1 . “Assume you are wrong.” The advice came from Brian Nosek, a psychology professor, who was offering a strategy for pursuing better science.
To understand the context for Nosek’s advice, we need to take a step back to the nature of science itself. You see despite what many of us learned in elementary school, there is no single scientific method. Just as scientific theories become complex and change, so do scientific methods.
But methodological reform hasn’t come without some worries and friction. Unpleasant things have been said by and about methodological reformers. Few people like having the value of their life’s work called into question. On the other side, few people are good at voicing criticisms in kind and constructive ways. So, part of the challenge is figuring out how to bake critical self-reflection into the culture of science itself, so it unfolds as a welcome and integrated part of the process, and not an embarrassing sideshow (附带事件).
What Nosek recommended was a strategy for changing the way we offer and respond to critique. Assuming you are right might be a motivating force, sustaining the enormous effort that conducting scientific work requires. But it also makes it easy to interpret criticisms as personal attacks. Beginning, instead, from the assumption you are wrong, a criticism is easier to interpret as a constructive suggestion for how to be less wrong—a goal that your critic probably shares.
One worry about this approach is that it could be demoralizing for scientists. Striving to be less wrong might be a less effective motivation than the promise of being right. Another concern is that a strategy that works well within science could backfire (适得其反) when it comes to communicating science with the public. Without an appreciation for how science works, it’s easy to take uncertainty or disagreements as marks against science, when in fact they reflect some of the very features of science that make it our best approach to reaching reliable conclusions about the world. Science is reliable because it responds to evidence: as the quantity and quality of our evidence improves, our theories can and should change, too.
Despite these worries, I like Nosek’s suggestion because it builds in cognitive (认知的) modesty along with a sense that we can do better. It also builds in a sense of community—we’re all in the same boat when it comes to falling short of getting things right.
Unfortunately, this still leaves us with an untested hypothesis (假说): that assuming one is wrong can change community norms for the better, and ultimately support better science and even, perhaps, better decisions in life. I don’t know if that’s true. In fact, I should probably assume that it’s wrong. But with the benefit of the scientific community and our best methodological tools, I hope we can get it less wrong, together.
1. What can we learn from Paragraph 3?| A．People hold wrong assumptions about the culture of science. |
| B．The scientific community should practice critical self-reflection. |
| C．Scientists are unwilling to express kind criticisms. |
| D．Reformers tend to devalue researchers’ work. |
| A．The enormous efforts of scientists at work. |
| B．The public’s passion for scientific findings. |
| C．The improvement in the quality of evidence. |
| D．The reliability of potential research results. |
| A．misleading | B．ineffective | C．discouraging | D．unfair |
| A．reflective and persuasive | B．uncertain but sincere |
| C．authoritative and direct | D．disapproving but soft |
2 . Automation is a widespread term. Nearly everyone agrees that people will be working less once automatic machinery came in. For optimists, this is a promise of liberation: At last humanity would be freed from constant toil, and we could all devote our days to more refined pursuits. But others see a threat: Millions of people would be thrown out of work, and desperate masses would roam the streets. Looking back from 50 years hence, the controversy over automation seemed a quaint and curious episode. The dispute is never resolved.
A. J. Hayes, a leader (and no relation to me), wrote in 1964: Automation is not just a new kind of mechanization but a revolutionary force capable of overturning our social order. Whereas mechanization made workers more efficient—and thus more valuable—automation threatens to make them superfluous (过剩的)—and thus without value. The opinions I have cited here represent extreme positions, and there are also many milder views. But I think it’s fair to say that most early students of automation, including both critics and enthusiasts, believe the new technology would lead us into a world where people worked much less.
As for economic consequences, worries about unemployment have certainly not gone away—not with job losses in the current recession approaching 2 million workers in our country alone. But recent job losses are commonly attributed to causes other than automation, such as competition from overseas or a roller-coaster financial system. In any case, the vision of a world where machines do all the work and people stand idly by has simply not come to pass.
