1 . When you hear “I have a dream…”, one of the most famous speeches in human history, you’ll never have the idea how the audience on the scene were fueled by emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King. Jr. presented his dream, he chose language that would stir the hearts of his audience. Delivering this electrifying(震撼性的) message required emotional intelligence—the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions.
Emotional intelligence has been highly recommended by leaders, policymakers, and educators as the solution to a wide range of social problems. Emotional intelligence is important, but the uncontrolled enthusiasm has obscured (掩盖)a dark side. New evidence shows that when people sharpen their emotional skills, they become better at controlling others. When you’re good at controlling your own emotions, you can hide your true feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can motivate them to act against their own best interests.
Social scientists have begun to document this dark side of emotional intelligence. In a research led by University of Toronto professor Jochen Menges, when a leader gave an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize (细察) the message and remembered the content. Ironically(讽刺 的是), audience members were so moved by the speech that they claimed to recall more of it.
The authors call this the awestruck effect, but it might just as easily be described as the dumbstruck effect. One observer reflected that Hitler’s persuasive impact came from his ability to strategically express emotions—he would “tear open his heart”—and these emotions affected his followers to the point that they would “stop thinking critically and just emote.”
Leaders who master emotions can rob us of our abilities to reason. If their values are out of step with our own, the results can be destructive. New evidence suggests that when people have self-serving motives, emotional intelligence becomes a weapon for controlling others.
Throwing light on this dark side of emotional intelligence is one mission of a research team led by University College London professor Martin Kilduff. According to these experts, emotional intelligence helps people disguise (伪装) one set of emotions while expressing another for personal gain. Professor Kilduff’s team writes, “The strategic disguise of one’s own emotions and the controlling of others’ emotions for strategic ends are behaviors evident not only on Shakespeare’s stage but also in the offices and corridors where power and influence are traded.”
Of course, people aren’t always using emotional intelligence for nefarious ends. More often than not, high EQ is helpful in most aspects of our life. Emotional intelligence—like any skill—can be used for good or evil. So whether it is a gift or a curse lies in your hand.
1. Why does the author mention Martin Luther King, Jr?| A．To honor the great leader for his courage. |
| B．To recommend his speech to other leaders. |
| C．To introduce the major topic to readers. |
| D．To advocate a society with fewer problems. |
| A．Developing the capability to control one’s own emotion. |
| B．Influencing people to do what brings disadvantages to them. |
| C．Appealing to the audience to concentrate and remember more. |
| D．Encouraging the moved audience to learn more of the speech. |
| A．His followers would tear open their hearts to him. |
| B．His followers would express emotions strategically. |
| C．His followers would lose the ability to reason properly. |
| D．His followers would develop the self-serving motives. |
| A．They disguise their true emotions and show another one. |
| B．They help their colleagues to build up confidence. |
| C．They present their strategic behaviors on the stage. |
| D．They lower their own dignity to gain popularity. |
| A．Immoral. | B．Unimportant. | C．Illegal. | D．Uncontrollable. |
| A．The benefits of emotional intelligence. |
| B．The advantages and disadvantages of emotions. |
| C．The reasons for using emotional skills. |
| D．The dark side of emotional intelligence. |
2 . What is it about kids these days that makes older generations so easily angry? In some way or another, older generations have been disappointed at the youth's decline since the earliest days of civilization. Even Aristotletalked smack abouthow young folks thought they knew everything back in the 4th century BC.
So why do people throw all the shade on the next generation? A study out last month in Science Advances shows that negative opinions about kids aren't always based on their actions; it's more about how adults praise their past and current selves.
In the study, researehers looked at a trio of characteristics in three groups of US adults: respect for elders or authoritarianism（权威主义），intelligence, and enjoyment of reading. The team, led by John Protzko, a cognitive scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, asked the participants whether they thought kids in the modern age shared the same qualities. They found that adults who tested especially strong in one of the categories tended to see children today as weak in il. For example, if an adult got tagged or self-identified as intelligent, they were more likely to see "kids these days" as less intelligent than they used to be. This, Protzko thinks, is because they remembered their younger selves to be smarter, whether true or not. What's more, they only reserved their strong opinion for characteristics they related to.
In another stage of the study, the authors assigned random scores to participants to trick them into thinking how well-read they were. Many of the adults changed their opinions on kid's reading ability as a result, Protzko speculates that there are two reasons for the shift: How memories can go wrong and the lack of objective knowledge of what childhood is really like. "People who are high in a trail are imposing（迫使）their current high standing in that trait back in time, thinking 'Oh this must have been what all kids were like,' " he says. Over the years, the same memory bias（偏见）keeps occurring, making it seem like kids are somehow failing more and more. In fact,（he older a participant was, the more heavily this bias came into play, Protzko says.
