1 . The bus was full, bumpy, and it soon got noisy as her kid began crying because he couldn’t sit next to his mother. There were a couple of open seats, but they weren’t together. She was flustered and looked embarrassed.
The underlined word “flustered” in the second paragraph is closest in meaning to _______.
| A．angry | B．anxious | C．scared | D．upset |
2 . The Internet is changing the way we communicate. LOL, awks, amazeballs, BRB, the use of emoji and emoticon — and even writing facial expressions such as “sad face”— have all become standard in digital communications. So ingrained, in fact, that they’re changing the way we write and even talk.
What does the word “ingrained” in paragraph 1 most probably mean?
| A．Deep-rooted. | B．Long-lasting. | C．Well-equipped. | D．Single-minded. |
3 . St. Petersburg enjoys a wide variety of bars meant for that original Russian vodka experience including the famous bar ryumochnaya. The bar was originally meant to defy the misbehavior of labeling people. It was a place for everyone to just enjoy a drink. A billionaire could be sitting happily next to a worker.
The underlined word defy is closest in meaning to______.
| A．highlight | B．imitate | C．resist | D．reward |
4 . Having both is a good idea though it may sound extra redundant. You don’t want to entirely rely on the Cloud, just in case you lose access to your account, or if the provider closes down. And you don’t want to rely exclusively on offline storage, say, on a plug-in hard disk stored at the back of a cupboard, because if disaster strikes then your back-up will burn down alongside your computer and the rest of your belongings.
The underlined word “redundant” in paragraph 3 most probably means ________.
| A．unnecessary | B．demanding | C．meaningful | D．useless |
5 . In the mid-1990s, Tom Bissell taught English as a volunteer in Uzbekistan. He left after seven months, physically broken and having lost his mind. A few years later, still attracted to the country, he returned to Uzbekistan to write an article about the disappearance of the Aral Sea.
His visit, however, ended up involving a lot more than that. Hence this book, Chasing the Sea: Lost Among the Ghosts of Empire in Central Asia, which talks about a road trip from Tashkent to Karakalpakstan, where millions of lives have been destroyed by the slow drying up of the sea. It is the story of an American travelling to a strange land, and of the people he meets on his way: Rustam, his translator, a lovely 24-year-old who picked up his colorful English in California, Oleg and Natasha, his hosts in Tashkent, and a string of foreign aid workers.
What does the underlined word “that” in paragraph 2 refer to?
| A．Developing a serious mental disease. |
| B．Taking a guided tour in Central Asia. |
| C．Working as a volunteer in Uzbekistan. |
| D．Writing an article about the Aral Sea. |
6 . Southbank, at an eastern bend in the Thames, is the center of British skateboarding, where the continuous crashing of skateboards left your head ringing .I loved it. I soon made friends with the local skaters. We spoke our own language. And my favorite: Safe. Safe meant cool. It meant hello. It meant don't worry about it. Once, when trying a certain trick on the beam (横杆), I fell onto the stones, damaging a nerve in my hand, and Toby came over, helping me up: Safe, man. Safe. A few minutes later, when I landed the trick, my friends beat their boards loud, shouting: “Safe! Safe! Safe!” And that's what mattered — landing tricks, being a good skater.
What do the underlined words “Safe! Safe! Safe!” probably mean?
| A．Be careful! | B．Well done! | C．No way! | D．Don't worry! |
7 . 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. |
8 . Nothing succeeds like success, as every parent of a straight-A student knows, but trying to stress academic excellence by telling your child, “You’re so smart!” may be counterproductive. Why? According to a 2017 study, children who think their intelligence is fixed are less likely to pay attention to and bounce back（重新振作）from mistakes than children who think intelligence can grow and change.
In the study, researchers looked at 123 children. The team assessed the children to determine whether they had a “growth mindset”(believing that you can work harder to get smarter), or a “fixed mindset” (believing that your intelligence is unable to change). They then asked the children to complete a fast-paced computer accuracy task while their brain activity was recorded. During the recording, researchers noted that brain activity stopped within a half-second after making a mistake, as children became aware of their mistake and paid closer attention to what went wrong. The larger the brain response was, the more the child focused on the mistake. Based on the data, they concluded that children with a “growth mindset” were much more likely to have a larger brain response after making a mistake. While children with a “fixed mindset” were able to “bounce back”, only if they gave their full attention to the mistake.
For parents, the lessons are clear. Don’t pay your children compliments that suggest that intelligence is fixed. If your child hands you an A+ score, don’t say, “You’re so smart!” Instead, say, “Wow, that studying really paid off!” or “You clearly mastered this material-way to go!” Note the effort, not the intelligence.
