1 . Exams never made me break out in a nervous sweat with tears threatening to ruin my already-trembling façade — but this one did. Even booking my piano exam reduced me to a blubbering mess of anxiety.
I feel permanently scarred inside churches — no longer admiring their beauty because, over the years, I have received such terrible marks from examiners hiding behind the stained-glass partitions. Despite being 15 — too old, too cool to be frightened — I remember trembling inside the bathroom stalls before my tests. I wished I never had to play in front of others.
But this time, after booking my Level 8 Royal Conservatory of Music piano exam, I went back to my normal routine. A little practice here, a little practice there. And then it happened.
My trusty, 10-year-old electric piano gave out. Middle C started to sound like an F-sharp and all other keys sounded like they were a fourth above their natural tone. Thankfully, my precious, boredom-saving buttons still worked. I could still change my piano’s settings from “piano” to “harpsichord .” I admit, it was a lot of fun banging on my wacky keys. Each note bonged like the sound on children’s TV shows when a character repeatedly runs into a wall.
Goofiness aside, I had to get my act together. I hated practicing but I really wanted a good mark. When I told my father what had happened to my piano, he only glared at me with disappointment, “When I was your age, I learned to be resourceful.”
Hmm. I had a broken piano, an exam coming up in a few months and a father who refused to buy me a new piano because he wanted to teach me a “life lesson”. I finally came upon a decision: I’d practice at school.
Going to a private school had to have its benefits, so I looked for a place to play. The school had many pianos but only a few in tune. Within a few days of searching, my piano books, my artistic best friend and I headed off to a music room at every available opportunity.
I loved finding new pianos in hidden corners of the school and I laughed at the dusty old historic pianos. They really had character. I spent hours in those music rooms while my friend honed her art skills in sketching and drawing. She suffered through my annoying, repetitive scales while I looked over my shoulder once in a while and admired her work. Not only did I become a better musician, but I also managed to gain a few subpar skills as an art critic.
As my exam drew close, all the music teachers knew to look for me in the piano rooms during recess, after school and late on Fridays. In anticipation of my assessment, one of my music teachers let me perform for her as a mini practice exam. To my surprise, she was greatly impressed.
Within a few months I went from not caring about my playing to feeling actually, maybe, kind of proud of my work. And over countless hours spent in my favorite, soundproof music room, I discovered that behind the piano, I could become anyone. Talking to other people never came easy to me, but I was able to express myself through music. I became overjoyed. It was like I had developed a sixth sense, one that only musicians could understand.
When I played, my worries about what others thought of me and how I viewed myself merged to reveal who I really am. All my adolescent musings made me feel like I was in a cage, but music gave me the key. Sitting behind a piano and creating music combined the movement of my body and the inner workings of my heart.
Music had never been the love of my life but that was changing. I loved the idea of being on a stage and creating something for others to enjoy and remember. Actually, it wasn’t a something, but rather a feeling that the audience would carry outside into a world where music wasn’t the only thing that people cared for.
When the time came to play in front of an examiner, instead of fearing my judge, I feared nothing but being unable to represent all my hard work. All the anxiety I had about going up on stage dimmed, and when the lights went on, all I could think about was the marvellous journey I’d had to get here. Trilling the keys reminded me of when I’d spent nearly two hours alone in a music room, more content than I had been anywhere else. Playing the melody reminded me of the bittersweet music experiences of past years.
Many days later, I received my mark. Not only did I earn a rarely mentioned “well done” and an 82 per cent, I had rewritten what music meant to me.
Now whenever I get caught up in the daily struggle, I remember the hard work that it took to reach my goal. Whenever I feel discouraged, I never forget to look at the gleaming keys of my new upright piano. As my father always says, some lessons are just learned the hard way.
1. What made the author so stressful inside churches these years?| A．The religious atmosphere. | B．The artistic performance. |
| C．The horrible surroundings. | D．Her colorful fantasy. |
| A．The author’s family was too poor to afford a new piano. |
| B．The father was quite angry about the author’s bad behavior. |
| C．The author showed great dissatisfaction about her father. |
| D．The father wanted the author to address the problem independently. |
| A．mixed | B．separated | C．interacted | D．exploited |
| A．Her good friend accompanied her to get through hard time. |
| B．Her teachers treated her much better than before. |
| C．Her family supported her quite well. |
| D．Her own understanding of musical value. |
| A．Nervous — disappointed — angry — calm |
| B．Curious — frustrated — hopeful — grateful |
| C．Frightened — indifferent — passionate — proud |
| D．Depressed — satisfied — disappointed — peaceful |
| A．An important Music Test |
| B．A Hard but Enjoyable Life |
| C．The Key to Happiness |
| D．My Favourite Piano |
2 . 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 |
3 . 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 |
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 . 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. |
6 . Extinctions are seldom a cause for celebration. Humans are wiping out species at a frightening rate, whether hunting them into history or, far more threateningly, damaging the habitats on which they depend. How, then, to think about a new technology that will make driving a species to extinction far easier?
