1 . Directions：Fill in each blank with a proper word chosen from the box.Each word can be used only once.Note that there is one word more than you need.

A.deliver        B.resist        C.resolve          D.inquiry        E.aspect        F.series G.destructive     H determine     L rooted     J. disgusting        K.trial

Why do people read negative Internet comments and do other things that will obviously be painful'？Because humans have an inherent need to    1     uncertainty，according to a recent study in Psychological Science. The new research reveals that the need to know is so strong that people will seek to satisfy their curiosity even when it is clear the answer will hurt.

In a    2     of four experiments，behavioral scientists at the University of Chicago and the Wisconsin School of Business tested students' willingness to express themselves to unpleasant stimuli in an effort to satisfy curiosity. For one    3    ，each participant was shown a pile of pens that the researcher claimed were from a previous experiment The twist. Half of the pens would    4     an electric shock when clicked.

Twenty-seven students were told which pens were electrified；another twenty-seven were told only that some were electrified.When left alone in the room，the students who did not know which ones would shock them clicked more pens and incurred（遭受）more shocks than the students who knew what would happen.Subsequent experiments reproduced this effect with other stimuli，such as the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard and photographs of     5     insects.

The drive to discover is deeply    6    in humans，much the same as the basic drives for food or shelter，says Christopher Hsee of the University of Chicago. Curiosity is often considered a good instinct---it can lead to new scientific advances，for instance---but sometimes such    7     can backfire.The insight that curiosity can drive you to do self-     8     things is a profound one.

Unhealthy curiosity is possible to     9     , however. In a final experiment，participants who were encouraged to predict how they would feel after viewing an unpleasant picture were less likely to choose to see such an image.These results suggest that imagining the outcome of following through on one's curiosity ahead of time can help    10    whether it is worth the endeavor.“ Thinking about long-term consequences is key to reducing the possible negative effects of curiosity，" Hsee says. In other words，don't read online comments.

3 . Directions: Complete the following passage by using the words in the box. Each word can only be used once. Note that there is one word more than you need.

A. nod       B. initiating       C. proceeding       D unintended       E. automatically       F. orients G. bite       H. watchful       I. tags                  J. prospective       K. potentially

Facial Recall

Large gatherings such as weddings and conferences can be socially overwhelming. Pressure to learn people’s names only adds to the stress. A new facial-recognition app could come to the rescue-but privacy experts recommend    1    with caution.

The app, called Social Recall, connects names with faces via smartphone cameras and facial recognition,    2    eliminating the need for formal introductions. “It breaks down these social barriers we all have in terms of    3    the policy of politeness to meet somebody,” says Barry Sandrew, whose start-up, also called SocialRecall, created the app and tested it at an event attended by about 1,000 people.

After receiving an invitation to download SocialRecall from an event organizer, a(n)    4    user is asked to take two selfies and sign in via social media. At the event, the app is active within a previously defined geographical area. When a user points his or her phone camera at an attendee’s face, the app identifies the individual, displays the person’s name, and links to his or her social media profile. To protect privacy, it recognizes only those who have given their    5    And the app's creators say it    6    wipes users’ data after an event.

Ann Cavoukian, a privacy expert who runs the Privacy by Design Center of Excellence at Ryerson University in Toronto, commends the app’s creators for these protective measures. She cautions, however, that when people choose to share their personal information with the app, they should know that “there may be    7    consequences down the road with that information being used in another context that might come back to    8    you.”

The start-up has also developed a version of the app for individuals who suffer from prosopagnosia, or “face blindness,” a condition that prevents people from recognizing individuals they have met. To use this app, a person first acquires an image of someone’s face, from either the smartphone’s camera or a photograph, and then    9    it with a name. When the camera spots that same face in real life, the previously entered information is displayed. The collected data are stored only on a user’s phone, according to the team behind the app.

Jason Schultz, a professor of clinical law at New York University, who was not involved with the app's creation, remains    10    , “The cost to everyone whom you are surveilling with this app is very, very high, and I don't think it respects the consent politics involved with capturing people's images.”

6 . Directions：Fill in each blank with a proper word chosen from the box. Each word can be used only once. Note that there is one word more than you need.

A. necessity	B. threat	C. neighbouring	D. adjusted
E. unlikely	F. decline	G. cooperated	H. questions
I. profitable	J. imposing	K. gains

New York and New Tax

According to a Manhattan Institute survey, more than half of high-earning New Yorkers are working entirely from home and 44% are considering leaving the city. Ned Lamont, Connecticut’s governor, has said “the old idea of the commuter(通勤者) going into New York City five days a week may be outdated.” It does seem     1     that the tens of thousands commuting from Mr. Lamont’s state will continue to do so. The region’s governors have     2     well together to deal with the pandemic(流行病), but the friendliness may soon end over taxes.

