1 . “Assume you are wrong.” The advice came from Brian Nosek, a psychology professor, who was offering a strategy for pursuing better science.
To understand the context for Nosek’s advice, we need to take a step back to the nature of science itself. You see despite what many of us learned in elementary school, there is no single scientific method. Just as scientific theories become elaborated and change, so do scientific methods.
But methodological reform hasn’t come without some fretting and friction. Nasty things have been said by and about methodological reformers. Few people like having the value of their life’s work called into question. On the other side, few people are good at voicing criticisms in kind and constructive ways. So, part of the challenge is figuring out how to bake critical self-reflection into the culture of science itself, so it unfolds as a welcome and integrated part of the process, and not an embarrassing sideshow.
What Nosek recommended was a strategy for changing the way we offer and respond to critique. Assuming you are right might be a motivating force, sustaining the enormous effort that conducting scientific work requires. But it also makes it easy to interpret criticisms as personal attacks. Beginning, instead, from the assumption you are wrong, a criticism is easier to interpret as a constructive suggestion for how to be less wrong — a goal that your critic presumably shares.
One worry about this approach is that it could be demoralizing for scientists. Striving to be less wrong might be a less effective motivation than the promise of being right. Another concern is that a strategy that works well within science could backfire when it comes to communicating science with the public. Without an appreciation for how science works, it’s easy to take uncertainty or disagreements as marks against science, when in fact they reflect some of the very features of science that make it our best approach to reaching reliable conclusions about the world. Science is reliable because it responds to evidence: as the quantity and quality of our evidence improves, our theories can and should change, too.
Despite these worries, I like Nosek’s suggestion because it builds in cognitive humility along with a sense that we can do better. It also builds in a sense of community — we’re all in the same boat when it comes to falling short of getting things right.
Unfortunately, this still leaves us with an untested hypothesis (假说): that assuming one is wrong can change community norms for the better, and ultimately support better science and even, perhaps, better decisions in life. I don’t know if that’s true. In fact, I should probably assume that it’s wrong. But with the benefit of the scientific community and our best methodological tools, I hope we can get it less wrong, together.
1. What can we learn from Paragraph 3?| A．Reformers tend to devalue researchers’ work. |
| B．Scientists are unwilling to express kind criticisms. |
| C．People hold wrong assumptions about the culture of science. |
| D．The scientific community should practice critical self-reflection. |
| A．the enormous efforts of scientists at work | B．the reliability of potential research results |
| C．the public’s passion for scientific findings | D．the improvement in the quality of evidence |
| A．discouraging | B．ineffective | C．unfair | D．misleading |
| A．doubtful but sincere | B．disapproving but soft |
| C．authoritative and direct | D．reflective and humorous |
1．介绍活动；
2．发出邀请。
注意：1．词数100左右，开头和结尾已经给出，不计入总词数；
2．可以适当增加细节，以使行文连贯。
提示词：国家博物馆 National Museum of China
非物质文化遗产展览 intangible cultural heritage exhibition
Dear Jim,
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yours,
Li Hua
1. 推荐拍摄内容；
2. 说明推荐理由。
注意：1．词数 100 左右；
2．开头和结尾已给出，不计入总词数。
Dear Jim,
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yours,
Li Hua
4 . Both misinformation, which includes honest mistakes, and disinformation, which involves an intention to mislead, have had a growing impact on teenage students over the past 20 years. One tool that schools can use to deal with this problem is called media literacy education. The idea is to teach teenage students how to evaluate and think critically about the messages they receive. Yet there is profound disagreement about what to teach.
Some approaches teach students to distinguish the quality of the information in part by learning how responsible journalism works. Yet some scholars argue that these methods overstate journalism and do little to cultivate critical thinking skills. Other approaches teach students methods for evaluating the credibility of news and information sources, in part by determining the incentive of those sources. They teach students to ask: What encouraged them to create it and why? But even if these approaches teach students specific skills well, some experts argue that determining credibility of the news is just the first step. Once students figure out if it’s true or false, what is the other assessment and the other analysis they need to do?
Worse still, some approaches to media literacy education not only don’t work but might actually backfire by increasing students’ skepticism about the way the media work. Students may begin to read all kinds of immoral motives into everything. It is good to educate students to challenge their assumptions, but it’s very easy for students to go from healthy critical thinking to unhealthy skepticism and the idea that everyone is lying all the time.
To avoid these potential problems, broad approaches that help students develop mindsets in which they become comfortable with uncertainty are in need. According to educational psychologist William Perry of Harvard University, students go through various stages of learning. First, children are black-and-white thinkers—they think there are right answers and wrong answers. Then they develop into relativists, realizing that knowledge can be contextual. This stage is the one where people can come to believe there is no truth. With media literacy education, the aim is to get students to the next level—that place where they can start to see and appreciate the fact that the world is messy, and that’s okay. They have these fundamental approaches to gathering knowledge that they can accept, but they still value uncertainty.