The spread of automation outside of the factory has altered its social and economic impact in some curious ways. In many cases, the net effect of automation is not that machines are doing work that people used to do. Instead we’ve dispensed with the people who used to be paid to run the machines, and we’ve learned to run them ourselves. These trends contradict almost all the expectations of early writers on automation, both optimists and pessimists. So far, automation has neither liberated us from the need to work nor deprived us of the opportunity to work. Instead, we’re working more than ever.
What about trades closer to my own vital interests? Will science be automated? Technology already has a central role in many areas of research; for example, genome sequences could not be read by traditional lab-bench methods. Replacing the scientist will presumably be a little harder than replacing the lab technician, but when a machine exhibits enough curiosity and tenacity, I think we’ll just have to welcome it as a companion in zealous research. And if the scientist is elbowed aside by an automaton, then surely the science writer can’t hold out either. I’m ready for my 15-hour workweek.
1. What does the writer mainly want to convey in paragraph 1?| A．automation results in unemployment on |
| B．the issue of automation is still in discussion |
| C．automation does more harm than good |
| D．automation brings in much convenience in life |
| A．automation is more valuable than what we imagine |
| B．the disadvantages of automation far outweigh the advantages |
| C．automation is a revolutionary force may causing people worthless. |
| D．the new technology would lead people into working much less |
| A．put…down for. | B．set…free from. |
| C．bring…into. | D．take…away from. |
| A．People needn’t work so hard due to automation. |
| B．Automation should be accepted reasonably in development. |
| C．Traditional labor force will be replaced in the near future. |
| D．Automation results in more job losses in the writer’s country. |
3 . Some people worry that there’s too much technology in our lives. And they may have a point, given how countless people now carry the Internet around in their pocket and use it as a primary form of communication. It’s practically difficult to shun technology in our world. There are computer microchips in our watches, our cars, light switches, even our pets! Where will it end?
Well, if certain people have their way, it’ll go even further. We’ll have microchips implanted into our brains that can interact with the computers by thought alone. It may sound like something from the science fiction, but in many ways, things look quite promising. Thanks to the ability to send and receive information remotely via computers, microchips and other related devices have long been put into brains.
For example, electrodes have been implanted in the brains of epilepsy patients to better record and even predict the abnormal neurological activity. Similarly, deep-brain stimulation, through implanted devices that cause activity in key brain regions, is an established treatment for things like Parkinson’s disease, and is even being looked into for illnesses like depression.
However, it’s another thing to place such devices in healthy individuals. There are the practical concerns, not least of which is what these chips will be made of. The inside of the brain is a mass of highly reactive chemicals and electrical activity. Implants would need to be dull enough to not upset the delicate processes by their presence, but also sensitive enough to read and process the activity around them. Current technology has made impressive progress with this, but if it were to be rolled out to millions of people, we’d need to be 100 per cent certain that it’s safe.
How many people will actually want to have technology literally put into their brain? A surprising 60 percent of Americans say they’d be okay with it, but that’s when it’s purely theoretical. In reality, the possibility of having strangers stick chips in your brain is likely to prove unattractive, especially for a population where millions get mad at fictional microchips in vaccines (疫苗), and even more are frightened of dentists.
Ultimately, the technology of computer-brain interface (接口) implants is still far away from us.
1. What does the underlined word “shun” in paragraph 1 probably mean?| A．develop | B．avoid | C．change | D．trust |
| A．The possible treatment for particular diseases. |
| B．The process of human-computer interaction. |
| C．The existing application of microchip implants. |
| D．The future of microchips and devices alike. |
| A．The right materials used for the chips. |
| B．The exact position in the brain for the chips. |
| C．The chips’ precise sensitivity to function in the brain. |
| D．The extensive use of the chips on all humans. |
| A．Computer-brain Interface: The Light of the Future |
| B．Innovation is Necessary to Make Progress |
| C．Where are We in the Medical Technology? |
| D．Mind-controlled Tech: Is It Possible? |
4 . For more than 60 years bringing the cost of food down had been one of the greatest challenge of the 21 century. That cost, however, is not in immediate cash, for most food is now far cheaper in relative terms than in 1960.
