1 . Good news for all Wes Anderson fans — the US director is back with the film The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar which hit Netflix, an online film provider, on Sept 27. It is a film adaptation of UK novelist Roald Dahl’s novel under the same name.

The film stars UK actor Benedict Cumberbatch as a wealthy man named Henry Sugar, who develops the ability to see through objects. At the very beginning he uses this power to cheat at cards and win big while gambling (赌博), and later turns his fortune into a global network of orphanages (孤儿院).

Dialogue style

Running for just 40 minutes, the film features Anderson’s quick-paced dialogue style. He also asked the actors to recite lines directly to the audience by looking at the camera, creating “the effect of listening to a podcast (播客) while turning the pages of a lovely picture book quickly”, commented CNN.

Visual style

Anderson’s work is immediately recognizable for his visual style as well. The “Anderson aesthetic (美学)” often uses bright color palettes (调色板) to both add visual appeal and make various ideas known to the audience, reported Yahoo News. In The Grand Budapest Hotel for example, Anderson uses a color palette of deep blues, rich greens and warm pinks to recreate an old-world European feel. In The Royal Tenenhaums the red tracksuits worn by Chaz, one of the main characters, show deep-seated anger resulting from parental trauma (创伤).

Symmetrical style

Another style is his use of symmetry (对称). Many of the shots involve (涉及) a person facing the camera, with the elements around the character set up in a sense of order and balance. Anderson explained to the media that it is out of his nature to “arrange things in a frame”, which he compares to how people can’t change the individuality of their handwriting. “You might try to write very well, but really, you have something your brain tends to do”, he said.

However, his obsessive repetition of these stylistic choices in his films has led some to question his ability to innovate (创新). In response to this, Anderson stated, “It’s not something I make any effort to do. I just want to make films that are personal but interesting to an audience.”

1. What do we know about the film The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar?

A．Watching this film is actually listening to a podcast.

B．It reflects the unique style of the director Wes Anderson.

C．It is based on a real story of a wealthy man named Henry Sugar.

D．Its main character gains nothing in gambling in the end.

2. What’s the similarity between the films The Grand Budapest Hotel and The Royal Tenenbaums?

A．They both use colors to get various ideas across to the audience.

B．They both reflect deep-seated anger.

C．They both present an old-world European feel.

D．They both have colorful costumes to add to their appeal.

3. Why did Anderson use symmetrical style in his films?

A．Out of curiosity.	B．Out of innovation.
C．Out of habit.	D．Out of kindness.

4. What is the most probable type of the text?

A．A film script.	B．A film lecture.
C．A film survey.	D．A film review.

2 . This question has fascinated behavioural scientists for decades: why do we give money to charity?

The explanations for charitable giving fall into three broad categories, from the purely altruisic (利他的)— I donate because I value the social good done by the charity. The “impurely” altruistic— I donate because I extract value from knowing I contribute to the social good for the charity. And the not-at-all altruistic— I donate because I want to show off to potential mates how rich I am.

But are these motives strong enough to enable people to donate as much as they would want to? Most people support charities in one way or another, but often we struggle to make donations as often as we think we should. Although many people would like to leave a gift to charity in their will, they forget about it when the time comes.

Many people are also aware that they should donate to the causes that have the highest impact, but facts and figures are less attractive than narratives. In a series of experiments, it was found that people are much more responsive to charitable pleas that feature a single, identifiable beneficiary(受益者), than they are to statistical information about the scale of the problem being faced. When it comes to charitable giving, we are often ruled by our hearts and not our heads.

The good news is that charitable giving is contagious—seeing others give makes an individual more likely to give and gentle encouragement from an important person in your life can also make a big difference to your donation decisions— more than quadrupling them in our recent study. Habit also plays a part— in three recent experiments those who volunteered before were more likely to do donate their time than those who had not volunteered before.

In summary, behavioural science identifies a range of factors that influence our donations, and can help us to keep giving in the longer term. This is great news not just for charities, but also for donors.

1. What can we learn about people who do charitable giving?

A．Most people support charity as often as they think they should.

B．Some people don’t want to leave a gift to charity until the time comes.