Schools still have a long way to go before they get there, though. Many more studies will be needed for researchers to reach a comprehensive understanding of what works and what doesn’t over the long term. “Education scholars need to take an ambitious step forward,” says Howard Schneider, director of the Center for News Literacy at Stony Brook University.
1. As for media literacy education, what is the author’s major concern?| A．How to achieve its goal. | B．How to measure its progress. |
| C．How to avoid its side effects. | D．How to promote its importance. |
| A．Importance. | B．Variety. | C．Motivation. | D．Benefit. |
| A．compare different types of thinking |
| B．evaluate students’ mind development |
| C．explain a theory of educational psychology |
| D．stress the need to raise students’ thinking levels |
| A．Media Literacy Education: Much Still Remains |
| B．Media Literacy Education: Schools Are to Blame |
| C．Media Literacy Education: A Way to Identify False Information |
| D．Media Literacy Education: A Tool for Testing Critical Thinking |
5 . In 1953, when visiting his daughter’s maths class, the Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner found every pupil learning the same topic in the same way at the same speed. Later, he built his first “teaching machine”, which let children tackle questions at their own pace. Since then, education technology (edtech) has repeated the cycle of hype and flop (炒作和失败), even as computers have reshaped almost every other part of life.
Softwares to “personalize” learning can help hundreds of millions of children stuck in miserable classes—but only if edtech supporters can resist the temptation to revive harmful ideas about how children learn. Alternatives have so far failed to teach so many children as efficiently as the conventional model of schooling, where classrooms, hierarchical year-groups, standardized curriculums and fixed timetables are still the typical pattern for most of the world’s nearly 1.5 billion schoolchildren. Under this pattern, too many do not reach their potential. That condition remained almost unchanged over the past 15 years, though billions have been spent on IT in schools during that period.
What really matters then? The answer is how edtech is used. One way it can help is through tailor-made instruction. Reformers think edtech can put individual attention within reach of all pupils. The other way edtech can aid learning is by making schools more productive. In California schools, instead of textbooks, pupils have “playlists”, which they use to access online lessons and take tests. The software assesses children’s progress, lightening teachers’ marking load and allowing them to focus on other tasks. A study suggested that children in early adopters of this model score better in tests than their peers at other schools.
Such innovation is welcome. But making the best of edtech means getting several things right. First, “personalized learning” must follow the evidence on how children learn. It must not be an excuse to revive pseudoscientific ideas such as “learning styles”: the theory that each child has a particular way of taking in information. This theory gave rise to government-sponsored schemes like Brain Gym, which claimed that some pupils should stretch or bend while doing sums. A less consequential falsehood is that technology means children do not need to learn facts or learn from a teacher—instead they can just use Google. Some educationalists go further, arguing that facts get in the way of skills such as creativity. Actually, the opposite is true. According to studies, most effective ways of boosting learning nearly all relied on the craft of a teacher.
Second, edtech must narrow, rather than widen, inequalities in education. Here there are grounds for optimism. Some of the pioneering schools are private ones in Silicon Valley. But many more are run by charter-school groups teaching mostly poor pupils, where laggards (成绩落后者) make the most progress relative to their peers in normal classes. A similar pattern can be observed outside America.
Third, the potential for edtech will be realized only if teachers embrace it. They are right to ask for evidence that products work. But skepticism should not turn into irrational opposition. Given what edtech promises today, closed-mindedness has no place in the classroom.
1. According to the passage, education technology can ________.| A．decrease teachers’ working load |
| B．facilitate personalized learning |
| C．help standardize curriculums |
| D．be loved by schoolchildren |
| A．The students who are better at memorization tend to be less creative. |
| B．Schools with bans on phones have better results than high-tech ones. |
| C．Shakespeare was trained in grammar but he penned many great plays. |
| D．Lu Xun’s creativity was unlocked after he gave up studying medicine. |
| A．at the service of teaching |
| B．limited in use among pupils |
| C．aimed at narrowing the wealth gap |
| D．in line with students’ learning styles |
| A．To stress the importance of edtech. |
| B．To introduce the application of edtech. |
| C．To discuss how to get the best out of edtech. |
| D．To appeal for more open-mindedness to edtech. |
6 . A medical capsule robot is a small, often pill-sized device that can do planned movement inside the body after being swallowed or surgically inserted. Most models use wireless electronics or magnets or a combination of the two to control the movement of the capsule. Such devices have been equipped with cameras to allow observation and diagnosis, with sensors that “feel,” and even with mechanical needles that administer drugs.