While there's still a lot to learn about why adults might see younger generations as mediocre, this researeh can hint that an age-old phrase can boil down to one classic human trail：vanity（自负）.
―From Popular Science
1. What does the underlined phrase in the first paragraph mean?| A．Expressed his a flection for . | B．Talked positively about. |
| C．Spoke ill of. | D．Thought highly of. |
| A．Negative opinions about kids come from their ill behavior. |
| B．Adults always keeps their previous and present glories in mind. |
| C．Adults hold positive opinions about kids for their actions. |
| D．Kids are always blamed by adults who are more outstanding. |
| A．Because adults got tagged or self-indentified as intelligent. |
| B．Because adults thought they themselves much smarter. |
| C．Because adults hold the view that kids were weaker than them. |
| D．Because adults only remembered their own strengths subjectively. |
| A．Adults hold the bias that kids these days are failing. |
| B．Adults probably forgot all kids have the same characteristics. |
| C．That the same memory bias keeps occurring led to kid's failure. |
| D．The participants ignored the bias as they grew older. |
| A．①②--③④⑤ | B．①--②③④---⑤ |
| C．①②③--④---⑤ | D．①---②---③---④⑤ |
3 . By now you’ve probably heard about the “you’re not special” speech, when English teacher David McCullough told graduating seniors at Wellesley High School: "Do not get the idea you're anything special, because you're not." Mothers and fathers present at the ceremony — and a whole lot of other parents across the internet — took issue with McCullough's ego-puncturing words. But lost in the anger and protest was something we really should be taking to heart: our young people actually have no idea whether they're particularly talented or accomplished or not. In our eagerness to elevate their self-esteem, we forgot to teach them how to realistically assess their own abilities, a crucial requirement for getting better at anything from math to music to sports. In fact, it's not just privileged high-school students: we all tend to view ourselves as above average.
Such inflated (膨胀的) self-judgments have been found in study after study, and it's often exactly when we're least competent at a given task that we rate our performance most generously. In a 2006 study published in the journal Medical Education, for example, medical students who scored the lowest on an essay test were the most charitable in their self-evaluations, while high-scoring students judged themselves much more strictly. Poor students, the authors note, "lack insight" into their own inadequacy. Why should this be? Another study, led by Cornell University psychologist David Dunning, offers an enlightening explanation. People who are incompetent, he writes with co-author Justin Kruger, suffer from a "dual burden": they're not good at what they do, and their wry ineptness (笨拙) prevents them from recognizing how bad they are.
In Dunning and Kruger's study, subjects scoring at the bottom of the heap on tests of logic, grammar and humor "extremely overestimated" their talents. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they guessed they were in the 62nd. What these individuals lacked (in addition to clear logic, proper grammar and a sense of humor) was "metacognitive skill" (元认知技巧): the capacity to monitor how well they're performing. In the absence of that capacity, the subjects arrived at an overly hopeful view of their own abilities. There's a paradox (悖论) here, the authors note: “The skills that develop competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain. "In other words, to get better at judging how well we’re doing at an activity, we have to get better at the activity itself.
There are a couple of ways out of this double bind (两难). First, we can learn to make honest comparisons with others. Train yourself to recognize excellence, even when you yourself don't possess it, and compare what you can do against what truly excellent individuals are able to accomplish. Second, seek out feedback that is frequent, accurate and specific. Find a critic who will tell you not only how poorly you're doing, but just what it is that you're doing wrong. As Dunning and Kruger note, success indicates to us that everything went right, but failure is more ambiguous: any number of things could have gone wrong. Use this external feedback to figure out exactly where and when you screwed up.
If we adopt these strategies — and most importantly, teach them to our children — they won't need parents, or a commencement(毕业典礼) speaker, to tell them that they're special. They'll already know that they are, or have a plan to get that way.