When people from     3     states like New Jersey and Connecticut commute to New York to work for a New York-based employer, they must pay New York tax on the related earned income. Even those who work from home must pay New York taxes unless the employee is working outside New York by     4    .

Taxpayers and those states are looking closely at this loophole(漏洞). In December, Connecticut and New Jersey applied to the Supreme Court to consider a case which     5     a state’s authority to tax non-residents’ income while they are working remotely. They think this is definitely a(n)     6     to the city’s finances. “Firms have considered leaving the city before, and employees are gradually accepting the idea. They have been working remotely for almost ten months and they’ve     7     to that idea.”

Companies are also watching the progression of the billionaire Mark to Market Tax Act, which would treat capital     8     from billionaires’ property as taxable income. New York’s Democratic governor said he would reject any laws     9     heavy taxes on the rich, because it would drive out wealthy, mobile residents. It would not take too many moving trucks for the city to feel the economic loss, says Michael Hendrix. A 5%     10     of New Yorkers making about $10,000 would result in an annual loss of $933m—roughly the amount distributed to the city’s health department.

7 . Directions: Fill in each blank with a proper word chosen from the box. Each word can be used only once. Note that there is one word more than you need.

The dark side of CRISPR

A. eliminate B. unknown C. potential D. condition E. ambitious F. better G. existence H. supposedly I. acknowledged J. certainly K. strengthen

Americans have celebrated the fact that the Biden administration is embracing science and returning the country to evidence-based policy-making. We agree that science should guide policy-except in cases where it wouldn’t assist people to    1    their living but would, instead, exclude them.

The CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, for which biochemists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, has the    2    to do just that. We should therefore always be aware of the ethical choices this technology can pose.

CRISPR has many functions; one of these is that it can be used to treat disease. Yet the far-reaching, more worrying promise of this technology — one about which scientists seem at once excited and cautious — lies in its ability to     3     from the gene pool what medical science identities as faulty or abnormal genes. As the logic of CRISPR's promise goes,    4    , the goal of ridding future generations of terrible diseases that cause suffering and death, seems an unquestionable enterprise.

But Doudna herself has recognized that CRISPR carries with it “great risk.” In a New York Times interview on October 22, 2020, she warned of the    5    consequences of embryo editing, cautioning researchers to wait to use CRISPR for these ends.

As disability studies scholars and women with genetic differences who are experts in thinking about the consequences this technology will have for actual human beings, we have grave worries that the use of these “genetic scissors” will, in the future, cut people like us out of    6    without others even noticing. Scientists who use CRISPR could see editing genes such as ours out of the gene pool as entirely uncontroversial.

This attitude, in fact, would be consistent with wider societal views. Americans generally see no problem with editing genes linked to people like us; after all, supporters of this view may argue, editing out a gene-linked    7    is different from killing a person, and curing disease is an indisputably good thing.

However, the common belief that ridding disease from society is an incontrovertible good can lead very quickly from the actual possibilities of science to fantasies of “improving” humanity where we would all become some     8    version of person-hood that is somehow better, stronger, smarter, and healthier. CRISPR’s offer to achieve the     9    “best” kind of people at the genetic level is an uneasy alert to those who are often judged to be biologically inferior.

Expanding diversity in all its forms, including disability, can    10    the human community ethically and biologically because it opens the public and private sphere to a variety of perspectives, life experiences, ideas, and solutions to live together with mutual flourishing.

8 . Directions: Fill in each blank with a proper word chosen from the box. Each word can be used only once. Note that there is one word more than you need.

A. counting B. determined C. distraction D. environmental E. focus   F. modified G. naturally H. performing I. worsening J. comprehensively K. significant

Myopia, or short-sightedness, is a condition in which distant objects appear blurred (模糊 的)，but closer objects can usually be seen in sharp focus. Its biological basis is an eye that, during childhood, has grown too long for its optical power. The focal plane for images of distant objects ends up in front of the retina, causing out-of-     1    perception.