The cost is in the unintended damage of the very methods of food production that have made the food cheaper: in the pollution of water, the weakness of soil, the destruction of wildlife, the harm to animal welfare and the threat to human health caused by modern industrial agriculture.
First mechanisation, then mass use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and now genetic engineering — modern industrial farming has seemed unstoppable, as the yields of produce have soared. But it comes with extensive loss of wildlife and habitat, soil degradation and fertilizer run-off.
Put it together and it’s like a battleground, but consumers rarely make the connection at the dinner table. The problems are called “externalities” by economists because they’re not part of the main transaction, like growing and selling wheat. These costs aren’t directly paid by the producers or consumers.
But the costs to society can amount to shocking sums. According to a research by Professor Jules Pretty at the University of Essex, repairing the damage caused by intensive farming in one particular year costs £2, 343m in the UK alone, almost as much as the total UK and EU spend on British farming in that year.
Can the true cost of food be brought down? In some countries, moving away from industrial agriculture to address hunger is difficult. However, in developed countries, it’s more possible. Governments should support sustainable farming that benefits the environment, economy, health, and animal welfare. Instead of immediately switching to organic farming, Professor Pretty suggests adopting a “Greener Food Standard” which would push the market towards more sustainable environmental practices than the current norm, while not requiring the full commitment to organic production. This standard would guide farmers on better practices in farming, promoting a shift towards a more sustainable agricultural system for both producers and consumers.
1. What is the cost associated with food production?| A．Immediate cash loss. | B．Increased agriculture yields. |
| C．Promotion of organic farming. | D．Impairment to human welfare. |
| A．The costs are included in the price. | B．The costs lie in food growing and selling. |
| C．The costs aren’t directly visible to people. | D．People aren’t affected by modern farming. |
| A．Giving up clean-up efforts. | B．Overlooking global hunger. |
| C．Making flexible farming policies. | D．Adopting full organic approaches. |
| A．Critical. | B．Supportive. | C．Unconcerned. | D．Mindless. |
5 . Recently, after I gave a virtual presentation on my book Indistractable, a listener wrote something in the Zoom chat that drove me crazy, “This is great but wouldn’t work for me. I’m a Gemini (双子星座的人).”
Ironically, the Zoom listener is right. If she thinks she’s incapable, she’ll prove it correct — whether it has anything to do with the stars and moon or not. Her inflexible self-identification denies her the chance to improve her life. It’s incredibly self-limiting.
That’s why we should stop defining ourselves as fixed identities and nouns, and instead start describing ourselves using verbs.
Words are powerful. Linguistic research shows that language shapes people and culture; it can also give us insight into ourselves and our behavior. In a well-known study, researchers Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobsen had all students in the same elementary school take a standard IQ test. Then they randomly selected a group of students, regardless of their test results, and told teachers the group would show “dramatic intellectual growth”. Eight months later, those students scored significantly higher on an IQ test. The study concluded that teachers’ positive perception of students correlated to those students’ high performance on intellectual and academic tests. The labels the children received became a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy (预言).
That’s because language shapes expectations, which shape our reality. If we have experiences that lead us to label ourselves with specific nouns during our life, then we are likely to stick with those labels and the behaviors that go with them.
Using verbs to identify ourselves is an effective method for releasing “trapped priors”—a term in psychology for a perception of reality that’s affected or trapped by past experiences. Verbs are action words well suited to describing short-lived behaviors that can and do change. They don’t lay claim to our entire identity, but they acknowledge that we are people first and foremost, not whatever a singular noun may say we are. So, instead of saying, “I am a procrastinator (拖拉者)”, you should say, “I am a person who often procrastinates.”
By focusing on our behaviors, not fixed characteristics, we can release harmful perceptions of ourselves that hold us back from trying methods that might improve our lives — like those that can help us achieve the critical skill of being indistractable.