1. The underlined phrase "took issue with" in paragraph 1 most probably means .| A．totally approved of | B．disagreed with |
| C．fully understood | D．held discussion about |
| A．we don’t know whether our young people are talented or not |
| B．young people can't reasonably define themselves |
| C．no requirement is set up for young people to get better |
| D．we always tend to consider ourselves to be privileged |
| A．They lack the capacity to monitor how well they are performing. |
| B．They usually give themselves high scores in self-evaluations. |
| C．They tend to be unable to know exactly how bad they are. |
| D．They are intelligently inadequate in tests and exams. |
| A．are not confident about their logic and grammar |
| B．tend to be very competent in their high-scoring fields |
| C．don't know how well they perform due to their stringent self-judgment |
| D．is very careful about their self-evaluations because they have their own limits |
| A．the best way to recognize excellence is to study past success and failure |
| B．through comparison with others, one will know where and when he fails |
| C．we need internal honesty with ourselves and external honesty from others |
| D．neither parents nor a commencement speaker can tell whether one is special |
| A．Special or Not? Teach Kids To Figure It Out |
| B．Let's Admit That We Are Not That Special |
| C．Tips On Making Ourselves More Special |
| D．Tell The Truth: Kids Overestimate their Talents |
4 . People size you up in seconds, but what exactly are they evaluating(评价)？ Harvard Business School professor Amy Cuddy has been studying first impressions alongside fellow psychologists Susan Fiske and Peter Glick for more than 15 years, and has discovered patterns in these interactions(互动). In her new book, “Presence”, Cuddy says people quickly answer two questions when they first meet you: Can I trust this person? Can I respect this person?
Psychologists refer to these factors as warmth and competence(胜任) respectively, and ideally you want to be considered as having both. Interestingly, Cuddy says that most people, especially in a professional environment, believe that competence is the foremost factor. After all, they want to prove that they are smart and talented enough to qualify your business.
But in fact warmth, or trustworthiness, is the most important factor in how people evaluate you. “From an evolutionary view,” Cuddy says, “it is more important to our survival to know whether a person deserves our trust.” It makes sense when you consider that in cavemen days it was more important to figure out if your fellow man was going to kill you and steal all your possessions than if he was competent enough to build a good fire.
Cuddy’s new book explores how to feel more confident. While competence is highly valued, Cuddy says it is evaluated only after trust is established. And focusing too much on displaying your strength can backfire(产生事与愿违的不良后 果). Cuddy says MBA interns(实习生) are often so concerned about coming across as smart and competent that it can lead them to skip social events, not ask for help, and generally come off as unapproachable.
These overachievers are in for a rude awakening when they don’t get the job offer because nobody got to know and trust them as people. “If someone you’re trying to influence doesn’t trust you, you’re not going to get very far; in fact, you might even cause doubt because you come across as manipulative(会 摆布人的),” Cuddy says. “A warm, trustworthy person who is also competent gains admiration, but only after you’ve established trust does your strength become a gift rather than a threat.”
1. What does the passage mainly tell about?| A．People judge you on your look and mind at first sight. |
| B．People judge you on your presence at first sight. |
| C．People judge you on your interaction at first sight. |
| D．People judge you on your warmth and competence initially. |
| A．very valuable | B．changing |
| C．extremely important | D．accessible |
| A．To stress the importance of survival. |
| B．To show the hardship of ancient times. |
| C．To stress the importance of trust. |
| D．To tell us the importance of ability. |
| A．thinks highly of confidence |
| B．lays trust on the basic position |
| C．has a negative attitude to overachievers |
| D．says people who want to influence others are approachable |
5 . The world we live in is becoming increasingly complex and uncertain. And with it, the conventional thinking of yesterday is no longer sufficient. Creating real breakthrough opportunities requires a fundamental change in our thinking. As Einstein said, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
There's no better example of this than the myth of the four-minute mile.
For centuries, runners had been attempting to run a mile in under four minutes. In the 1950s, the attempt to break the barrier took on renewed importance, and a number of famous runners publicly and unsuccessfully attempted the challenge. Many of the newspapers of the day began to question whether humans would ever be able to run a sub-four-minute mile. Then, in 1954, a man named Roger Bannister did the unthinkable. He broke through the imaginary barrier, running the mile in 3 minutes and 59.4 seconds. It was an amazing achievement.
But here's what's really interesting: it was only forty-six days later that another runner broke Bannister's record. And the following year, two new runners broke the four-minute mark in the same race. Dozens followed, and as of this writing, more than 1,400 runners have accomplished the goal, including one runner who ran two miles in less than eight minutes.
Did something change with respect to human body, track conditions, weather patterns, running shoes, or the human diet between the start of Bannister's race and the few years that followed? No. So what explains the sudden and dramatic explosion of athletic achievement?
The myth's unimaginable power over runners had lifted. What Bunnister had done was not just break the four — minute — mile barrier; he shattered(粉碎)the myth that created the barrier in the first place. This paradigm (榜样)had offered a set of actions available for runners to take. Runners were really free to run through the invented boundary.
