1 . Once upon a time, we were all question-asking experts. We started asking our parents numerous questions as kids. By preschool, our inquiries even reached the depths of science, philosophy, and the social order. Where does the sun go at night? Why doesn’t that man have a home like we do? Why do rocks sink but ice floats?
Why does the child’s urge to ask questions grow inactive in so many adults? An important factor is how the social environments surrounding us change as we age. Schools transform from a place for asking questions to one funded by our ability to answer them.
When it comes to how we phrase questions, we are advised to open with less sensitive questions, favor follow-up questions, and keep questions open-ended. We can also practice asking questions of and for ourselves by keeping a running list of questions in a journal.
In the world that does not look much as it did years ago, we must ask questions.
| A．Then, at some point, our inquiring desires disappear. |
| B．It is a high-payoff behavior especially in times of change. |
| C．The questions we ask depend on our attitudes as well as the situations. |
| D．But as we grow up, asking questions fills us with worry and self-doubt. |
| E．As such, one way to renew our inquiring spirit is to change the atmosphere. |
| F．We learn to sell ourselves on the job market by what we know, not what we don’t. |
| G．It not only removes the publicity from question asking, but offers us a place to experiment. |
2 . “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 |
3 . To a chef, the sounds of lip smacking, slurping and swallowing are the highest form of flattery (恭维). But to someone with a certain type of misophonia (恐音症), these same sounds can be torturous. Brain scans are now helping scientists start to understand why.
People with misophonia experience strong discomfort, annoyance or disgust when they hear particular triggers. These can include chewing, swallowing, slurping, throat clearing, coughing and even audible breathing. Researchers previously thought this reaction might be caused by the brain overactively processing certain sounds. Now, however, a new study published in Journal of Neuroscience has linked some forms of misophonia to heightened “mirroring” behavior in the brain: those affected feel distress while their brains act as if they were imitating the triggering mouth movements.
“This is the first breakthrough in misophonia research in 25 years,” says psychologist Jennifer J. Brout, who directs the International Misophonia Research Network and was not involved in the new study.
The research team, led by Neweastle University neuroscientist Sukhbinder Kumar, analyzed brain activity in people with and without misophonia when they were at rest and while they listened to sounds. These included misophonia triggers (such as chewing), generally unpleasant sounds (like a crying baby）, and neutral sounds. The brain’s auditory (听觉的) cortex, which processes sound, reacted similarly in subjects with and without misophonia. But in both the resting state and listening trials, people with misophonia showed stronger connections between the auditory cortex and brain regions that control movements of the face, mouth and throat, while the controlled group didn’t. Kumar found this connection became most active in participants with misophonia when they heard triggers specific to the condition.
“Just by listening to the sound, they activate the motor cortex more strongly. So in a way it was as if they were doing the action themselves,” Kumar says. Some mirroring is typical in most humans when witnessing others’ actions; the researchers do not yet know why an excessive(过分的) mirroring response might cause such a negative reaction, and hope to address that in future research. “Possibilities include a sense of loss of control, invasion of personal space, or interference with current goals and actions,” the study authors write.
Fatima Husain, an Illinois University professor of speech and hearing science, who was not involved in the study, says potential misophonia therapies could build on the new findings by counseling patients about handling unconscious motor responses to triggering sounds—not just coping with the sounds themselves. If this works, she adds, one should expect to see reduced connected activity between the auditory and motor cortices.
1. It can be learnt from the new study that ______.| A．misophonia sufferers can’t help imitating the triggers |
| B．people with misophonia are more likely to flatter chefs |
| C．the brains of people with misophonia overreact to sounds strongly |
| D．misophonia sufferers tend to have similar annoying activities in their brains |
| A．suffer less severely at the resting state | B．own markedly different brain structures |
| C．react more negatively at a mirroring response | D．lose control of their facial movements easily |
| A．Improving speech and hearing science. | B．Developing a treatment for misophonia. |
| C．Drawing people’s attention to misophonia. | D．Promoting human brain structure research. |
4 . When you’re behind the wheel, distractions (分心) cost lives. Nevertheless, drivers take selfies, and respond to text messages.
Smartphones are often at the root of these tragedies. As Big Tech sets its sights on modern vehicles, it’s appropriate to ask if it’s time to limit attention-stealing technology that distracts the driver.
Big Tech wants to take on the automotive industry. And it is good at grabbing both attention and information from users. At first, the goal of these technology companies was to give away services at no cost, simply to attract a customer base.
