ask the subject to predict the next image in a complicated arrangement of shapes. To enable GPT-3 to “see” the shapes, and make sure that the AI tool had never met the questions before, Webb transformed the images into a text format that GPT-3 could process.
The psychologists asked 40 UCLA undergraduate students to solve the same problems. Surprisingly, not only did GPT-3 do about as well as humans but it made similar mistakes as well. GPT-3 solved 80% of the problems correctly — well above the human subjects’ average score of just below 60%, but within the range of the highest human scores.
1. What is analogical reasoning usually considered?| A．A simple learning skill. | B．A unique human ability. |
| C．A vital thinking process. | D．A solution to any problem. |
| A．Its system has some limitations. | B．Its application hasn’t been popular. |
| C．It needs to be trained for these tasks. | D．It is good at copying human reasoning. |
| A．To add difficulty to the questions. | B．To enable GPT-3 to see the results. |
| C．To guarantee the foreignness of the tasks. | D．To test GPT-3’s ability to identify text. |
| A．It will replace humans in some cases. | B．It rarely makes mistakes like humans. |
| C．It is able to do things very easy for people. | D．It runs undergraduates close in reasoning. |
4 . Demands for stronger protection for wildlife in Britain sometimes hide the fact that similar needs are felt in the rest of Europe Studies by the Council of Europe of which 21 countries are members have shown that 45 per cent of reptile species and 24 per cent of butterflies are, in danger or dying out.
European concern for wildlife was outlined by. Dr Peter Baum, an expert in the environment and natural resources division of the council when he spoke at a conference arranged by the administrators of a British national park. The park is one of the few areas in Europe to hold the council’s diploma for nature reserves of the highest quality and Dr Baum had come to present it to the park once again. He was afraid that public opinion was turning against national parks and that those set up in the 1960s and 1970s could not he set up today. But Dr Baum clearly remained a strong supporter of the view that natural environments needed to be allowed to survive in peace in their own right.
“No area could be expected to survive both as a true nature reserve and as a tourist attraction.” he went on. The shortsighted view that reserves had to serve immediate human demands for outdoor recreation should be replaced by full acceptance of their importance as places to preserve nature for the future.
“We forget that they are the guarantee (保证) of life systems on which any built-up area depends,” Dr Baum went on. “We could manage without most industrial products but we could not manage without nature. However our natural environment areas which are the original parts of our countryside have become mere islands in a spoiled and highly polluted land.”
1. Recent studies by the Council of Europe have declared that _________.| A．wildlife needs more protection only in Britain |
| B．all species of wildlife in Europe are in danger of dying out |
| C．there are fewer species of reptiles and butterflies in Europe than elsewhere |
| D．many species of reptiles and butterflies in Europe need protecting |
| A．Because he needed to present it with a council’s diploma. |
| B．Because he was concerned about its management. |
| C．Because he valued the park as the only national park of its kind in Europe. |
| D．Because he wanted to congratulate the park for finally receiving a diploma. |
| A．national parks should serve more purposes for human activities |
| B．people would go on protecting national parks |
| C．certain areas of the countryside should be left undisturbed by man. |
| D．people should defend the right to develop the areas around national parks |
| A．preservation | B．relaxation |
| C．expression | D．modernization |
| A．Council of Europe is an international organization mainly intended for nature preservation. |
| B．Industrial products are not important at all in maintaining human survival. |
| C．Council of Europe holds high standards for presenting diplomas to nature reserves. |
| D．Britain has the most effective measures for environmental protection. |
5 . With greater climate disasters lying ahead, it is natural for us to make every effort to stop a series of floods, unusual snowstorms, and alarming reports from scientists. For many of us, part of that means running out to buy reusable drinking tubes, organic cleaners, and packaging-free products.
However, before you are joyful of your “green” purchases, take a second to consider a principle that should be obvious: simply consuming less is better for the planet. After all, every new item a factory pumps out requires some resources to produce. But in the confusing stream of environmental news, this simple truth can get lost. Take plastic bag bans for instance. If your city is getting rid of single-use shopping bags, it can be tempting to pay for that fashionable organic cotton bag hanging in the check-outline of supermarkets. However, experts who have analyzed the data on environmental impact insist that growing cotton is actually no better for the Earth than producing the conventional plastic bag. Any bag you already own is your best bet for carrying your groceries if you care about sustainability.