Besides, many parent shy away from addressing a child’s mistakes, telling them “It’s OK. ”You’ll get it next time. ” without offering them the chances to figure out what goes wrong. Instead, it’s better to reassure your children that mistakes happen, and work to figure out where and how they make the mistake.
1. Which of the following best explains “counterproductive” underlined in paragraph 1?| A．Opposite | B．Competitive |
| C．Successful | D．Unknown |
| A．They made fewer mistakes. | B．They tried to avoid mistakes |
| C．They had smaller brain response | D．They focused more on the mistake. |
| A．You are so careless |
| B．Paying compliments to children |
| C．You’ll get it the next time |
| D．Let’s find out how you made it. |
| A．Overstressing the intelligence. |
| B．Pay compliment to children. |
| C．Addressing children’s mistakes. |
| D．Offering chances to find mistakes. |
9 . If scientists could create a pill that let you live twice as long while remaining free of diseases, would you take it?
If one considers only the personal benefits that longer life would bring, the answer might seem like a no-brainer: People could spend more time with loved ones; watch future generations grow up; learn new languages or try different careers.
But what about society as a whole? Would it be better off if life span were doubled? The question is of growing importance, and serious debate about it goes back a few years to the Kronos Conference on Longevity Health Sciences in Arizona. Gregory Stock, director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at UCLA5s School of Public Health, answered the question with a firm “Yes”. A doubled lifespan, Stock said, would “give us a chance to recover from our mistakes, lead us towards longer-term thinking and delay the start of expensive diseases of aging. It would also raise productivity through adding to our prime years.”
Callahan, a co-founder of the Hastings Center in New York, didn’t share Stocks enthusiasm. For one thing, he said, doubling life spans won’t solve any of our current social problems. ‘‘We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues around, and I don’t think any of them would be at all helped if people lived longer, Callahan said in a telephone interview, “The question is, ‘What will we get as a society?’ I suspect it won’t be a better society?”
Others point out that a doubling of the human lifespan will affect society at every level. Ideas about marriage and work will change in fundamental ways, they say, as will attitudes toward the young and the old.
1. In Paragraph 2, “a no-brainer” most probably refers to ________.| A．something coming to mind naturally | B．someone unwilling to think |
| C．something difficult to bear in mind | D．someone having a low IQ |
| A．thinking less frequently | B．having fewer diseases of aging |
| C．making more mistakes | D．working productively longer |
| A．Aging: Burden or Treasure | B．Base of Society: the Old or the Young |
| C．Longer Lives: For or Again | D．A Doubled Lifespan: Possible or Not |
10 . It was a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free trader crying foul. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided that Tesco, a British supermarket chain, should not be allowed to import jeans made by America’s Levi Strauss from outside the European Union and sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark directive that was designed to protect local, not American, manufacturers from price dumping. The idea is that any brand-owning firm should be allowed to position its goods and segment its markets as it sees fit: Levi’s jeans, just like Gucci handbags, must be allowed to be expensive.
Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands-which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice. Consumer groups and Tesco say that Levi’s case is specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging the price differential between Levi’s jeans sold in America and Europe-a service performed a million times a day in financial markets, and one that has led to real benefits for consumers. Tesco has been selling some 15,000 pairs of Levi’s jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tesco’s head of global non-food sourcing, says the ruling risks “creating a Fortress Europe with a vengeance”.
The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how they are sold to protect their image, but whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this. Gucci, an Italian clothes label whose image was being destroyed by loose licensing and over-exposure in discount stores, saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.
Brand experts argue that Levi Strauss, which has been losing market share to hipper rivals such as Diesel, is no longer strong enough to command premium prices. Left to market forces, so-so brands such as Levi’s might well lade away and be replaced by fresher labels. With the courts protecting its prices, Levi Strauss may hang on for longer. But no court can help to make it a great brand again.
1. Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1?| A．Consumers and free traders were very angry. |
| B．Only the Levi’s maker can decide the prices of the jeans. |
| C．The ruling has protected Levi’s from price dumping. |
| D．Levi’s jeans should be sold at a high price. |
| A．responsible for oneself | B．having too many doubts |
| C．not as it seems to be | D．raising misunderstanding |
| A．Gucci has successfully saved its own image. |
| B．It has changed its fate with its own effort. |
| C．Opening its own stores is the key to success. |
| D．It should be the court’s duty to save its image. |
| A．Hie rivals are competitive |
| B．it fails to command premium prices |
| C．market forces have their own rules |
| D．the court fails to give some help |
| A．biased | B．indifferent |
| C．puzzling | D．objective |