But in practice, Biomechatronics engineer Pietro Valdastri has found that developing capsule models from scratch (从头开始) is costly, time-consuming and requires advanced skills. “The problem was we had to do them from scratch every time,” said Valdastri in an interview. “And other research groups were redeveloping those same modules from scratch, which didn’t make sense.”
Since most of the capsules have the same parts of components: a microprocessor, communication submodules, an energy source, sensors, and actuators (致动器), Valdastri and his team made the modular platform in which the pieces work in concert and can be interchanged with ease. They also developed a flexible board on which the component parts are snapped in like Legos. The board can be folded to fit the body of the capsule, down to about 14 mm. Additionally, they compiled (编译) a library of components that designers could choose from, enabling hundreds of different combinations. They arranged it all in a free online system. Designers can take the available designs or adapt them to their specific needs.
“Instead of redeveloping all the modules from scratch, people with limited technological experience can use our modules to build their own capsule robots in clinical use and focus on their innovation,” Valdastri said.
Now, the team has designed a capsule equipped with a surgical clip to stop internal bleeding. Researchers at Scotland’s Royal Infirmary of Edinburg have also expressed interest in using the system to make a crawling capsule that takes images of the colon(结肠). One research group, led by professors at the Institute of Digestive Disease of the Chinese University of HongKong, is making a swimming capsule equipped with a camera that pushes itself through the stomach.
One limitation of Valdastri’s system is that it’s only for designing models. Researchers can confirm their hypotheses (假设) and do first design using the platform, but will need to move to a custom approach to develop their capsules further and make them practical for clinical use.
1. According to the passage, Valdastri and his team created the platform to ________.| A．adopt the latest technologies |
| B．make their robots dream come true |
| C．help build specialized capsule robots |
| D．do preciser observation and diagnosis |
| A．Perform live. | B．Run independently. |
| C．Act in a cooperative way. | D．Carry on step by step. |
| A．Valdastri’s system can’t provide a complete capsule creation. |
| B．The modular platform is more useful than a custom approach. |
| C．The capsules can move in human’s body automatically. |
| D．It costs more to module the capsules on the board. |
7 . 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? |
It’s common knowledge that the woman in Leonardo da Vinci’s most famous painting seems to look back at observers, following them with her eyes no matter where they stand in the room. But this common knowledge turns out wrong.
A new study finds that the woman in the painting is actually looking out at an angle that’s 15. 4 degrees off to the observer’s right-well outside of the range that people normally believe when they think someone is looking right at them. In other words, said the study author, Horstmann, “She’s not looking at you. “ This is somewhat ironic, because the entire phenomenon of a person’s gaze (凝视) in a photograph or painting seeming to follow the viewer is called the “Mona Lisa effect” . That effect is absolutely real, Horstmann said. If a person is illustrated or photographed looking straight ahead, even people viewing the portrait from an angle will feel they are being looked at. As long as the angle of the person’s gaze is no more than about 5 degrees off to either side, the Mona Lisa effect occurs.
This is important for human interaction with on-screen characters. If you want someone off to the right side of a room to feel that a person on-screen is looking at him or her, you don’t cut the gaze of the character to that side-surprisingly, doing so would make an observer feel like the character isn’t looking at anyone in the room at all. Instead, you keep the gaze straight ahead.
Horstmann and his co-author were studying this effect for its application in the creation of artificial-intelligence avatars(虚拟头像) when Horstmann took a long look at the “Mona Lisa” and realized she wasn’t looking at him.
To make sure it wasn’t just him, the researchers asked 24 people to view images of the “Mona Lisa” on a computer screen. They set a ruler between the viewer and the screen and asked the participants to note which number on the ruler intersected(和……相交) Mona Lisa’s gaze. To calculate the angle of Mona Lisa’s gaze as she looked at the viewer, they moved the ruler farther from or closer to the screen during the study. Consistently, the researchers found, participants judged that the woman in the “Mona Lisa” portrait was not looking straight at them, but slightly off to their right.
So why do people repeat the belief that her eyes seem to follow the viewer? Horstmann isn’t sure. It’s possible, he said, that people have the desire to be looked at, so they think the woman is looking straight at them. Or maybe the people who first coined the term “Mona Lisa effect” just thought it was a cool name.