It is not just the Earth that will be happier if you buy less. You will feel more contented too. There is a common view that green buying patterns mean people are going green. However, it doesn’t seem to be that way. Reduced consumption has positive effects on increased well-being, but you don’t see that with “green” consumption.
Many studies have shown that materialism in general makes us unhappy and lonely. It is perfectly possible to be a materialist and an environmentalist at the same time. Lusting (欲望) for every new “green” product on the market might make you feel good about yourself but it presents the same emotional traps as lusting for whatever the Joneses next door are buying. If you relieve yourself of that burden of ownership, most people report feeling a lot better and freer.
1. What is the function of Paragraph 1?| A．To introduce the topic. |
| B．To send a warning. |
| C．To offer practical advice. |
| D．To advocate green purchases. |
| A．To promote cotton bags. |
| B．To call for less consumption. |
| C．To ban the using of plastic bags. |
| D．To reveal the harm of using plastic bags. |
| A．Buying less does benefit to the Earth. |
| B．Green consumption increases well-being. |
| C．Buying green indicates a green awareness. |
| D．Being green gives rise to more consumption. |
| A．Green Products Win Popularity |
| B．Don’t Be Lost in Environmental Passion |
| C．Buying Green Is Never a Final Solution |
| D．Buying Less Beats Buying Green |
6 . The number of fish caught just outside a recently expanded marine (海洋) protected area in Hawaii has risen. It is a sign that quadrupling (四倍) the size of the reserve in 2016 may have shored fish populations in the region.
When the Marine National Monument around Hawaii was enlarged to 1,510,000 square kilometers, marine conservationists around the world rejoiced.
Fishers may have felt differently, however, as fishing inside the area is not allowed. Yet by creating a space for dwindling tuna populations to recover, supporters argued, the reserve would benefit fisheries as well.
As populations inside the reserve boundaries steadily increased, they predicted, the fish would spill (溢出) over into the surrounding areas, increasing the amount of tuna available to catch.
Proving that is tricky, however, as tuna can’t be counted directly. Their numbers may rise or fall for a variety of reasons other than the expansion of a reserve. But the new study, published in Science this week, strongly suggests the number of fish caught just outside the MPA is higher now than it used to be.
Alan Friedlander, chief scientist for the National Geographic Society’s Pristine Seas project, calls the study a “very careful and strict test of spillover from marine protected areas.”
Importantly, says John Lynham, an environmental economist at the University of Hawaii and one of the study’s authors, the increase in tuna catches near the reserve held up even when looking at the average numbers caught by particular fishers. This shows the effect is not due to more effective crews now fishing local waters, he explains. To account for effort, catch numbers were divided by the ever-increasing number of fishing hooks in the area.
Lynham and colleagues found the catch per hook increased over the 10 years of the study. Fishers were catching on average six more yellowfin and five more bigeye tuna per year after the expansion than before.
“That last one, especially, was a surprise,” says Lynham, “because it is economically much more important, and there were fewer indications of an increase.”
1. What is the first paragraph mainly about?| A．The rising number of fish caught is a sign of a well-reserved area. |
| B．Enlarge the size of reserve may contribute to the increasing of fish population. |
| C．The number of fish caught has risen to quadrupling (四倍) the size of that in 2016. |
| D．Fish catching outside the reserve does good to the expanded marine protected area. |
| A．They felt joyful. | B．They felt different. | C．They felt unpleasant. | D．They felt excited. |
| A．By figuring the average catch per hook in the area. |
| B．By summing up the catch of mare effective crews. |
| C．By looking at the numbers caught by particular fishers. |
| D．By detecting the number of tuna population in the surrounding area. |
| A．Tuna population embraces a boost | B．Marine Protected Areas Help Fisheries |
| C．Local fisheries hold a promising future | D．Tuna population can be counted scientifically |
7 . The whole world knows them: actors, singers, models, athletes and TV personalities. If I use social media, I get too familiar.