Creating breakthroughs requires shattering the myths that limit our imagination and lock us into conventional thinking. Think about your own situation. What myths are you stuck in? And what would be possible if you had the courage to challenge the myths?
1. What is needed to create breakthroughs?| A．Conventional thinking. | B．Changes in our thinking. |
| C．Complex situation. | D．Einstein's encouragement. |
| A．The belief that it was unachievable. |
| B．Lack of professional training. |
| C．The poor track conditions. |
| D．Lack of sufficient diet. |
| A．list a new record in the race | B．prove newspapers are wrong |
| C．show barrier can be broken | D．call on us to learn from him |
| A．The power of the myth. |
| B．The achievements of Bannister. |
| C．The importance of running freely. |
| D．The significance of breaking barriers. |
| A．Creating Breakthroughs | B．Accepting the Myths |
| C．Locking Your Imagination | D．Becoming the Best Athlete |
6 . Professor Stephen Hawking recently came out with a serious warning for people. While at the Starmus Festival, a festival in Trondheim, Norway, celebrating science and the arts, Hawking warned people that the human race is in serious danger.
Hawking criticized President Donald Trump for denying climate change. Then the physicist warned the audience, “I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, unlike Donald Trump, who may just have taken the most serious, and wrong, decision on climate change this world has seen.”
Hawking proposed that the leading countries should send astronauts to the Moon before 2020 to restart a movement of more exploration in space. BBC reported that Hawking suggested that we “build a lunar base in 30 years’ time and send people to Mars by 2025.”
According to BBC, Professor Hawking said, “Spreading out into space will completely change the future of humanity.” He continued, “I hope it would unite competitive nations in a single goal, to face the common challenge for us all.” The physicist shared more ideas to motivate the younger generation to continue exploring space. Hawking stated, “a new and ambitious space program would excite (young people), and stimulate interest in other areas, such as astrophysics and cosmology.”
Hawking also revealed his vision for other forms of energy that could move us to a new planet. He warned the audience, “The Earth is under threat from so many areas that it is difficult for me to be positive.” He continued, “Our natural resources are being drained, at an alarming rate. We have given our planet the disastrous gifts of climate change, rising temperatures, reduction of the polar ice caps, deforestation, and decimation (大量毁灭) of animal species. We can be ignorant, unthinking lot (人).”
The professor warned the audience that doing nothing would lead nowhere. He said, “If we succeed, we will send a probe (航天探测器) to Alpha Centauri within the lifetime of some of you alive today. It is clear we are entering a new space age. We are standing at the threshold (起点) of a new era. Human colonization and moving to other planets is no longer science fiction, and it can be science fact.” Hawking advised the audience to move to other worlds because we are running out of space.
1. According to Hawking, what is the first step for humans to spread out into space?| A．To build a lunar base. |
| B．To send people to Mars. |
| C．To send astronauts to the Moon. |
| D．To change the future of humanity. |
| A．Spreading out into space. |
| B．Facing the common challenge of humans. |
| C．Stimulating young people’s interest in other areas. |
| D．Motivating the younger generation to explore space. |
| A．speeded up | B．stored |
| C．used up | D．explored |
| A．Worried. | B．Confused. |
| C．Positive. | D．Indifferent. |
| A．To warn the audience that humans are in danger. |
| B．To predict what will happen to the earth in future. |
| C．To stress that humans are entering a new space age. |
| D．To encourage the audience to move to other planets. |
| A．the Earth is under threat and the human race is in serious danger |
| B．a new and ambitious space program would excite young people |
| C．astronauts have found a better world in the space than the Earth |
| D．humans have found other forms of energy to move to a new planet |
7 . Smartphones are our constant companions. For many of us, their glowing screens are a ubiquitous (十分普遍的) presence, drawing us in with endless distractions. They are in our hands as soon as we wake, and command our attention until the final moments before we fall asleep.
Steve Jobs would not approve.
In 2007, Jobs took the stage and introduced the world to the iPhone. If you watch the full speech, you will be surprised by how he imagined our relationship should be with this iconic invention. This vision is so different from the way most of us use these devices now.
In his remarks, Jobs spent an extended amount of time demonstrating how the device utilized (应用) the touch screen before detailing the many ways Apple engineers had improved the age-old process of making phone calls. It’s the best iPod we’ve ever made,” Jobs exclaimed at one point. “The killer app is making calls,” he later added. Both lines drew thunderous applause.