1. What does the author want to show through the example of the Zoom listener?| A．The concept of flexible self-identification. |
| B．His confusion about the way to self-identify. |
| C．His understanding of proper self-identification. |
| D．The negative effects of using nouns to define oneself. |
| A．Self-fulfilling prophecies change over time. |
| B．Encouragement promotes students’ improvement. |
| C．Language usage will have an impact on teaching. |
| D．IQ has little to do with students’ academic performance. |
| A．By highlighting their behaviors. |
| B．By focusing on their advantages. |
| C．By analyzing their typical characteristics. |
| D．By assessing their academic performance. |
| A．Nouns are more powerful than verbs |
| B．Your words can determine your future |
| C．How we define ourselves really counts |
| D．Our option of words reflects our identity |
6 . If there was an app claiming to improve your memory, would you be willing to try it? It’s hard to resist the idea of having a better memory.
In response to this perceived need, the brain training industry has grown rapidly, offering a wide range of accessible and affordable mental exercises through smartphone and tablet apps. Many researchers have found evidence suggesting that well-designed exercises can improve mental abilities and lead to better scores on IQ tests. They compare the brain to muscles, suggesting that targeted repetition of memory exercises can strengthen and condition our memory processes, similar to how athletes engage in strength and conditioning by repeatedly exercising specific muscle groups.
In contrast to everyday activities like solving a complex puzzle, memory training apps are specifically designed to provide a more challenging workout for the brain. These apps typically involve tasks that require tracking a large number of objects while being distracted (使分心) by a secondary task, such as mental calculations or exploring a game’s landscape. If this brain training proves effective, it could be beneficial for individuals with brain-related disabilities or those recovering from conditions like cancer.
Critics, though, argue that while the concept is appealing, the overall evidence fails to demonstrate significant improvement in core brain processes. Additionally, despite the claims made by many apps and brain training companies, scientists have yet to identify the key factors that make an intervention truly effective or determine the best approaches to address the diverse needs of individuals seeking help.
While the question is still open to debate, there is evidence suggesting that short-term working memory training can benefit high-functioning individuals. However, it’s important to note that brain training, like diet and exercise, is unlikely to have identical effects on every individual.
1. In what way is the brain similar to muscles according to many researchers?| A．In testing results. | B．In work processes. |
| C．In bodily functions. | D．In training methods. |
| A．Simple. | B．Effective. |
| C．Demanding. | D．Interesting. |
| A．Legal claims. | B．Proven effects. |
| C．Tailored services. | D．Appealing concepts |
| A．Can Our Memory be Improved? |
| B．Does Brain Training Actually Work? |
| C．What have Scientists Found about Memory? |
| D．What does the Brain Training Industry Bring? |
7 . On December 16, 2023, the first section of Maya Train officially opened, which runs between Campeche and Cancún, carrying up to 231 passengers across 290 miles and stopping at 14 train stations.
Built as an ambitious effort to promote tourism and boost Mexico’s economy, the rail system connects the major cities and tourist regions of the Yucatán Peninsula —from Cancún’s beaches to Tulum’s archaeological wonders. Once the project is completed, the entire rail system will link tourist destinations across five states. However, environmentalists and archaeologists argue that the train route will cause great damage to the environment-and ancient Mayan sites.
The Maya Train passes through six UNESCO World Heritage sites and thousands of archaeological sites. One particular area of concern is the Calakmul biosphere reserve, which is home to many endangered species, such as jaguars and over 500 other animal species. The train lines, more than 60 meters wide, could act as artificial barriers that may limit the movement of these animals within the reserve making it difficult for them to move around and access food and water sources.
Opponents also express safety concerns. Certain sections of the rail system will be built right on top of the aquifer’s(含水层的) most fragile points of contact with the surface. “It’s like wanting to build over eggshells,” says Guillermo Christy, a water treatment consultant. “Putting trains weighing thousands of tons on top could cause the underground caves to crash down.” To construct the train infrastructure also requires driving long piles deep into the ground, which poses a big threat to this fragile ecosystem and leads to water shortages.
