1 . Returning to a book you’ve read many times can feel like drinks with an old friend. There’s a welcome familiarity - but also sometimes a slight suspicion that time has changed you both, and thus the relationship. But books don’t change, people do. And that’s what makes the act of rereading so rich and transformative.
The beauty of rereading lies in the idea that our bond with the work is based on our present mental register. It’s true, the older I get, the more I feel time has wings. But with reading, it’s all about the present. It’s about the now and what one contributes to the now, because reading is a give and take between author and reader. Each has to pull their own weight.
There are three books I reread annually .The first, which I take to reading every spring is Emest Hemningway’s A Moveable Feast. Published in 1964, it’s his classic memoir of 1920s Paris. The language is almost intoxicating (令人陶醉的)，an aging writer looking back on an ambitious yet simpler time. Another is Annie Dillard’s Holy the Firm, her poetic 1975 ramble (随笔) about everything and nothing. The third book is Julio Cortazar’s Save Twilight: Selected Poems, because poetry. And because Cortazar.
While I tend to buy a lot of books, these three were given to me as gifs, which might add to the meaning I attach to them. But I imagine that, while money is indeed wonderful and necessary, rereading an author’s work is the highest currency a reader can pay them. The best books are the ones that open further as time passes. But remember, it’s you that has to grow and read and reread in order to better understand your friends.
1. Why does the author like rereading?| A．It evaluates the writer-reader relationship. |
| B．It’s a window to a whole new world. |
| C．It’s a substitute for drinking with a friend. |
| D．It extends the understanding of oneself. |
| A．It’s a brief account of a trip. |
| B．It’s about Hemingway’s life as a young man. |
| C．It’s a record of a historic event. |
| D．It’s about Hemingway’s friends in Paris. |
| A．Debt |
| B．Reward. |
| C．Allowance. |
| D．Face value. |
| A．He loves poetry. |
| B．He’s an editor. |
| C．He’s very ambitious. |
| D．He teaches reading. |
2 . According to a recent study in the Journal of Consumer Research, both the size and consumption habits of our eating companions can influence our food intake. And contrary to existing research that says you should avoid eating with heavier people who order large portions(份), it's the beanpoles with big appetites you really need to avoid.
To test the effect of social influence on eating habits, the researchers conducted two experiments. In the first, 95 undergraduate women were individually invited into a lab to ostensibly(表面上)participate in a study about movie viewership. Before the film began, each woman was asked to help herself to a snack. An actor hired by the researchers grabbed her food first. In her natural state, the actor weighed 105 pounds. But in half the cases she wore a specially designed fat suit which increased her weight to 180 pounds.
Both the fat and thin versions of the actor took a large amount of food. The participants followed suit, taking more food than they normally would have. However, they took significantly more when the actor was thin.
For the second test, in one case the thin actor took two pieces of candy from the snack bowls. In the other case, she took 30 pieces. The results were similar to the first test: the participants followed suit but took significantly more candy when the thin actor took 30 pieces.
The tests show that the social environment is extremely influential when we're making decisions. If this fellow participant is going to eat more, so will I. Call it the “I’ll have what she's having” effect. However, we'll adjust the influence. If an overweight person is having a large portion, I'll hold back a bit because I see the results of his eating habits. But if a thin person eats a lot, I'll follow suit. If he can eat much and keep slim, why can't I?
1. What is the recent study mainly about?| A．Food safety. | B．Movie viewership. |
| C．Consumer demand. | D．Eating behavior. |
| A．Big eaters. | B．Overweight persons. |
| C．Picky eaters. | D．Tall thin persons. |
| A．To see how she would affect the participants. |
| B．To test if the participants could recognize her. |
| C．To find out what she would do in the two tests. |
| D．To study why she could keep her weight down. |
| A．How hungry we are. | B．How slim we want to be. |
| C．How we perceive others. | D．How we feel about the food. |
3 . Albert Einstein’s 1915 masterpiece “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity” is the first and still the best introduction to the subject, and I recommend it as such to students. But it probably wouldn’t be publishable in a scientific journal today.
