1 . Types of Social Groups
Life places us in a complex web of relationships with other people. Our humanness arises out of these relationships in the course of social interaction. Moreover, our humanness must be sustained through social interaction -- and fairly constantly so. When an association continues long enough for two people to become linked together by a relatively stable set of expectations, it is called a relationship.
People are bound within relationships by two types of bonds: expressive ties and instrumental ties. Expressive ties are social links formed when we emotionally invest ourselves in and commit ourselves to other people. Through association with people who are meaningful to us, we achieve a sense of security, love, acceptance, companionship, and personal worth. Instrumental ties are social links focused when we cooperate with other people to achieve some goal.
Occasionally, this may mean working with, instead of against, competitors. More often, we simply cooperate with others to reach some end without endowing the relationship with any larger significance.
Sociologists have built on the distinction between expressive and instrumental ties to distinguish between two types of groups: primary and secondary. A primary group involves two or more people who enjoy a direct, intimate, cohesive relationship with one another. Expressive ties predominate in primary groups: we view the people as ends in themselves and valuable in their own right. A secondary group entails two or more people who are involved in an impersonal relationship and have come together for a specific, practical purpose. Instrumental ties predominate in secondary groups ; we perceive people as means to ends rather than as ends in their own right. sometimes primary group relationships evolve out of secondary group relationships. This happens in many work settings. People on the job often develop close relationships with coworkers as they come to share gripes, jokes, gossip, and satisfactions.
A number of conditions enhance the likelihood that primary groups will arise. First, group size is important. We find it difficult to get to know people personally when they are milling about and dispersed in large groups. In small groups we have a better chance to initiate contact and establish rapport with them. Second, face - to - face contact allows us to size up others. Seeing and talking with one another in close physical proximity makes possible a subtle exchange of ideas and feelings. And third, the probability that we will develop primary group bonds increases as we have frequent and continuous contact. Our ties with people often deepen as we interact with them across time and gradually evolve interlocking habits and interests.
Primary groups are fundamental to us and to society. Sociologists view primary groups as bridges between individuals and the larger society because they transmit, mediate, and interpret a society’s cultural patterns and provide the sense of oneness so critical for social solidarity. Primary groups, then serve both as carriers of social norms and as enforcers of them.
1. According to Paragraph 1, which of the following statements is true of a relationship?| A．It is a structure of associations with many people. |
| B．It should be studied in the course of social interaction. |
| C．It places great demands on people. |
| D．It develops gradually over time. |
| A．Secondary group relationships begin by being primary group relationships. |
| B．A secondary group relationship that is highly visible quickly becomes a primary group relationship. |
| C．Sociologists believe that only primary group relationships are important to society. |
| D．Even in secondary groups, frequent communication serves to bring people into close relationships. |
| A．enlarge | B．evaluate |
| C．impress | D．accept |
| A．drawing comparisons between theory and practice |
| B．presenting two opposing theories |
| C．defining important concepts |
| D．discussing causes and their effects |
2 . Kids nowadays are growing up “connected”, learning to use technology at a surprising speed. Technology is a regular part of school now! Kids as young as Kindergarten are using smartboards, IPads, and computers to complete tasks in the classroom. Older children rely on the Internet for research, getting homework, sending work to teachers, and even accessing（ 获得） textbooks. In fact, today’s kids have been given the name “digital（数字）natives” because they are facing technology almost from birth, so new things have never been a greater challenge in the hands of our children. The Internet，Facebook, iPods, pictures and texting on cell phones and all of these are the ways kids communicate today. They have become a central part of their lives. It allows them a private life that most of us know very little about.
Kids just don’t think about the results of the new world of social networking and text messaging. They don’t think that it is dangerous to send a photo of a particular person to a foolish person, who might send it to some friends that may send it to a hundred others and the next thing you know, it’s on many Facebook sites and all over the Internet forever. They don’t think that way because they don’t have the life experience that we do. We have to help them.
The key to knowing how they manage this privacy（隐私） is our “connection” to them. How closely do we connect with our kids and pay attention to what they’re doing? And how often do we talk to our children... and really listen to them? If they believe in us and know that we will be there for them, they are more likely to follow our advice. If we talk openly about what we believe in, what we stand for, those values will become their own before long.