I have nothing against the entertainment industry and celebrities. The problem is that by idolizing the entertainment industry so much, we sometimes completely forget about the things that are truly important and that are changing our world. You probably know who Leonardo DiCaprio is—a very talented American actor and film producer. But then you probably don’t know who Cori Bargmann is. Bargmann is a scientist who is uncovering the causes of Alzheimer’s and autism, which have been unknown for years.
What I think is wrong is that DiCaprio’s net worth is $260 million dollars, while Bargmann’s is less than $l million dollars. DiCaprio is definitely talented and has worked hard to give us good films, but Bargmann is working for something that can save thousands of humans who are suffering. And just because our society prefers to idolize the entertainment industry instead of science, she gets paid much less than she deserves.
But if it would benefit the world to invest all of our time and attention toward scientists, why don’t we make scientists our new “celebrities”?
First of all, we like being entertained. We love pretty faces and easy-to-digest information. It’s easier to care about simple stuff rather than scientific, complicated things. Another reason is that most scientists don’t like being in the spotlight. They’ re mostly reserved and like to have privacy. They’ re busy people, which explains why they haven’t attracted the media the same way that performers have. Also, people have free will and the right to be interested in whatever they want to be.
However, studies have shown that young people are more interested in a scientific career as a result of COVID-19. The pandemic has also made known some scientists who have suddenly started appearing on TV and guiding us on how to get protected from this deadly virus. Maybe that is the start of the development of a different point of view which will be in favor of science for future generations.
1. Why does the author mention Leonardo DiCaprio and Cori Bargmann?| A．To introduce the topic. | B．To give an example. |
| C．To offer a definition. | D．To propose a solution. |
| A．Scientists get paid much less than actors. |
| B．People are busy choosing what they like. |
| C．Scientists don’t feel like being paid attention to. |
| D．People prefer entertainment to complex science. |
| A．Studies make scientists known and accepted by the masses. |
| B．Young people want to change their jobs because of the pandemic. |
| C．People are attracted to science and scientists during a special time. |
| D．Most scientists gradually become willing to show up in public light. |
| A．Objective. | B．Favorable. |
| C．Prejudiced. | D．Indifferent. |
8 . The earthquake was over and the city was in ruins. I had no choice but to walk home as all the
My friend,
Then the next day I drove to have my car
At the escape centre I saw a man
| A．life | B．business | C．rescue | D．traffic |
| A．noticed | B．missed | C．ignored | D．caught |
| A．opening | B．selling | C．repairing | D．building |
| A．who | B．whom | C．which | D．he |
| A．buy | B．care | C．matter | D．mind |
| A．used up | B．taken up | C．filled up | D．washed away |
| A．gas | B．information | C．food | D．water |
| A．behind | B．between | C．among | D．beneath |
| A．Except for | B．Together with | C．Instead of | D．Because of |
| A．Not at all | B．Of course | C．No way | D．Never mind |
| A．share | B．offer | C．learn | D．choose |
| A．crying | B．eating | C．smiling | D．singing |
| A．ways | B．roles | C．words | D．promises |
| A．bought | B．wasted | C．prepared | D．received |
| A．disaster | B．chance | C．city | D．centre |
9 . Humans are not the only ones adapting to the effects of global climate change. Animals are also adapting to the environmental changes—as some warm-blooded animals are beginning to “shapeshift” their bodies in response to shifts in climate, according to a recent study in Trends in Ecology & Evolution led by Sara Ryding, a researcher at Deakin University in Australia.
In the study, researchers identified new evidence that supports the theory that some warm-blooded animals are experiencing changes to their bodies due to the rising temperatures, resulting in larger legs, ears and beaks in some cases. The researchers noted that according to a principle known as “Allen’s Rule,” warm-blooded animals living in colder climates tend to have smaller appendages (like beaks or legs) than animals of the same species living in warmer climates.