In the ongoing debate of Maya Train, it is crucial to consider the delicate balance between economic development and environmental preservation. While Maya Train may provide economic benefits, we must not overlook the potential environmental and cultural losses, as well as the safety risks it may bring. Achieving harmony between progress and conservation may be a significant challenge for the project, but we must take into account the long-term consequences of our actions.
1. What do we know about the Maya Train project?| A．It consumes lots of labor in Mexico. |
| B．It has concerned some professionals. |
| C．It was completed on December 16,2023. |
| D．It blocks the development of local tourism. |
| A．Restricting their activities. |
| B．Polluting their water sources. |
| C．Disturbing their sleeping patterns. |
| D．Attracting their enemies to the area. |
| A．To show the difficulty of constructing the rail lines. |
| B．To prove the urgency of protectıng the fragile ecosystem. |
| C．To explain the reasons for water shortages along the railway. |
| D．To stress Maya Train’s potential harm to the aquifer system. |
| A．Preserving cultural sites requires strong financial support. |
| B．It is time to speed up the con truction process of Maya Train. |
| C．We should value the economic benefits of the project in the long run. |
| D．Economic development should not come at the cost of the environment. |
8 . In a policy address to lawmakers, Japan’s Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, said the country’s population problem was a case of solving the issue “now or never”, and that it “simply cannot wait any longer because it can affect social functions”.
“In thinking of the sustainability and inclusiveness (包容) of our nation’s economy and society, we place child care support as our most important policy,” he said, adding that he wants the government to double its spending on child-related programs, and that a new government agency would be set up in April to focus on the issue.
Japan has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, and it recorded fewer than 800, 000 births in 2022 for the first time since records began in 1899. The country also has one of the highest aging of population in the world; in 2020, nearly one in 1, 500 people in Japan were age 100 or older, according to government data.
These trends have driven a growing population problem, with a rapidly aging society, a shrinking workforce and not enough young people to fill the gaps in the stagnating (停滞) economy. The country’s high cost of living, limited space and lack of child care support in cities make it difficult to raise children, meaning fewer couples are having kids. Experts point to the pessimism young people in Japan hold towards the future, many frustrated with work pressure and economic stagnation.
How about other parts of East Asia? South Korea recently broke its own record for the world’s lowest birth rate, with data from November 2023 showing a South Korean woman will have an average of 0.79 children in her lifetime-far below the 2.1 needed to maintain a stable population. Japan’s birth rate stands at 1.3, while the United States is at 1.6. Meanwhile, China’s population shrank in 2022 for the first time, adding pressure to its economic growth.
1. With the falling birth rate, what’s the attitude of the Japanese government?| A．Surprised. | B．Anxious. | C．Embarrassed. | D．Indifferent. |
| A．The limited space. | B．The trend of aging population. |
| C．The lack of child care support. | D．The work pressure and economic stagnation. |
| A．Serious population crisis. | B．Ignorance of the birth rate. |
| C．Weak care services for children. | D．Potential harm to children’s health. |
| A．a tour guide. | B．a science fiction. |
| C．a job advertisement. | D．a official government website. |
9 . Read a few news headlines and you’ll see some common themes: the rising number of languages dying worldwide, the isolation of individual last speakers, and the wider cultural loss for humanity. These stories often mention how people try to protect such languages. However, they tend to focus less on how such efforts actually help speakers of endangered languages. Such efforts sometimes help, sometimes harm, and sometimes do both.
Encouraging someone to keep speaking a declining minority language could certainly boost his or her sense of identity. But when a bigger language is adopted somewhere, it doesn’t remove everything that came before. Often, intense contact between big and small languages leads to a new mixture - for example, Sheng in Kenya and Tsotsitaal in South Africa. In other cases, such language contact results in a new localized dialect. As linguist Peter Trudgill argues, this can also hold a highly local identity.