1. What is the author’s opinion about children?| A．They are good at accepting modern things. | B．They are well understood by their parents. |
| C．They almost like to surf on the Facebook. | D．They know the Internet dangers well. |
| A．Kids. | B．Adults. | C．Internet users. | D．Internet teachers. |
| A．They only understand their own private lives. | B．They are badly influenced by new things. |
| C．They do not have life experience. | D．They don’t depend on their parents. |
| A．When they are surfing on the Internet. | B．When they meet some dangerous situations. |
| C．When parents believe in what they are doing. | D．When parents communicate with them deeply. |
3 . When one looks back upon the fifteen hundred years that are the life span of the English language, he should be able to notice a number of significant truths. The history of our language has always been a history of constant change—at times a slow, almost imperceptible change, at other times a violent collision between two languages. Our language has been a living growing organism, it has never been static. Another significant truth that emerges from such a study is that language at all times has been the possession not of one class or group but of many. At one extreme it has been the property of the common, ignorant folk, who have used it in the daily business of their living, much as they have used their animals or the kitchen pots and pans. At the other extreme it has been the treasure of those who have respected it as an instrument and a sign of civilization, and who have struggled by writing it down to give it some permanence, order, dignity, and if possible, a little beauty.
As we consider our changing language, we should note here two developments that are of special and immediate importance to us. One is that since the time of the Anglo-Saxons there has been an almost complete reversal of the different relationship of words in a sentence. Anglo-Saxon (old English) was a language of many inflections. Modern English has few inflections. We must now depend largely on word order and function words to convey the meanings that the older language did by means of changes in the forms of words. Function words, you should understand, are words such as prepositions, conjunctions, and a few others that are used primarily to show relationships among other words. A few inflections, however, have survived. And when some word inflections come into conflict with word order, there may be trouble for the users of the language, as we shall see later when we turn our attention to such matters as WHO or WHOM and ME or I. The second fact we must consider is that as language itself changes, our attitudes toward language forms change also. The eighteenth century, for example, produced from various sources a tendency to fix the language into patterns not always set in and grew, until at the present time there is a strong tendency to restudy and re-evaluate language practices in terms of the ways in which people speak and write.
1. In contrast to the earlier linguists, modern linguists tend to ________.| A．attempt to continue the standardization of the language |
| B．evaluate language practices in terms of current speech rather than standards or proper patterns |
| C．be more concerned about language than its analysis or history |
| D．be more aware of the rules of the language usage |
| A．Changes in the forms of words. |
| B．Changes in sentence structures. |
| C．Changes in spelling rules. |
| D．Words that have similar meanings. |
| A．It is generally believed that the year 1500 can be set as the beginning of the modern English language. |
| B．Some other languages had great influence on the English language at some stages of its development. |
| C．The English language has been and still in a state of relatively constant change. |
| D．Many classes or groups have contributed to the development of the English language. |
| A．historian | B．philosopher |
| C．anthropologist | D．linguist |
| A．The history of the English language |
| B．Our changing attitude towards the English language |
| C．Our changing language |
| D．Some characteristics of modern English |
4 . Dental health: Brush with confidence
Children should be taught to brush their teeth regularly. But the suspicion remains among some People, dentists included, that even so, certain children are doomed to develop dental cavities. The hypothesis behind this fear is that some combinations of genes may give rise to the sorts of oral bacteria which are responsible for cavities. If true, that would be sad for the youngsters concerned.
But a study just published in Cell Host and Microbe, by Andres Gomez and Karen Nelson of the J. Craig Venter Institute, in San Diego, suggests it isn’t true.
The mouth is home to many species of microbes. Most are good. Some, though, are well known to secrete acidic waste products when fed sugar. This acidity weakens teeth, causing them to decay.
To try to find out whether a child’s genes play any role in encouraging such acid-secreting bugs, Dr Gomez and Dr Nelson set up an experiment with twins.