Why not? After all, it would pass with flying colours the tests of correctness and significance. And while popular belief holds that the paper was incomprehensible to its first readers, in fact many papers in theoretical physics are much more difficult.
As the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “There was a time when the newspapers said that only 12 men understood the theory of relativity. I do believe there might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than 12.”
No, the problem is its style. It starts with a leisurely philosophical discussion of space and time and then continues with an exposition of known mathematics. Those two sections, which would be considered extraneous today, take up half the paper. Worse, there are zero citations of previous scientists’ work, nor are there any graphics. Those features might make a paper not even get past the first editors.
A similar process of professionalization has transformed other parts of the scientific landscape. Requests for research time at major observatories or national laboratories are more rigidly structured. And anything involving work with human subjects, or putting instruments in space, involves piles of paperwork.
We see it also in the Regeneron Science Talent Search, the Nobel Prize of high school science competitions. In the early decades of its 78-year history, the winning projects were usually the sort of clever but naive, amateurish efforts one might expect of talented beginners working on their own. Today, polished work coming out of internships(实习) at established laboratories is the norm.
These professionalizing tendencies are a natural consequence of the explosive growth of modern science. Standardization and system make it easier to manage the rapid flow of papers, applications and people. But there are serious downsides. A lot of unproductive effort goes into jumping through bureaucratic hoops(繁文缛节), and outsiders face entry barriers at every turn.
Of course, Einstein would have found his way to meeting modern standards and publishing his results. Its scientific core wouldn’t have changed, but the paper might not be the same taste to read.
1. According to Richard Feynman, Einstein’s 1915 paper ________.| A．was a classic in theoretical physics |
| B．turned out to be comprehensible |
| C．needed further improvement |
| D．attracted few professionals |
| A．Unrealistic. | B．Irrelevant. |
| C．Unattractive. | D．Imprecise. |
| A．The application of research findings. |
| B．The principle of scientific research. |
| C．The selection of young talents. |
| D．The evaluation of laboratories. |
| A．What makes Einstein great? |
| B．Will science be professionalized? |
| C．Could Einstein get published today? |
| D．How will modern science make advances? |
4 . Certain forms of AI are indeed becoming ubiquitous. For example, algorithms (算法) carry out huge volumes of trading on our financial markets, self-driving cars are appearing on city streets, and our smartphones are translating from one language into another. These systems are sometimes faster and more perceptive than we humans are. But so far that is only true for the specific tasks for which the systems have been designed. That is something that some AI developers are now eager to change.
Some of today’s AI pioneers want to move on from today’s world of “weak” or “narrow” AI, to create “strong” or “full” AI, or what is often called artificial general intelligence (AGI). In some respects, today’s powerful computing machines already make our brains look weak. AGI could, its advocates say, work for us around the clock, and drawing on all available data, could suggest solutions to many problems. DM, a company focused on the development of AGI, has an ambition to “solve intelligence”. “If we’re successful,” their mission statement reads, “we believe this will be one of the most important and widely beneficial scientific advances ever made.”
Since the early days of AI, imagination has outpaced what is possible or even probable. In 1965, an imaginative mathematician called Irving Good predicted the eventual creation of an “ultra-intelligent machine…that can far surpass all the intellectual (智力的) activities of any man, however clever.” Good went on to suggest that “the first ultra-intelligent machine” could be “the last invention that man need ever make.”
Fears about the appearance of bad, powerful, man-made intelligent machines have been reinforced (强化) by many works of fiction — Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the Terminator film series, for example. But if AI does eventually prove to be our downfall, it is unlikely to be at the hands of human-shaped forms like these, with recognisably human motivations such as aggression (敌对行为). Instead, I agree with Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, who believes that the heaviest risks from AGI do not come from a decision to turn against mankind but rather from a dogged pursuit of set objectives at the expense of everything else.
The promise and danger of true AGI are great. But all of today’s excited discussion about these possibilities presupposes the fact that we will be able to build these systems. And, having spoken to many of the world’s foremost AI researchers, I believe there is good reason to doubt that we will see AGI any time soon, if ever.