C．Those who donate because they can gain an advantage are purely altruistic.

D．Some people send money to charity simply to tell others they are wealthy.

2. In which way will people donate more willingly?

A．Not revealing the names of the donors.

B．Showing figures about the seriousness of the problem.

C．Telling stories that feature a single, recognizable beneficiary.

D．Reminding people to write down what to donate in the will in advance.

3. What does the underlined sentence in paragraph 5 mean?

A．People will learn from others and follow the suit.

B．Many people are familiar with charitable giving.

C．Charitable giving helps the beneficiary in all aspects.

D．Charitable giving can bring a lot of benefits to donors.

4. What is the writing purpose of the passage?

A．To persuade more people to donate.

B．To explain the science behind why people donate.

C．To criticize some false charitable giving behaviours.

D．To explore approaches to making people donate more.

3 . A One-woman Cinderella Show Is Coming to Fairfield

A one-woman show that reimagines the classic fairytale Cinderella is coming to the Fairfield Community Arts Center. The Children’s Theatre of Cincinnati will present Cinderella Wore Cowboy Boots for one night only on Jan.26. The traveling show is for children ages 4 and up and promises “knee-slapping” comedic moments and heartwarming life lessons.

“I love children's theatre,” says Rosvic Siason, who plays Cinderella. “Kids are our future and we introduce them to these stories. We all have situations at one point in our life that look like this conversation. It just kind of helps you develop your brain and learn how to think as a developing person. It’s really important to expose kids to theatre and well-rounded actors they can talk to for guidance.”

These one-man, one-woman shows have so much beauty because it is very raw. People actually follow along much easier than you think. It’s easy to share a feeling. They will be expected to interact, deliver lines and repeat after Cinderella throughout the production. Cinderella Wore Cowboy Boots will deliver a funny, meaningful twist on the classic fairytale that encourages audiences to expand their imagination.

“Using imagination helps kids to think of things in more ways than one,” Siason says. “It opens them up and makes them think, ‘Hey, this is one way this could work.’ Or, ‘I could try this way,’ and then see what happens.”

Visit fairfield-city. org for tickets and more information.

1. What is Cinderella Wore Cowboy Boots?

A．A book.

B．A theatre.

C．A performance.

D．A lesson.

2. Siason thinks stories in children’s theatre can _________.

A．offer temporary amusement	B．help deal with life’s challenges
C．allow individuals to avoid reality	D．provide opportunities to make friends

3. What might Siason encourage children to do?

A．Stick to the rules.	B．Dare to dream big.
C．Always follow the crowd.	D．Think outside the box.

6 . Cultural heritage sites are a nonrenewable resource. Today architectural heritage sites are being destroyed at an alarming rate. They’re threatened by rising seas, pollution, overtourism, conflicts and so on. Recently, Notre Dame Cathedral has attracted international attention.

Since its main construction from 1163 to 1350, Notre Dame Cathedral repeatedly has been damaged and repaired. On April 15, 2019, the landmark’s roof caught fire, causing the collapse of its spire (尖顶) and upper walls severely damaged. Work on the site began quickly. Through the work of photographer Tomas van Houtryve, writer Robert Kunzig, and artist Fernando Baptista, people will see restoring scenes where ruins are cleared and statues saved. Even the COVID-19 pandemic caused only a two-month delay. Architects have said the expensive project is on track to be completed in 2024.

And thorny questions arise. What duty do we owe the creations of our ancestors? What lesson can we draw from their presence?

Humankind has answered that differently. In Dresden, Germany, the Frauenkirche, an 18th-century baroque church, was famous for its bell-shaped dome (穹顶). In February 1945, one of the most destructive bombing attacks of World War II reduced the city to ruins. After German reunion, the church was reconstructed using many of its original stones, as a symbol of peace and harmony. Berlin’s Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church also fell to bombing but had a different story. Its spire has been left a ruin on purpose to be a “warning monument” against war and destruction.

Like the Frauenkirche, Notre Dame is being rebuilt as close as possible to how it was before, including using the original, toxic metal — lead (铅) — for the roof, causing the debate about how to restore and maintain historic buildings. Actually, no one claims to have the “right” answers on preservation; there may not even be right answers. What people could do is to continuously monitor the global care of cultural heritage sites, as a matter of significance to humanity’s past, present, and future.