Their“volunteers”were 280 pairs of fraternal twins and 205 pairs of identical twins, all aged between five and 11, who had not taken antibiotics during the previous six months. The children were asked to stop brushing their teeth the evening and the morning before the crucial moment of data collection. This was when the researchers swabbed the children’s gingival sulci(the clefts between teeth and gums, in which bacteria collect)to find out what was there. The children also had their teeth scored by dentists as belonging to one of three categories: having no signs of current or previous dental cavities: having signs of current or previous cavities affecting the enamel(a tooth’s hard, outer layer); or having signs of cavities that penetrated the enamel and allected the underlying dentine as well.
Dr Gomez and Dr Nelson found that, though identical twins shared many groups of bacteria which were not shared by fraternal twins, none of these was a type responsible for cavities. Moreover, similarities in bacterial flora were greatest among five-to seven-year-olds, weaker among seven- to nine-year-olds and weakest among nine-to 11-year-olds. This suggests that any role genes do play in regulating the mouth’s ecology fades with time.
Far from supporting the idea that some children are fated to suffer from cavities no matter how well they brush their teeth, these results make it clear that the power to control the growth of the relevant bacteria is very much within reach of children and their parents. Brushing, however, may not be the only approach. Avoiding sugary foods is obviously de rigueur. It seems likely, though, that which other foods a child eats may help shape his oral ecosystem, too. This is an area of ongoing research. But, as in the intestines(肠道), so in the mouth, scientific medicine is at last coming to grips with the fact that the mixture of microbes present is both important and capable of manipulation, to the benefit of the host.
1. What does“hypothesis”refer to in paragraph 1?| A．Children’s failure to brush their teeth properly leads to tooth decay. |
| B．Some children are programmed to develop tooth decay. |
| C．Youngsters are suspicious of the effectiveness of tooth-brushing. |
| D．Some genes are more likely to lead to dental cavites. |
| A．whether genes have anything to do with dental decay |
| B．which group of twins are more likely to have decayed teeth |
| C．what kinds of foods tend to give rise to tooth decay |
| D．why the ecosystem of the intestines is similar to that of the mouth |
| A．Scientists are not yet sure how ecosystem of the mouth is formed. |
| B．The role genes play in controlling ecosystem of the mouth weakens with the time. |
| C．The children are classified into three groups according to the degrees of dental cavities. |
| D．Identical twins are not as genetically close to each other as fraternal twins. |
| A．The existence of multiple microbes benefits children’s oral ecosystem. |
| B．What a child eats enhances the healthfulness of a child’s oral ecosystem. |
| C．Cutting down on sugar intake is the most likely way to prevent tooth decay. |
| D．Parents are in no position to help their children maintain healthy oral ecosystem. |
5 . Mental illness and disability were family problems for English people living between 1660 and 1800. Most women and men who suffered from mental illness were not institutionalized as this was the period before the extensive building of mental hospitals. Instead, they were housed at home, and cared for by other family members.
Now a new study by Cambridge historian Dr. Elizabeth Foyster will reveal the impact on families of caring for mentally ill and disabled relatives.
Much has been written about the insane themselves but few studies have considered mental illness from the perspective of the carers. The lifetime burden of caring for those individuals whose mental development did not progress beyond childhood, and who contemporaries labeled as ‘idiots’ or ‘fools’, has been little explored by historians. Foyster’s research, which has been funded by the Leverhulme Trust, will carefully examine the emotional and economic consequences for families at a time when the Poor Law bound them to look after their mentally ill and disabled family members.
By asking key questions about the impact of ‘care in the community’ in the 18th century, Foyster hopes that her research will bridge social and medical history. Specifically, she aims to provide an historical perspective for contemporary debates such as how resources can be stretched to provide for children with learning difficulties and an aging population.
“The stresses and strains of family were worsened by high infant mortality and low life expectancy, and many individuals were pushed towards mental breakdown,” she explained. “Moreover, inherited conditions, senility(高龄) and what today would be described as ‘special needs’ could put great emotional demands on family members who had primary responsibility for their sick or disabled relatives.”
The research will shed light upon how caring for the mentally ill and disabled raised difficult issues for families about the limits of intergenerational responsibility, and whether family ties were weakened or strengthened by the experience. The questions of how far shame was attached to having insanity or idiocy within a family, and at what point families began to seek outside help, will also be addressed.
“The family must have seemed an inescapable feature of daily life between 1660 and 1800,” said Foyster. “Although there were those who were abandoned and rejected, for the majority, mental disability was accommodated within the family unit. I aim to get to the heart of what this really meant for people’s lives.”