1. What does the underlined word “ubiquitous” in Paragraph I probably mean?| A．Enormous in quantity. | B．Changeable daily. |
| C．Stable in quality. | D．Present everywhere. |
| A．Help to tackle problems. | B．Make brains more active. |
| C．Benefit ambitious people. | D．Set up powerful databases. |
| A．supportive | B．disapproving |
| C．fearful | D．uncertain |
| A．It may be only a dream. |
| B．It will come into being soon. |
| C．It will be controlled by humans. |
| D．It may be more dangerous than ever. |
5 . Elizabeth Spelke, a cognitive (认知的) psychologist at Harvard, has spent her career testing the world's most complex learning system-the mind of a baby. Babies might seem like no match for artificial intelligence (AI). They are terrible at labeling images, hopeless at mining text, and awful at video games. Then again, babies can do things beyond the reach of any AI. By just a few months old, they’ve begun to grasp the foundations of language, such as grammar. They’ve started to understand how to adapt to unfamiliar situations.
Yet even experts like Spelke don’t understand precisely how babies — or adults, for that matter — learn. That gap points to a puzzle at the heart of modern artificial intelligence: We're not sure what to aim for.
Consider one of the most impressive examples of AI, Alpha Zero, a programme that plays board games with superhuman skill. After playing thousands of games against itself at a super speed, and learning from winning positions, Alpha Zero independently discovered several famous chess strategies and even invented new ones. It certainly seems like a machine eclipsing human cognitive abilities. But Alpha Zero needs to play millions more games than a person during practice to learn a game. Most importantly, it cannot take what it has learned from the game and apply it to another area.
To some AI experts, that calls for a new approach. In a November research paper, Francois Chollet, a well-known AI engineer, argued that it’s misguided to measure machine intelligence just according to its skills at specific tasks. “Humans don’t start out with skills; they start out with a broad ability to acquire new skills,” he says. “What a strong human chess player is demonstrating is not only the ability to play chess, but the potential to fulfill any task of a similar difficulty.” Chollet posed a set of problems, each of which requires an AI programme to arrange colored squares on a grid (格栅) based on just a few prior examples. It’s not hard for a person. But modern machine-learning programmes-trained on huge amounts of data — cannot learn from so few examples.
Josh Tenenbaum, a professor in MIT's Center for Brains, Minds & Machines, works closely with Spelke and uses insights from cognitive science as inspiration for his programmes. He says much of modern AI misses the bigger picture, comparing it to a cartoon about a two-dimensional world populated by simple geometrical (几何形的) people. AI programmes will need to learn in new ways — for example, by drawing causal inferences rather than simply finding patterns. “At some point — you know, if you’re intelligent — you realize maybe there's something else out there,” he says.
1. Compared to an advanced AI programme, a baby might be better at _______________.| A．labeling images | B．identifying locations |
| C．playing games | D．making adjustments |
| A．Stimulating. | B．Measuring. | C．Beating. | D．Limiting. |
| A．AI is good at finding similar patterns |
| B．AI should gain abilities with less training |
| C．AI lacks the ability of generalizing a skill |
| D．AI will match humans in cognitive ability |
| A．What is exactly intelligence? |
| B．Why is modern AI advanced? |
| C．Where is human intelligence going? |
| D．How do humans tackle the challenge of AI? |
6 . Regardless of how famous they are, and despite the star treatment they receive, many celebrities make it a point to give back to charities. Some have even set up their own private foundations. Their widely publicised visits to troubled areas of the world help to raise awareness of issues such as famine and poverty. According to Jane Cooper of Unicef UK, celebrities have a unique ability to reach huge numbers of people, many of whom might not otherwise be engaged in charitable causes. She pointed out that famous faces had played a significant role in raising funds in recent years, and their energies had produced tangible results, such as enabling millions of children in poorer countries to attend school.