1. It is generally believed that the woman in the painting “Mona Lisa”___________.| A．attracts the viewers to look back |
| B．seems mysterious because of her eyes |
| C．fixes her eyes on the back of the viewers |
| D．looks at the viewers wherever they stand |
A． | B． | C． | D． |
| A．confirm Horstmann’s belief |
| B．create artificial-intelligence avatars |
| C．calculate the angle of Mona Lisa’s gaze |
| D．explain how the Mona Lisa effect can be applied |
| A．Horstmann thinks it’s cool to coin the term “Mona Lisa effect”. |
| B．The Mona Lisa effect contributes to the creation of artificial intelligence. |
| C．Feeling being gazed at by Mona Lisa may be caused by the desire for attention. |
| D．The position of the ruler in the experiment will influence the viewers’ judgement. |
9 . The structure in organizations has changed. It has transformed from a boss to a leader being at the top and from method directing to cooperation,
Let's not get personal about any person or connect this to any
A friend of mine, who holds the
While we are
Encourage new talents and
| A．so | B．otherwise | C．yet | D．while |
| A．organization | B．method | C．cooperation | D．transformation |
| A．unusual | B．ordinary | C．common | D．particular |
| A．behavioral | B．online | C．popular | D．personal |
| A．oppose | B．contain | C．promote | D．lack |
| A．leaders | B．writers | C．employers | D．readers |
| A．precisely | B．barely | C．merely | D．thoroughly |
| A．stop | B．hope | C．hesitate | D．regret |
| A．name | B．title | C．faith | D．honor |
| A．for lack of | B．on account of | C．in need of | D．with regard to |
| A．confused | B．astonished | C．dissatisfied | D．annoyed |
| A．team | B．level | C．habit | D．reputation |
| A．superior | B．different | C．average | D．junior |
| A．pressing | B．missing | C．skipping | D．considering |
| A．congratulations | B．suggestions | C．opinions | D．remarks |
| A．changes | B．requires | C．proves | D．means |
| A．intended for | B．replaced by | C．judged by | D．buried in |
| A．even | B．just | C．ever | D．still |
| A．know | B．motivate | C．demand | D．observe |
| A．represent | B．like | C．show | D．notice |
10 . If you look across the entire lifespan, what you see is an average increase in desirable personality traits（特点）.Psychologists call this the “maturity principle” and it’s comforting to know that, assuming your personality follows a typical course, then the older you get, the maturer you will become. However, it’s not such good news for young adolescents, because at this point, something known as the “disruption hypothesis” kicks in.
Consider a study of Dutch teenagers who completed personality tests each year for six or seven years from 2005. The boys showed a temporary dip in conscientiousness—orderliness and self-discilpline in early adolescence, and the girls showed a temporary increase in neuroticism—emotional instability. This seems to back up some of the stereotypes we have of messy teen bedrooms and mood swings. Thankfully, this decline in personality is short-lived, with the Dutch data showing that the teenagers’ previous positive traits rebound（反弹）in later adolescence.
Both parents and their teenage children agree that changes occur, but surprisingly, the perceived change can depend on who is measuring, according to a 2017 study of over 2,700 German teenagers. They rated their own personalities twice, at age 11 and age 14, and their parents also rated their personalities at these times. Some differences emerged: for instance, while the teenagers rated themselves as declining in agreeability, their parents saw this decline as much shaper. Also, the teens saw themselves as increasingly extroverted（外向的）, but their parents saw them as increasingly introverted.
This mismatch can perhaps be explained by the big changes underway in the parent-child relationship brought on by teenagers’ growing desire for autonomy and privacy. The researchers point out that parents and teens might also be using different reference points—parents are measuring their teenagers’ traits against a typical adult, while the teenagers are comparing their own traits against those displayed by their peers.
This is in line with several further studies, which also reveal a pattern of a temporary reduction in advantageous traits in early adolescence. The general picture of the teenage years as a temporary personality “disruption” therefore seems accurate. In fact, we’re only just beginning to understand the complex mix of genetic and environmental factors that contribute to individual patterns of personality change.
Studies also offer some clues for how we might create more nurturing environments for teenagers to aid their personality development. This is an approach worth pushing further given that teenage personality traits are predictive of experiences in later life. For instance, one British study of over 4,000 teenagers showed that those who scores lower in conscientiousness were twice as likely to be unemployed later in life, in comparison with those who scored higher.
People focus so much on teaching teenagers facts and getting them to pass exams, but perhaps they ought to pay at least as much attention to helping nurture their personalities.
1. Which of the following can be an example of “disruption hypothesis”?| A．A kindergarten kid cries over a toy. |
| B．A boy in high school cleans his own room. |
| C．A teenage girl feels sad for unknown reason. |
| D．A college graduate feels stressed out by work. |
| A．parent give their teens too much automony and privacy |
| B．teens are more optimistic about their personality changes |
| C．teens and parents have the same personality rating standard |
| D．parents and teens can later agree on teens’ personality decline |
| A．teens should pay less attention to their scores in exams |
| B．developing teens’ personality has a long-term effect in their life |
| C．people’s success in later life depends on teenage personality traits |
| D．environmental factors outweigh genetic ones for personality change |
| A．Dissatisfied. | B．Approving. | C．Neutral. | D．Cautious. |