Some of the most convincing evidence of shapeshifting was found in birds in Australia and North America, according to researchers. Certain species of Australian parrots have demonstrated about 4%-10% increase in the size of their beaks since 1871, which researchers attribute to rising temperatures. In North America, the dark-eyed junco (暗眼灯草雀) also has been seen an increase in beak size. Larger beaks help birds dissipate additional body heat more effectively, the study said, which is a useful feature as global temperatures rise.
“A lot of the time when climate change is discussed in mainstream media, people are asking ‘can humans overcome this?’ or ‘what technology can solve this?’” Ryding said in a news release from Cell Press. She said that just like humans, animals also had to adapt to climate changes. Ryding added, “The climate change that we have created is putting a whole lot of pressure on them, and while some species will adapt, others will not.” “Shapeshifting does not mean that animals are coping with climate change and that all is ‘fine,’” Ryding said, “It just means they are evolving to survive it.”
1. What do we know from the recent study led by Sara Ryding?| A．All species will not adapt to climate change. |
| B．Animals are dealing with climate change well. |
| C．The junco has been seen an increase in beak size in Australia. |
| D．Animals living in warmer climates tend to have smaller beaks. |
| A．Take in. | B．Turn off. | C．Build up. | D．Get rid of. |
| A．Concerned. | B．Confused. | C．Indifferent. | D．Amazed. |
| A．Animals Are Coping with Climate Change. |
| B．Rising Temperatures Are Threatening Animals. |
| C．Humans Are To Blame for Animals Shapeshift. |
| D．Climate Change Is Making Some Species Shapeshift. |
10 . I went with my husband to Roatan for our vacation, a tropical island off the north coast of Honduras, where tourists can swim with dolphins at Anthony’s Key Resort.
The Roatan dolphins are kept in a roped-off pen(围栏). The cheapest “swim” with the dolphins costs $ 89. Kissing costs extra. The tourists line up and, one after another, get photographed while being “kissed” by a dolphin. The tourist bends down a bit, the trainer lifts an arm, the dolphin comes up and for a few seconds holds its bottlenose to the tourist’s face. The picture is ready for purchase when the tourists exit through the gift shop.
These tourists must love dolphins, but what kind of love is that? At sea these highly intelligent creatures are always on the move, traveling thousands of miles. They are complex social creatures that need a lot of space to live in.
Yet Teri Bolton, the head trainer at Anthony’s Key Resort, defends the pen as a suitable habitat. “We feel this is the closest to keeping things as natural as possible”, she said. “You’re getting a window into how these animals really are.”
The discussion about this tourist behavior can be found on the Internet. Some people try to justify their desire, saying the fence of the pen is low; the dolphins could jump over it if they wanted to, and therefore they’re staying in captivity(圈养)by free will. One contributor to the discussion said, “Dolphins are social creatures. Jumping over the fence would mean leaving the females and their babies. Besides, by now they are used to captivity with three meals a day. Jumping over the fence would be like asking you to jump out of a spaceship alone onto Mars.”
But visiting any institution that keeps dolphins in captivity means supporting the concept of captivity. It’s like wearing a fur coat and then justifying it by saying it’s OK because the animals are already dead.
Remember that you cannot buy love, and if you try to buy dolphin love, you hurt the ones you love. In fact, a dolphin’s kiss has nothing to do with love, just as a dolphin’s smile has nothing to do with happiness. While many claim that dolphin encounters provide healing(治疗）)qualities and help you to feel better, the opposite is true for the supposed healers.
1. How much does a tourist pay for a dolphin’s kiss?| A．More than $ 89. | B．Less than $ 89. |
| C．As much as $ 89. | D．It’s free of charge. |
| A．It’s like a prison. | B．It’s like a spaceship. |
| C．It’s no fun for the dolphins. | D．It’s suitable for the dolphins. |
| A．Dolphin lovers. | B．Unhealthy people. |
| C．Dolphins in the wild. | D．Dolphins in captivity. |
| A．Are Dolphins As Smart As Humans? |
| B．Swimming with Dolphins: Is It Love or Not? |
| C．Dolphins—Creatures with Feelings |
| D．Kissing—A New Way to Communicate with Dolphins |