But in spite of these successes there is evidence to suggest that celebrity endorsement (代言) may be overrated. In a survey of members of the public to find out if celebrity involvement would encourage people to donate, researchers found that the impact was not as great as previously thought. When shown a list of well-known organisations and famous people who represent them, over half of respondents were unable to match the celebrity with the cause. What’s more, three quarters claimed that they didn’t respond to celebrity endorsement in any way. The survey also showed that a few names did stand out as being associated with particular charities. But the presence of a celebrity in a campaign, was not a significant factor when it came to a decision to donate time or money. Instead, the majority of people contribute because of personal connections in their lives and families which make a charity important to them.
In another study aimed at young people, most participants cited a compelling (无法抗拒的) mission as their main motivation to give. The second most important incentive was if a friend or peer recommended supporting a particular cause. Only two percent of respondents said they were motivated by celebrity endorsement. This seems to contradict the general assumption that teenagers are particularly influenced by famous people. One possible explanation is that there is a general fatigue (疲倦) with celebrity culture. There is also a suspicion that the stars are the one who benefit most when they offer to do charity work. Some critics have accused that celebrities might actually take attention away from issues by attracting more attention than the causes they represent.
So taking all these issues into account, is it time for charities to rethink their campaign strategies and look for alternative ways to reach new audiences? Whichever point of view you favour, there seems to be opportunities for more research into how charity campaigns might develop relationships with celebrities to maximise their potential. This in turn will open up more engagement, and better targeted campaigns-which can only benefit those who really matter — the people and animals that are in need of assistance.
1. What does the underlined word “tangible” in paragraph I probably mean?| A．Definite. | B．Complicated. | C．Limited. | D．Temporary. |
| A．they gain benefit from the charities |
| B．they are forced to finish a necessary task |
| C．they believe in the famous people they like |
| D．they are inspired by the people around them |
| A．what celebrities achieve in doing charities |
| B．How young people react to celebrity culture |
| C．why young people are hardly influenced by celebrities |
| D．who is to blame for taking attention away from charities |
| A．Objective. | B．Positive. |
| C．Negative. | D．Unclear. |
7 . According to a new study， teens focus on rewards and have a hard time learning to avoid punishment or consider the consequences of alternative actions.
University College London researchers compared how teens and adults learn to make choices based on the available information. They tracked the way in which 18 volunteers aged 12-17 and 20 volunteers aged 18-32 completed tasks in which they had to choose between abstract symbols.
Each symbol was consistently associated with a fixed chance of a reward, punishment, or no outcome. As the trial progressed ， participants learned which symbols were likely to lead to each outcome and adjusted their choices accordingly. Teens and adults were equally good at learning to choose symbols associated with reward， but teens were less good at avoiding symbols associated with punishment. Adults also performed significantly better when they were told what would have happened if they had chosen the other symbol after each choice， while teens did not appear to take this information into account.
“From this experimental lab study we can draw conclusions about learning during the teen years. We find that teens and adults learn in different ways， something that might be relevant to education," said lead author Dr. Stefano Palminteri. " Unlike adults, teens are not so good at learning to adjust their choices to avoid punishment. This suggests that incentive systems based on reward rather than punishment may be more effective for this age group. Additionally, we found that teens did not learn from being shown what would have happened if they made alternative choices."
To interpret the results, the researchers developed computational models of learning and ran simulations （模拟）applying them to the results of the study. The first was a simple model, one that learned from rewards, and the second model added to this by also learning from the option that was not chosen. The third model was the most complete and took the full context into account, with equal weight given to punishment avoidance and reward seeking. For example, obtaining no outcome rather than losing a point is weighted equally to gaining a point rather than having no outcome.
Comparing the experimental data to the models, the team found that teens" behavior followed the simple reward-based model while adults" behavior matched the complete, contextual model. “Our study suggests that teens are more receptive to rewards than they are to punishments of equal value, ” said senior author Dr. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore. “As a result, it may be useful for parents and teachers to frame things in more positive terms.”