Sure enough, enabling a people to use their traditional language can make them feel better about themselves. But is it really helping them? Simply adding your ancestral language as a new school subject isn’t very helpful if your school is falling down, or you’re not eating well. To think anything much can be solved just by performing CPR (心肺复苏) in a minority language is to ignore how complicated human society is and how many different simultaneous (同时的) needs we have.
In Québec, Canada, just under 75% of residents have French as their native language, but the percentage has fallen over the past five years. In 2022, the Québec Legislature passed Bill 96, which requires people to only use French for official speech and writing. This is an example of the prioritization of language, yet it’s unclear whether the law will actually improve Québec residents’ lives, or even help preserve French in Québec.
So promoting endangered languages can be a positive force, but we shouldn’t assume that’s universally true. It is especially difficult for a language expert to say so. Perhaps we should focus less on languages themselves, and pay more attention to the lives of the people who speak them.
1. What do the news stories about languages usually focus on?| A．The efforts to save endangered languages. |
| B．The future development of our languages. |
| C．The cultural functions of languages worldwide. |
| D．The problem with promoting language uniformity. |
| A．The separation from the past. | B．The enrichment of local cultures. |
| C．The loss of social interaction. | D．The preservation of people’s identity. |
| A．It will take ages to see its effect. |
| B．It requires more attention to native speakers. |
| C．It will guarantee a win-win result. |
| D．It needs more focus on languages themselves. |
| A．How to Improve Minority Language Speakers’ Life |
| B．How to Boost Minority Language speakers’ Identity |
| C．Promotion of French in Canada: Fruitful or Fruitless |
| D．Endangered Language Protection: Helpful or Harmful |
10 . We have to make certain our limited money is well spent. But what should we spend our money on? A 20-year study conducted by Dr. Gilovich, a professor at Cormell University, reached a powerful and straightforward conclusion: don’t spend your money on things.
The trouble with things is that the happiness they provide peters out. We get used to new possessions, and what once seemed exciting quickly becomes the common. We keep raising the bar and always look for an even better one. Possessions, by their nature, cause comparisons. We buy a new car and are thrilled with it until a friend buys a better one -and there’s always someone with a better one. Most of us usually assume that the happiness we get from buying something will last as long as the thing itself. It seems intuitive (直觉的) that investing in something we can see, hear, and touch on a permanent basis delivers the best value. But it’s not the case at all.
Gilovich has found that experiences deliver more-lasting happiness than things. Experiences become a part of our identity. Everyone’s experience is unique. We are not our possessions, but we are the accumulation of everything we’ve seen, the things we’ve done, and the places we’ve been to. “Our experiences are a bigger part of ourselves than our material goods,” said Gilovich. “You can really like your material stuff. You can even think that part of your identity is connected to those things, but they remain separate from you. In contrast, your experiences really are part of you. We are the sum total of our experiences.”
Besides, we don’t compare experiences in the same way that we compare things. It’s hard to quantify the relative value of any two experiences, which makes them that much more enjoyable. And expectation of an experience causes excitement and enjoyment, while expectation of obtaining a possession causes impatience. Experiences are enjoyable from the very first moments of planning, all the way through to the memories you keep forever. The temporary happiness achieved by buying things can be regarded as “puddles (水坑) of pleasure.” In other words, that kind of happiness evaporates (蒸发) quickly and leaves us wanting more. Things may last longer than experiences, but the memories that remain are what matter most.
1. The underlined phrase “peters out” can be replaced by ______.| A．takes away | B．dies away | C．is not real | D．costs too much |
| A．Experiences can exist in our memory forever. |
| B．Our experiences take up all parts of ourselves. |
| C．Our experiences are what set us apart from others. |
| D．Experiences deliver less-lasting happiness than things. |
| A．Spiritual wealth is the most valuable for us. |
| B．Experiences can be compared with each other. |
| C．Expecting an experience increases our feeling of anxiety. |
| D．People are more likely to be impatient when buying things. |
| A．How can we make happiness last long? |
| B．How can we gain happiness with money? |
| C．Why do experiences achieve permanent happiness than things? |
| D．Why should we spend money on experiences instead of things? |