1. What do we know about Notre Dame Cathedral?

A．It was once threatened by conflicts.

B．It collapsed totally during a fire decade ago.

C．It has undergone repeated repairs since 1163.

D．It was not influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. What does the underlined word “thorny” mean?

A．Simple.

B．Tough.

C．Accurate.

D．Attractive.

3. Why are the Frauenkirche and Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church mentioned in para.4?

A．To remind people the value of peace and harmony.

B．To warn people the influence of war and destruction.

C．To demonstrate different solutions to heritage site preservation.

D．To introduce reconstruction methods such as using original materials.

4. What does the text mainly talk about?

A．Cultural heritage sites are nonrenewable so that they are worth protecting.

B．Notre Dame Cathedral has been the most attractive heritage site globally.

C．The reconstruction of cultural heritage sites seldom causes disagreements.

D．The reconstruction of Notre Dame Cathedral after fire has been completed.

8 . Plastic is everywhere, from the Arctic ice to vital organs in the human body. In fact, previous estimates suggest that the average person swallows a credit card-worth of microscopic plastic particles(颗粒) every week. But new research shows that this could actually be an understatement.

Microplastics are plastics smaller than 5 millimeters, found in industrial waste, beauty products, and formed during the degradation of larger plastic pieces. Over time, they break down into even smaller nanoplastics. These tiny particles can pass through our intestines and lungs into our bloodstreams, reaching vital organs like the heart and brain.

While the idea of eating plastic is unsettling in itself, the major concern here is that these plastic particles contain chemicals that can interrupt our body’s natural release of hormones, potentially increasing our risk of reproductive disorders and certain cancers. They can also carry toxins(毒素) on their surface like heavy metals.

In the past, researchers have shown bottled water can contain tens of thousands of identifiable plastic fragments in a single container. However, until recently, only the larger microplastics were detectable with available measuring tools, leaving the area of nanoplastics largely a mystery.

Using Raman microscopy (显微镜学), capable of detecting particles down to the size of a flu virus, the team measured an average of 240, 000 particles of plastic per liter of bottled water, 90 percent of which were nanoplastics, a revelation 10 to 100 times larger than previous estimates.

These plastics likely originate from the bottle material, filters used to “purify” the water, and the source water itself. “It is not totally unexpected to find so much of this stuff, ” the study’s lead author, Columbia graduate student Naixin Qian, said in a statement. His team hopes to expand their research into tap water and other water sources to better inform our exposure to these potentially dangerous particles. “The idea is that the smaller things get, the more of them I reveal, ” he added.

1. What is the primary focus of the new research?

A．The presence of plastic particles.	B．The use of plastic in everyday products.
C．The detection methods for microplastics.	D．The potential risks of nanoplastics to human.

2. What is the advantage of Raman microscopy?

A．Finding the source of plastic particles.	B．Helping to cure the deadly flu virus.
C．Detecting the smaller plastic particles.	D．Improving the quality of bottled water.

3. Why will the team expand their research into tap water?

A．To focus on areas with higher plastic pollution.

B．To be aware of the dangerous particles in daily life.

C．To further measure the types of particles in tap water.

D．To detect the smaller plastic particles in industrial areas.

4. What is Qian’s attitude towards his research?

A．Skeptical.

B．Objective.

C．Conservative.

D．Positive.

9 . Could you manage without the internet for four and a half years? That’s exactly what the actress Selena Gomez has done in a bid to improve her mental health.

She has spoken extensively about the relationship between her social media usage and mental well-being, recalling feeling like “an addict” as to becoming Instagram’s most followed user in 2016. “Indeed, I regret quitting from social media that late”, says she. “The unnecessary hate and comparisons went away once I put my phone down.”

However, the increasing digitization (数字化) means that everything from paying a bill to even making a phone call is at the mercy of the internet. Actively opting (选择) out of the internet becomes a matter of privilege. Ms Gomez’s multi-millionaire status has allowed her to take the “social” out of social media. The fact that she’s still the second most-followed woman on Instagram suggests it’s entirely possible to maintain a significant web profile to promote various projects by way of a dedicated team — without being exposed to the cruel comments.