1. It can be learned from the study that .| A．adults made choices faster than teens |
| B．adults understood rewards better than teens |
| C．teens reacted better to reward than punishment |
| D．teens were aware of the outcome of each choice |
| A．They reflected people’s strong desire for punishment avoidance. |
| B．They gave circumstances different degrees of consideration. |
| C．They paid equal attention to reward and punishment. |
| D．They shaped the behavior of people at different ages. |
| A．accustomed | B．opposed |
| C．sympathetic | D．responsive |
| A．“If you insist on doing things in this way， you will lose ten points. " |
| B．“If we had talked about this earlier， you wouldn’t have made the mistake. " |
| C．“ If you hand in your assignment ahead of time， you will get an extra bonus." |
| D．“If you want to approach a problem differently ， you can talk to your parents. " |
8 . As the effects of climate change become more disastrous, well-known research institutions and government agencies are focusing new money and attention on an idea: artificially cooling the planet, in the hopes of buying humanity more time to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
That strategy, called solar climate intervention (干预) or solar geoengineering, involves reflecting more of the sun’s energy back into space — abruptly reducing global temperatures in a way that imitates the effects of ash clouds flowing out from the volcanic eruptions. The idea has been considered as a dangerous and fancied solution, one that would encourage people to keep burning fossil fuels while exposing the planet to unexpected and potentially threatening side effects, producing more destructive hurricanes, wildfires floods and other disasters.
But. as global warming continues, producing more destructive hurricanes, wildfires floods and other disasters, some researchers and policy experts say that concerns about geoengineering should be outweighed by the imperative to better understand it, in case the consequence of climate change become so terrible that the world can’t wait for better solutions.
One way to cool the earth is by injecting aerosols (气溶胶) into the upper layer of the atmosphere. where those particles reflect sunlight away from the earth. That process works, according to Douglas MacMartin, a researcher at Cornell University.
“We know with 100% certainty that we can cool the planet,” he said in an interview. What’s still unclear, he added, is what happens next. Temperature, MacMartin said, is an indicator for a lot of climate effects. “What does it do to the strength of hurricanes?” he asked, “What does it do to agriculture production? What does it do to the risk of forest fires?”
Another institution funded by the National Science Foundation will analyze hundreds of simulations of aerosol injection, testing the effects on weather extremes around the world. One goal of the research is to look for a sweet spot: the amount of artificial cooling that can reduce extreme weather events without causing broader changes in regional rainfall patterns or similar impacts.
1. Why do researchers and government agencies work on cooling the earth?| A．To prevent natural disasters. | B．To win more time to reduce gas emissions. |
| C．To imitate volcanic eruptions. | D．To encourage more people to bur fossil fuels. |
| A．More volcanoes will throw out. |
| B．More solar energy will go into space. |
| C．More disasters will endanger the future of the world. |
| D．People will keep burning fossil fuels to keep warm. |
| A．He thinks more research remains to be done. |
| B．He is optimistic about the effect of cooling the earth. |
| C．He is concerned about the reduction in agriculture production. |
| D．He disapproves of the practice of solar climate intervention. |
| A．The rainfall pattern of a region. |
| B．The modest drop in temperature. |
| C．The number of extreme weather events. |
| D．The injection amount of aerosol. |
9 . Nowadays, video gaming has made impressive gains in the field of standardized competition. One of the fashionable debates is whether competitive video games are sports or not. If cyberathletes are competing against formal teams in a formal environment, with real titles and monetary stakes on the line, it seems strange not to consider the activity a sport. However, unless something technologically odd gains complete control over our world in the next few decades, they never should be. Cyberathletes and eSports aren’t incomparable to traditional athletes and sports because they require less physical exertion or dedication. They are incomparable because they are different from traditional sports in a number of ways.
Traditional sports are steadfast, and consistent in their structures and mechanics. A professional American football player from any past decade could be transplanted into a current football field, and would only have to be told of a few minor rule changes. The player would know what to do, where to go, and how to accomplish the ultimate goal. He may need to learn a few new plays, but it’s fundamentally the same game. However, competitive video gaming has a variety of goals, and those goals are fluid and dynamic. A competitive video gamer from decades past might be aware of the final goal (winning the game, capturing the flag, eliminating the opposing team, etc.), but the execution (执行方式) would be completely foreign. Controls change, maps change, locations change, even the minute rules are adjusted on a regular basis. As a competitive video gamer, one needs to adapt to a much more aggressive ruleset than most sports or other games. Therefore the video game competitions are less likely to be properly regulated.