Myopia was once regarded as almost totally genetically     2    . But its prevalence (流行)has increased spectacularly in urban mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and South Korea, where 80—90% of those completing high school are now short-sighted. This is up from 20——30% only two generations ago. Since gene pools do not change that fast, these massive changes must be due to     3     change. In 2005, we     4     reviewed the research on myopia and found a correlation with education. ( This was not a particularly novel insight； such a link was supposed as far back as Kepler in 1604. ) We found locations with a high prevalence of myopia were all top performers in surveys of international educational outcomes.

Fortunately, not all high-       5            locations, Australia among them, showed a high prevalence of myopia. This shows that high educational outcomes do not necessarily lead to myopia. We also hypothesized that all human population groups had a tendency to develop myopia under particular environmental conditions. Indeed, North America and Europe have seen growing rates of myopia, although they are still nowhere near as high as in East and Southeast Asia.

A common cutoff for high myopia is - 5 diopters (屈光度).This means vision is blurred beyond 20cm from the eyes. Such severe or high myopia increases with age and can lead to visual impairment that can't be corrected. The prevalence of high myopia has now reached 20% in young adults in East and Southeast Asia, which foreshadows major increases in visual     6    and blindness as these young adults age. So prevention of myopia has become crucial, particularly for East and Southeast Asia.

Australia has     7    low levels of myopia with a lifestyle that emphasizes outdoors activities. Young children report spending two to three hours a day outside, not     8     time outdoors at school. However, there are formidable barriers to achieving this benchmark in locations where spending time outdoors is seen as a (n)     9     from study. Policy responses must therefore also aim to slow the progression of myopia, the phenomenon in which mild to     10     myopia becomes more severe during childhood. There is currently controversy over whether time outdoors slows progression, but strong seasonal effects on progression suggest that it may.

9 . Directions: Fill in each blank with a proper word chosen from the box. Each word can be used only once. Note that there is one word more than you need.

A. common 　　B. determine 　　C. effort　　 D. effect　　 AB. discourages 　　AC. lack AD. Advances 　　BC. illegal 　　BD. Applications 　　CD. Outcomes 　　ABC. moral

A recent study, while showing a generally positive attitude toward science, also suggests a widespread worry that it may be "running out of control". This idea is dangerous.

Science can be a force for evil as well as for good. Its     1     can be channeled either way, depending on our decisions. The decisions we make, personally or collectively, will     2     the outcomes of science. But here is a real danger. Science     3     so fast and is so strongly influenced by businesses that we are likely to believe whatever decisions we come to will make little difference. And, rather than fighting for the best possible policies, we may step back and do nothing.

Some people go even further. They say that despite the     4     and legal objections (反对), whatever is scientifically possible will be done-somewhere , sometime. They believe that science will get out of control in the end. This belief is dangerous too, because it fuels a sense of hopelessness and     5     them from making efforts to build a safer world.

In our interconnected world, the     6     of agreement in and out of the world of science can lead to the failure to control the use of science. Without a     7     understanding, the challenges of "controlling" science in this century will be really tough. Take human cloning for example. Despite the general agreement among scientists on its possible huge     8     on traditional moral values, some countries still go ahead with the research and development of its related techniques. The     9     are hard to predict.

Therefore, discussions on how science is applied should be extended far beyond scientific societies. Only through the untied     10     of people with hope, can we be fully safe against the misuse of science and can science best serve mankind in the future.

10 . Directions: Complete the following passage by using the words in the box. Each word can only be used once. Note that there is one word more than you need.

It was     1    that students did not write details of how they arrived at their answers or conclusions. I decided to help students write in more detail about what they were thinking when they solved their problems or when they wrote about their ideas.

I chose a common, everyday task that all of us     2     in: choosing what to wear. When I asked them how they decided what they wore that day, there was a(n)     3     moment of silence. It seemed a     4     silly question. A few just said “they wore what they wore.” This was a perfect beginning as it was the same kind of response they were giving as to how they were getting their math answers. I told them how I decided what I wore that day.

First I checked the weather in the paper and by looking outside. I had to decide between wearing a dress or skirt since either one could make a difference in the     5     I wish to give. Most of the girls related to this one. I had to be sure what I wanted to wear was clean and ironed. They     6     no one ironed clothes any more. I had to check to see if I had shoes that went with the possible outfit. I thought about what I had worn     7     as I usually don’t wear the same clothes in the same week. I thought about the color I felt like wearing. I thought about the     8     I would be doing that day both at school and after school.

Each new consideration brought out comments from the students. I could expand on each or just mention it and go on,     9     on how long I wanted the lesson to go. After this discussion, it was clear to students that their thinking process is richer than they first suspected. It was a good lesson for showing details of the thinking process of which we weren’t     10    .