1. Which is NOT the reason why those mentally ill and disabled were not institutionalized from 1660 to 1800?| A．Mental illness and disability were family problems then. |
| B．The extensive building of mental hospitals didn’t start yet. |
| C．They were abandoned by the government and the family. |
| D．The family would be found guilty if they didn’t care for them. |
| A．Because it can provide some food for thought for some current social issues. |
| B．Because the stresses and strains of family life have driven many people crazy. |
| C．Because she’s looking for ways to communicate with the sick or disabled people. |
| D．Because the limits of intergenerational responsibility in such families, interest her. |
| A．How should resources today be stretched to provide for an aging population? |
| B．How did caring for the sick and disabled affect the family’s earning power? |
| C．How shameful did a family feel when their insane or disabled relatives were found out? |
| D．At what point did those families have to begin to look for outside help? |
| A．reveal the impact on families of caring for mentally ill and disabled relatives |
| B．provide an historical perspective to contemporary debates |
| C．shed light upon whether family ties were weakened or strengthened |
| D．introduce a new historical study carried out by a Cambridge historian |
6 . Going to university is supposed to be a mind-broadening experience. That statement is probably made in comparison to training for work straight after school. But is it actually true? Jessika Golle of the University of Tubingen, in Germany reports in Psychological Science this week that those who have been to university indeed seem to leave with broader and more curious minds than those who have spent their immediate post-school years in vocational (职业的) training for work. However, it was not the case that university broadened minds. Rather, vocational training for work seemed to have narrowed them. The result is not quite what might be expected.
Dr. Golle came to this conclusion after she and a team of colleagues studied the early careers of 2,095 German youngsters. The team used two standardized tests to assess their volunteers’ personality traits (特点) including openness, conscientiousness (认真) and so on, and attitudes such as realistic, investigative and enterprising twice, once towards the end of each volunteer’s time at high school, and then again six years later. Of the original group, 382 had to make a choice between the academic and vocational routes, and it was on these that the researchers focused. University beckoned for 212 of them. The remaining 170 chose vocational training and a job.
When it came to the second round of tests, Dr. Golle found that the personalities of both groups had not changed significantly. As for changes in altitude, again, none were noticeable in the university group. However, those who had chosen the vocational route showed marked drops in interest in tasks that are investigative and enterprising in nature. And that might restrict their choice of careers.
The changes in attitude that the researchers recorded were more worrying. Vocational training has always been what Germany prides itself on. If Dr Golle is correct, and changes in attitude brought about by the very training are narrowing people’s choices that is indeed a matter worthy of serious consideration.
1. What does Dr. Colle’s research suggest?| A．Going to university is a mind-broadening experience. |
| B．College students pride themselves on their education. |
| C．Working straight after school narrows people’s minds. |
| D．Attending university has apparent effects on personalities. |
| A．Examined. | B．Attracted. |
| C．Organized. | D．Recognized |
| A．it is essential to scientific research. |
| B．It leads to marked change in personality. |
| C．It helps to broaden the volunteers’ minds. |
| D．It causes less interest in investigative job. |
| A．Skeptical. | B．Optimistic. |
| C．Concerned. | D．Unclear. |
7 . If you wear glasses, chances are you are smarter. Research published in the famous British journal Nature Communications has found that people who displayed higher levels of intelligence were almost 30 percent more likely to wear glasses.
The scientists studied the genes of thousands of people between the ages of 16 and 102.The study showed intelligence can be connected to physical characteristics. One characteristic was eyesight. In out of 10 people who were more intelligent, there was a higher chance they needed glasses. Scientists also said being smarter has other benefits. It is connected to better health.
It is important to remember these are connections which are not proven causes. Scientists call this correlation. Just because something is connected to something else does not mean one of those things caused the other. And it’s worth noting that what constitutes intelligence is subjective and can be difficult, if not impossible, to measure.
Forget genes though. Plenty of proof shows wearing glasses makes people think you are more intelligent, even if you do not need glasses. A number of studies have found people who wear glasses are seen as smarter, hard-working and honest. Many lawyers use this idea to help win their cases. Lawyer Harvey Solves explained this. Glasses soften their appearance. He said Sometimes there has been a huge amount of proof showing that people he was defending broke the law. He had them wear glasses and they weren’t found guilty.