It goes without saying that this is fundamentally different from how the rest of us without beauty deals and films to publicize use the likes of Instagram and Twitter, but even the concept of a digital detox (戒瘾) requires having a device and connectivity to choose to disconnect from.

The UK’s digital divide has worsened over the past two years, leaving poorer families without broadband connections in their homes. Digital exclusion (数字隔绝) is a major threat to wider societal equality in the UK.

Consequently, it’s worth bearing in mind that while deleting all social media accounts will undoubtedly make some feel infinitely better, many other people benefit from the strong sense of community that sharing platforms can develop. Greater resources and initiatives are needed to provide the underprivileged with the connectivity they desperately need to learn, work and live. It’s crucial that people feeling social media is harmful to their mental health are allowed to switch off and for those living in digital exclusion to be able to switch on primarily.

1. What do we learn about the actress Selena Gomez in the past four and a half years?

A．She has withdrawn from social media.

B．She has won Instagram’s most followers.

C．She has had worsening mental problems.

D．She has succeeded in a bid on the internet.

2. Why does actively opting out of using the internet become a matter of privilege?

A．Most people think that digital exclusion promotes societal equality in the UK.

B．Most people can hardly abandon the web while avoiding hate and comparisons.

C．Most people can hardly get by without the internet due to growing digitization.

D．Most people have been seriously addicted to the web without being aware of it.

3. What is stressed concerning social media platforms in the last paragraph?

A．They are beneficial to people’s mental health.

B．They create a virtual community on the internet.

C．They help many people feel connected with others.

D．They provide a necessary device for a digital detox.

4. What is the author’s attitude towards social media platforms?

A．Subjective.	B．Objective.
C．Disapproving.	D．Favorable.

10 . Why do we talk the way we do? It might date back to when our ancestors left the jungle for the open plain. Between 5.3 million and 16 million years ago, Africa’s landscapes changed from thick, leafy forests to wide-open grasslands. This environmental change pushed our ancestors out of the trees and onto the ground. Along with all of the physical and behavioral changes this may have caused, researchers also believe it may have changed the way we speak.

“Open landscapes provide us with fewer objects to affect signal communication, meaning our voices can travel further compared with that in thick forests,” Charlotte Gannon, a researcher who studies language development, told Newsweek. “The move to these open spaces may have increased the effectiveness of our communication.”

By comparing the vocal calls of the orangutan (大猩猩) , Gannon and her team were able to establish how different calls could travel across different landscapes. In their study, the team played 487 calls from orangutans and measured their audibility (可听度) at set length over an overall distance of over 1,300 feet in the South African plain.

“Our results were surprising,” Gannon said, “The rule of sound spread suggests that lower-frequency (低频率) sounds (the grumphs) would have traveled further than higher-frequency sounds (the kiss squeaks). Our results actually found the opposite to this.” In these environmental settings, consonant (辅音)-like calls traveled a lot further than vowel (元音) -like calls. Actually, around 80 percent of consonant-based calls were audible at 1,300 feet, compared to only 20 percent of vowel-based calls.

Gannon said these results highlight the importance of studying living orangutan to learn about our species’ history. “We can view them as time machines that allow us to recreate key moments of our history so we can learn more about the development of our language,” Gannon said. “Despite their popularity in modern languages, consonants have often been forgotten when discussing speech development. Our research highlights not only their presence in ancient times but their importance to the development of language.”

1. What led to the speech development?

A．Behavioral change.	B．Time development.
C．Physical development.	D．Environmental change.

2. What makes communication happening 10 million years ago more effective?

A．Less block.

B．Better tools.

C．Louder voice.

D．Larger vocabulary.

3. What is paragraph 3 mainly about?

A．The results of the study.

B．The process of the research.

C．The purpose of the program.

D．The participants of the project.

4. What can be inferred from the last two paragraphs?

A．The living orangutan can recreate our language.

B．Consonants are significant in language development.

C．The sound of grumphs travels further than that of kiss squeaks.

D．Consonant-like calls travel four times further than vowel-like calls.