That technology is known as a gene drive, so called because it uses genetic engineering to drive certain features through a population. Those characteristics need not be harmful: they might become stronger against disease among crops or, perhaps, greater tolerance to warming waters on the part of corals. And if the species in question were the three types of mosquito responsible for spreading malaria(疟疾), it could save close to half a million lives a year, many of them children. The same approach could be used against other diseases such as Lyme disease, and Zika. Gene drives also offer us a potential weapon against foreign species such as foxes, mice, rabbits and rats, which are threatening native species in some parts of the world.
Normally genes have a 50:50 chance of being passed on during reproduction. Gene drives tip the evolutionary scales. One area of research focuses on genes that can copy themselves to the second, ensuring that they will be passed on by all offspring(后代). Like many technologies, however, gene drives may lead to bad outcomes as well as good. They could in theory make a species extinct. One concern is practical: removing a species from the food chain could have unintended consequences, particularly if gene drives can move to a closely related species. Another relates to governance. Genetically modified crops can be kept relatively contained; animals carrying gene drives could be mobile and respect no borders. One country’s decision to use gene drives will have consequences for its neighbors. A third worry concerns improper uses of the technology, and not only by states. A mosquito, engineered to inject toxins(毒素), could be used as a weapon. But putting the brakes on research may pay real costs: not just the annual rising number of deaths taken by malaria and other killers before an answer is found, but also slower progress towards making gene drives safer.
1. What’s the main idea of the second paragraph?| A．Diseases spread among crops. | B．The definition of gene drives. |
| C．The bright sides of gene drives. | D．The possible ways against diseases. |
| A．Management. | B．Adjustment. | C．Instructions. | D．Relevance. |
| A．Unconcerned. | B．Disapproving. | C．Ambiguous. | D．Supportive. |
| A．Pros and Cons of Gene Drives |
| B．Gene Drives Make Our Life Safer |
| C．Dangers Gene Drives Bring to Us |
| D．One Concern We don’t Ignore |
7 . WASHINGTON—What parent doesn’t want to mold his or her child to be better, faster, smarter, more capable? Even though human parents can’t do that, a robot that builds its own children can. Scientists at the University of Cambridge in England have created a mother robot that not only constructs its own children, but tests their performance.
It's a robotic version of nature’s survival of the fittest. The mother robot analyzes the performance of each of the “children” it creates, and incorporates preferential traits into the next generation.
“As the mother creates them and puts them to work, she evaluates how they’re behaving, and she uses data from this behavior to create the next generation of robots,” explained research scientist Andres Rosendo.
There's no human intervention, except for a computer command to create a robot capable of moving from one place to another. The mother builds its children by gluing together pieces with small motors inside, in different configurations. Then it watches how quickly the children move, keeping the designs of the ones that moved the fastest.
“The mother robot can actually build hundreds of child robots and see the performance of these child robots. And if their performance is good, keep their design for the next generation. And if bad, just let it go，” said Fumiya Iida, lead researcher.
The motivation to produce better children is controlled by the research team, which provides an incentive.
“We program the robot based on some functions that define the reward the robot is going to get, depending on the construction that they make. They cannot change their own reward. In the case of the child robot, it’s distance, so the longer the distance the robot walks，the better the reward it receives,” said Rosendo.
After several generations，the “children” are running twice as fast.
“The mother robot generated 500 robots to see which one is good and which one is bad,” said Iida.
The researchers suggest the machines could be used in an auto plant, for example, where robot cameras examine each car in the assembly line, evaluate any mistakes, and then design a better car.
1. We can learn from the passage that ____.| A．human parents can't mold their child to be capable |
| B．a mother robot can build its own children independent of any human intervention |
| C．a mother robot tends to incorporate all children’s traits into the next generation |
| D．the law of survival of the fittest also applies to the robot world |
| A．The reward a child robot receives depends on the distance it walks. |
| B．The mother robot can run twice faster than child robots. |
| C．A child robot can choose its own reward as long as it behaves well. |
| D．The robots are used in a car factory to produce better cars. |
| A．frameworks | B．figures |
| C．systems | D．locations |
| A．Mother Robot Builds Its Own Children | B．A New Generation of Robots |
| C．A Walking Robot | D．A Clever Robot |