Most traditional sports are approachable by Everyman, even the esoteric(深奥的) ones, at least in an educational setting, where budgets and funding are set for them. While home computers are widely accessible, a large percentage of the gaming population is unable to participate in competitive gaming due to the high-standard computing requirements. Even decade-old competitive games like Counter-Strike 1.6 require more equipment and gear than most traditional sports. A pick-up game of basketball, football, or soccer is far more accessible than a pick-up game of Counter-Strike.
Traditional sports are embedded in our culture for good reasons: they offer an entertaining diversion and a great form of physical activity for millions of worldwide fans. The principles and lessons gleaned from traditional sports emphasize teamwork, collaboration, and critical evaluations of any given game setting. While many of these lessons are applicable to competitive gaming, competitive video gamers are still distancing themselves from competing for “sport” status, when their pastime and trade is so fundamentally different and ever-changing at such a regular pace.
1. What is the author’s opinion towards competitive video games?| A．They can be seen as sports due to their emphasis on teamwork. |
| B．They can be seen as sports due to their standardized regulations. |
| C．They can not be seen as sports due to their lack of physical and mental efforts. |
| D．They can not be seen as sports due to the inconsistent rules and high requirements. |
| A．Difficult. | B．Common. | C．Typical. | D．Different. |
| A．To explain the reason why eSports surpass traditional sports. |
| B．To explore the possibility that competitive video games will be sports. |
| C．To provide an example of the difference between eSports and traditional sports. |
| D．To account for the fact that the competitive features of video games are impressive. |
| A．By quoting and citing. |
| B．By listing and analyzing. |
| C．By comparison and contrast. |
| D．By explaining and evaluating. |
10 . I was standing in the checkout line behind a woman who looked to be in her 60s. When it was her turn to pay, the cashier greeted her by name and asked her how she was doing.
The woman looked down, shook her head and said: “Not so good. My husband just lost his job. The truth is, I don’t know how I’m going to get through these days.” Then she gave the cashier food stamps(食品券).
My heart ached. I wanted to help but didn’t know how. Should I offer to pay for her groceries, or ask for her husband’s resume(简历)?
Walking into the parking lot, I spotted the woman returning her shopping cart. I remembered something in my purse that I thought could help her. It wasn’t a handful of cash or an offer of a job for her husband, but maybe it would make her life better.
“Excuse me,” I said, my voice trembling a bit. “I couldn’t help overhearing what you said to the cashier. It sounds like you’ re going through a really hard time right now. I’m so sorry. I’d like to give you something. ”
I handed her the small card from my purse. When the woman read the two words “You Matter” on the card, she began to cry. And through her tears, she said: “You have no idea how much this means to me.”
I was a little startled by her reply. Having never done anything like this before, I didn’t know what kind of reaction I might receive. All I could think to say was: “Would it be OK to give you a hug? ”
A few days earlier, one of my workmates gave a similar card to me as encouragement for a project I was working on. When I read the card, I felt a warm glow spread inside of me. Deeply touched, I ordered my own box of “You Matter” cards and started sharing them.
1. What was the woman’s trouble?| A．She lost her job. |
| B．She needed more food stamps. |
| C．She didn’t know how to get through the hard time. |
| D．She didn’t have enough money to pay for her groceries. |
| A．She inspired the woman with a card. |
| B．She bought some food for the woman. |
| C．She gave the woman a handful of money. |
| D．She offered the woman’s husband a better job. |
| A．Moved. | B．Surprised. | C．Pleased. | D．Annoyed. |
| A．You Decide Who You Are | B．Bad Things Will Go Away |
| C．The Help from a Stranger | D．The Power of a Small Card |