The presentation confirms that Jobs imagined a simpler iPhone experience than the one we actually have more than a decade later. For example, there was no App Store when the iPhone was first introduced, and this was by design. Jobs was convinced that the phone’s carefully-designed native features were enough. He did not seek to completely change the rhythm of users’ daily lives. He simply wanted to take experiences we had already found important－listening to music, placing calls, generating directions－and make them better.
The minimalist (简约主义者) vision for the iPhone Jobs offered in 2007 is unrecognizable today－and that is a shame.
Under what I call the “constant companion model,” we now see our smartphones as always-on portals (通道) to information. We have become so used to it over the past decade that it is easy to forget the novelty (新奇之处) of the device. It seems increasingly clear to me that Jobs probably got it right from the very beginning: Many of us would be better-off returning to his original minimalist vision for our phones.
Practically speaking, to be a minimalist smartphone user means only using your device for a small number of features that do things of value to you. Otherwise, you simply put it away outside of these activities. This approach dethrones (废黜) this device from the position of a constant companion down to a luxury object, such as a fancy bike, that gives you great pleasure when you use it but does not dominate your entire day.
Early in his 2007 keynote, Jobs said, “Today, Apple is going to reinvent the phone.” What he didn’t add, however, was the follow-up promise: “Tomorrow we’re going to reinvent your life.” The smartphone is fantastic, but it was never meant to be the foundation for a new form of existence.
If you return this innovation to its original role, you will get more out of both your phone and your life.
1. The underlined word “it” in the last but two paragraphs probably refers to .| A．information | B．the smartphone |
| C．the always-on portal | D．the constant companion model |
| A．It allowed the users to have access to the internet. |
| B．It was actually an iPod that could make phone calls. |
| C．It was installed with applications by third-party developers. |
| D．It could fulfill people’s desire to multitask in their daily lives. |
| A．expect to reinvent his life with the device |
| B．buy the latest model of iPhone and see it as a luxury |
| C．remove all the unnecessary applications from the device |
| D．spend more time working than playing with his device |
| A．tell readers why Steve Job created the iPhone |
| B．remind readers not to be addicted to their smartphones |
| C．show readers that smartphones can greatly change our lives |
| D．encourage readers to block internet access on their smartphones |
8 . In a recent series of experiments at the University of California, researchers studied toddlers’ thinking about winners and losers, bullies (欺凌) and victims.
In the first experiment, toddlers (学步儿童) watched a scene in which two puppets (木偶) had conflicting goals: One was crossing a stage from right to left, and the other from left to right. The puppets met in the middle and stopped. Eventually one puppet bowed down and moved aside, letting the other one pass by. Then researchers asked the toddlers which puppet they liked. The result: 20 out of 23 toddlers picked the higher-status puppet — the one that did not bow or move aside. It seems that individuals can gain status for being dominant (占优势的) and toddlers like winners better than losers.
But then researchers had another question: Do toddlers like winners no matter how they win? So, researchers did another experiment very similar to the one described above. But this time, the conflict ended because one puppet knocked the other down and out of the way. Now when the toddlers were asked who they liked, the results were different: Only 4 out of 23 children liked the winner.
These data suggest that children already love a winner by the age of 21-31 months. This does not necessarily mean that the preference is inborn: 21 months is enough time to learn a lot of things. But if a preference for winners is something we learn, we appear to learn it quite early.
Even more interesting, the preference for winners is not absolute. Children in our study did not like a winner who knocked a competitor down. This suggests that already by the age of 21-31 months, children’s liking for winners is balanced with other social concerns, including perhaps a general preference for nice or helpful people over aggressive ones.
In a time when the news is full of stories of public figures who celebrate winning at all costs, these results give us much confidence. Humans understand dominance, but we also expect strong individuals to guide, protect and help others. This feels like good news.
1. One of the purposes of the experiments is to ________.| A．teach toddlers how to gain higher status |
| B．offer toddlers a chance to watch a scene |
| C．observe the process of toddlers’ solving a conflict |
| D．find out toddlers’ attitude toward winners and losers |
| A．obeying rules |
| B．gaining status |
| C．giving in to the other |
| D．showing good manners |
| A．They are excellent learners. |
| B．They are always changeable. |
| C．They show mercy to the loser. |
| D．They value kindness over winning. |
| A．Disappointing. | B．Encouraging. |
| C．Unexpected. | D．Controversial. |
9 . As the international demand for narrative(叙事的) film/TV content continues to increase with popular streaming services like Netflix and others the two questions then come: will the coming generations receive most of their entertainment through visual means rather than through the written word and will such an increase of narrative film/ TV reduce the importance of reading?