Glasses are also used to show someone is intelligent in movies and on TV. Ideas about people who wear glasses have begun to shift. People who do not need glasses sometimes wear them for fashion only. They want to look worldly or cool. But not everyone is impressed by this idea, though. GQ magazine said people who wear glasses for fashion are trying too hard to look smart and hip (时髦的). However, that hasn’t stopped many celebrities from happily wearing glasses even if they do not need them. Justin Bieber is just one high-profile fan of fashion glasses.
1. What does the new study show?| A．People wearing glasses are smarter. |
| B．People wearing glasses are healthier. |
| C．Wearing glasses can make people cleverer. |
| D．Wearing glasses is associated with higher IQ. |
| A．Shift. | B．Link. | C．Proof. | D．Consequence. |
| A．Because it can create a moral image. |
| B．Because it can mislead the witnesses. |
| C．Because it can highlight clients’ qualities. |
| D．Because it can prove the clients’ innocence. |
| A．Positive. | B．Negative. | C．Mixed | D．Indifferent. |
8 . A robot created by Washington State University (WSU) scientists could help elderly people with dementia (痴呆) and other limitations live independently in their own homes.
The Robot Activity Support System, or RAS, uses sensors installed in a WSU smart home to determine where its residents are, what they are doing and when they need assistance with daily activities. It navigates (定位) through rooms and around obstacles to find people on its own, provides video instructions on how to do simple tasks and can even lead its owner to objects like their medication or a snack in the kitchen.
“RAS combines the convenience of a mobile robot with the activity detection technology of a WSU smart home to provide assistance in the moment, as the need for help is detected,” said Bryan Minor, a postdoctoral researcher in the WSU School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.
Currently, an estimated 50 percent of adults over the age of 85 need assistance with every day activities such as preparing meals and taking medication and the annual cost for this assistance in the US is nearly $2 trillion. With the number of adults over 85 expected to triple by 2050, researchers hope that technologies like RAS and the WSU smart home will relieve some of the financial strain on the healthcare system by making it easier for older adults to live alone.
RAS is the first robot researchers have tried to incorporate into their smart home environment. They recently published a study in the journal Cognitive Systems Research that demonstrates how RAS could make life easier for older adults struggling to live independently.
“While we are still in an early stage of development, our initial results with RAS have been promising,” Minor said. “The next step in the research will be to test RAS’ performance with a group of older adults to get a better idea of what prompts, video reminders and other preferences they have regarding the robot.”
1. How does RAS serve elderly people?| A．Through sensors. | B．Through objects. |
| C．Through a mobile robot. | D．Through their daily activities. |
| A．It is the first robot used in daily life. | B．Its function remains to be tested. |
| C．It can locate people and do any task. | D．It can cook for owners on its own. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Negative. |
| C．Optimistic. | D．Uncertain. |
| A．Elderly people leave the nursing home. |
| B．Smart Home Tests first elder-Care robot. |
| C．RAS, the first robot to make home smart. |
| D．Older adults have benefited from RAS. |
9 . Examples of effective conservation of places matter to the world. They range from the 1960s Nubian campaign to safeguard Ancient Egyptian monuments from the waters of the Aswan Dam to the removal in 2018 of the Belize Barrier Reef from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Conservation is the core purpose of the World Heritage Convention and it may also be its biggest challenge.
The following example shows how successes at specific sites now serve as models for conservation and sustainable (可持续性) development. A year after Vienna was included on the World Heritage List in 2001, the World Heritage Committee (WHC) expressed concerns about the architectural solutions and height of four planned towers of the Wien-Mitte project. This development project, close to the Historic Centre of Vienna in the site’s buffer zone, the one that lies between two or more other areas, affected the urban scale (规模) and visual effects in and around the property (地产). As a result of the Committee’s concerns, Vienna changed its building codes and launched a new design competition for the Wien-Mitte project to work out architectural plans with reduced size in keeping with World Heritage protection.
The successful practice inspired the government of the city to invite over 600 experts and professionals from 55 countries to an international conference on World Heritage and contemporary architecture, held in Vienna in May 2005. The global discussion that followed, detailing an approach to managing conservation and development, was recorded in the UNESCO Recommendation in 2011.
The Recommendation put forwards an all-rounded and combined approach to balancing urban heritage (遗产) conservation and economic development, arguing that active protection and management of urban heritage supports the goal of sustainable development.
The Recommendation supports the harmonious combination of contemporary involvement into the historic urban framework while holding on to values linked to history, memory and the environment.
1. Why does the author mention the Belize Barrier Reef in Paragraph 1?| A．To explain the goal of the organization. |
| B．To encourage the public to protect the world. |
| C．To show the positive effect of conservation. |
| D．To remind people of the environmental problems. |
| A．It took up too much public land of the city. |
| B．It had a bad effect on the Historic Centre of Vienna. |
| C．Its original designs were not environmentally friendly. |
| D．Its architectural solutions couldn’t meet safety standards. |
| A．The ways to combine conservation and development. |
| B．The creation of the new UNESCO Recommendation. |
| C．The international urban management and development. |
| D．The styles of the contemporary architecture of Vienna. |
| A．To examine the challenges faced by global urban planners. |
| B．To introduce alternative ways of protecting the environment. |
| C．To stress the importance of the value of history and memory. |
| D．To promote active conservation and sustainable development. |
10 . More than a decade ago, cognitive scientists John Bransford and Daniel Schwartz, both then at Vanderbilt University, found that what distinguished young adults from children was not the ability to retain facts or apply prior knowledge to a new situation but a quality they called “preparation for future learning.” The researchers asked fifth graders and college students to create a recovery plan to protect bald eagles from extinction. Shockingly, the two groups came up with plans of similar quality (although the college students had better spelling skills). From the standpoint of a traditional educator, this outcome indicated that schooling had failed to help students think about ecosystems and extinction, major scientific ideas.
The researchers decided to go deeper, however. They asked both groups to generate questions about important issues needed to create recovery plans. On this task, they found large differences. College students focused on critical issues of interdependence between eagles and their habitats. Fifth graders tended to focus on features of individual eagles (“How big are they?” and “What do they eat?”). The college students had cultivated the ability to ask questions, the cornerstone (最重 要部分)of critical thinking. They had learned how to learn.
Museums and other institutions of informal learning may be better suited to teach this skill than elementary and secondary schools. At the Exploratorium in San Francisco, we recently studied how learning to ask good questions can affect the quality of people's scientific inquiry. We found that when we taught participants to ask “What if?” and “How can?” questions that nobody present would know the answer to and that would spark exploration，they engaged in better inquiry at the next exhibit-asking more questions, performing more experiments and making better interpretations of their results. Specifically, their questions became more comprehensive at the new exhibit. Rather than merely asking about something they wanted to try，they tended to include both cause and effect in their question. Asking juicy questions appears to be a transferable skill for deepening collaborative inquiry into the science content found in exhibits.
This type of learning is not confined to museums or institutional settings. Informal learning environments tolerate failure better than schools. Perhaps many teachers have too little time to allow students to form and pursue their own questions and too much ground to cover in the curriculum. But people must acquire this skill somewhere, Our society depends on them being able to make critical decisions about their own medical treatment, say, or what we must do about global energy needs and demands. For that, we have an informal learning system that gives no grades, takes all comers，and is available even on holidays and weekends.
1. What is traditional educators interpretation of the research outcome mentioned in the first paragraph?| A．Students are not able to apply prior knowledge to new problems. |
| B．College students are no better than fifth grader in memorizing facts. |
| C．Education has not paid enough attention to major environmental issues. |
| D．Education has failed to lead students to think about major scientific ideas. |
| A．they have learned to think critically. |
| B．they are concerned about social issues. |
| C．they are curious about specific features. |
| D．they have learned to work independently. |
| A．It arouses students’ interest in things around them. |
| B．It cultivates students’ ability to make scientific inquiries. |
| C．It trains students’ ability to design scientific experiments. |
| D．It helps students realize not every question has an answer. |
| A．train students to think about global issues |
| B．design more interactive classroom activities |
| C．make full use of informal learning resources |
| D．include collaborative inquiry in the curriculum |