Growing examples of this trend include the diminishment(减少) of fiction in the common core (核心的)curriculum, the ever－rising culture of computer games, the wave of streaming services of wide international reach, and movies filled with special effects made for children and teenagers. Nor must we ignore the economic dangers that lie ahead for the written word. The narrative film industry is a moneymaker that dwarfs(使相形见绌) the publishing industry.
The other underlying question, of course, is “does it really matter if the written word bows to the world of film/TV?” From my point of view, any diminishment of fiction delivered by words is a loss for mankind.
There is no greater human feature than the imagination. It lies at the very soul of the human species. It is the brain’s most powerful engine. It is the essential muscle of life and like all muscles it must be exercised and strengthened.
Writing and reading are the principal tools that inspire, create and empower our imagination. Anything that diminishes that power is the enemy of mankind.
It should be known that I am not opposed to new media and technological advances. Instead, I have always felt it necessary to adapt to advancing technology. In fact, a number of my novels are in various stages of development for film, TV, and live stage productions. My hope is that the written word will only stand to be complemented(补充)by its visual counterparts(对应物), not pushed to the edge of extinction.
Of course, there are those who will present arguments for the superiority of the moving image over the written word. Each has its place. My argument is for finding the right balance between it and the moving image.
1. In what way does narrative film/TV embarrass the written word?| A．Economic benefits | B．International reach |
| C．Cultural influence | D．Educational importance |
| A．It strengthens our muscles. | B．It helps sharpen imagination. |
| C．It distinguishes man from each other. | D．It paves the way for narrative film/TV. |
| A．Cautious | B．Skeptical |
| C．Positive | D．Critical |
| A．The fate of reading. | B．The extinction of fiction. |
| C．The impact of the written word. | D．The future of the moving image. |
10 . I read somewhere that we spend a full third of our lives waiting. But where are we doing all of this waiting, and what does it mean to an impatient society like ours? To understand the issue, let’s take a look at three types of “waits”.
The very purest form of waiting is the Watched-Pot Wait. It is without doubt the most annoying of all. Take filling up the kitchen sink(洗碗池) as an example. There is absolutely nothing you can do while this is going on but keep both eyes fixed on the sink until it’s full. During these waits, the brain slips away from the body and wanders about until the water runs over the edge of the counter and onto your socks. This kind of wait makes the waiter helpless and mindless.
A cousin to the Watched-Pot Wait is the Forced Wait. This one requires a bit of discipline. Properly preparing packaged noodle soup required a Forced Wait. Directions are very specific. “Bring three cups of water to boil, add mix, simmer three minutes, remove from heat, let stand five minutes.”I have my doubts that anyone has actually followed the procedures strictly. After all, Forced Waiting requires patience.
Perhaps the most powerful type of waiting is the Lucky-Break Wait. This type of wait is unusual in that it is for the most part voluntary. Unlike the Forced Wait, which is also voluntary, waiting for your lucky break does not necessarily mean that it will happen.
Turning one’s life into a waiting game requires faith and hope, and is strictly for the optimists among us. On the surface it seems as ridiculous as following the directions on soup mixes, but the Lucky-Break Wait well serves those who are willing to do it. As long as one doesn’t come to rely on it, wishing for a few good things to happen never hurts anybody.
We certainly do spend a good deal of our time waiting. The next time you’re standing at the sink waiting for it to fill while cooking noodle soup that you’ll have to eat until a large bag of cash falls out of the sky, don’t be desperate. You’re probably just as busy as the next guy.
1. While doing a Watched-Pot Wait, we tend to ___________.| A．keep ourselves busy |
| B．get absent-minded |
| C．grow anxious |
| D．stay focused |
| A．The Forced Wait requires some self-control. |
| B．The Forced Wait makes people passive. |
| C．The Watched-Pot Wait needs directions. |
| D．The Watched-Pot Wait engages body and brain. |
| A．It is less voluntary than the Forced Wait. |
| B．It doesn’t always bring the desired result. |
| C．It is more fruitful than the Forced Wait. |
| D．It doesn’t give people faith and hope. |
| A．Take it seriously. |
| B．Don’t rely on others. |
| C．Do something else. |
| D．Don’t lose heart. |
| A．exploring various causes of “waits”. |
| B．describing detailed processes of “waits”. |
| C．analyzing different categories of “waits” |
| D．revealing frustrating consequences of “waits” |