Mobile tech is walled off from vehicle operating systems by software that keeps infotainment (information and entertainment) features away from the mission-critical driving electronics. If auto makers give up their core operating system to tech powerhouses, they will essentially become hardware suppliers to Silicon Valley.
With electric vehicles transforming the auto industry, and artificial intelligence more common than ever, we’re at a dangerous moment.
The quality, safety and security will make or break trust in auto makers. Without it, cars will be simply one more intrusive and risky mobile device.
| A．Car companies have priorities opposed to those of Big Tech. |
| B．Now they exist to sell information about their users to advertisers. |
| C．They enjoy the convenience and fun brought by modern technology. |
| D．Car makers are, and should be, the most trusted technology companies in the world. |
| E．Currently video-streaming services are starting to be built into car operating systems. |
| F．And operating systems and autonomous-driving software are all gateways for this information. |
| G．Statistics show that an average of eight people a day die in accidents caused by distracted driving. |
5 . 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 |
6 . The environmental practices of big businesses are shaped by a fundamental fact that offends our sense of justice. A business may maximize the amount of money it makes by damaging the environment and hurting people. When government regulation is effective, and the public is environmentally aware, environmentally clean big businesses may out-compete dirty ones, but the reverse is likely to be true if government regulation is ineffective and the public doesn’t care.
It is easy to blame a business for helping itself by hurting other people. But blaming alone is unlikely to produce change. It ignores the fact that businesses are not charities but profit-making companies, and they are under obligation to maximize profits for shareholders by legal means.
Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public for creating the conditions that let a business profit through destructive environmental policies. In the long run, it is the public, either directly or through its politicians, that has the power to make such destructive policies unprofitable and illegal, and to make sustainable environmental policies profitable.
The public can do that by accusing businesses of harming them. The public may also make their opinion felt by choosing to buy sustainably harvested products; by preferring their governments to award valuable contracts to businesses with a good environmental track record; and by pressing their governments to pass and enforce laws and regulations requiring good environmental practices.
In turn, big businesses can exert powerful pressure on any suppliers that might ignore public or government pressure. For instance, after the US public became concerned about the spread of a disease, transmitted to humans through infected meat, the US government introduced rules demanding that the meat industry abandon practices associated with the risk of the disease spreading. But the meat packers refused to follow these, claiming that they would be too expensive to obey. However, when a fast-food company made the same demands after customer purchases of its hamburgers dropped, the meat industry followed immediately. The public’s task is therefore to identify which links in the supply chain are sensitive to public pressure.
Some readers may be disappointed or outraged that I place the ultimate responsibility for business practices harming the public on the public itself. I also believe that the public must accept the necessity for higher prices for products to cover the added costs of sound environmental practices. My views may seem to ignore the belief that businesses should act in accordance with moral principles even if this leads to a reduction in their profits. But I think we have to recognize that, throughout human history, government regulation has arisen precisely because it was found that not only did moral principles need to be made explicit, they also needed to be enforced.
My conclusion is not a moralistic one about who is right or wrong, admirable or selfish. I believe that changes in public attitudes are essential for changes in businesses’ environmental practices.
1. The main idea of Paragraph 3 is that environmental damage__________.| A．is the result of ignorance of the public |
| B．requires political action if it is to be stopped |
| C．can be prevented by the action of ordinary people |
| D．can only be stopped by educating business leaders |
| A．reduce their own individual impact on the environment |
| B．learn more about the impact of business on the environment |
| C．raise awareness of the effects of specific environmental disasters |
| D．influence the environmental policies of businesses and governments |
| A．Meat packers stopped supplying hamburgers to fast-food chains. |
| B．Meat packers persuaded the government to reduce their expenses. |
| C．A fast-food company forced their meat suppliers to follow the law. |
| D．A fast-food company encouraged the government to introduce regulations. |
| A．Will the world survive the threat caused by big businesses? |
| B．How can big businesses be encouraged to be less driven by profit? |
| C．What environmental dangers are caused by the greed of businesses? |
| D．Are big businesses to blame for the damage they cause to the environment? |
7 . “I can’t connect with your characters.”
I kept hearing the same feedback and was unable to understand why and not sure what to do. I was a character-driven writer. How could I mess up the one thing I was supposed to be good at? I was determined to convince my agent that these characters were real. After all, I knew they were real. My main character Lotus had lived inside me for years. I just needed to clarify her on the page.
I wrote and edited for a year, trying to respond to this agent’s feedback. But Lotus’ personality began to disappear. I tried to have her make “better” decisions, wear smarter fashion, and have more friends, as my agent said she acted “immature” and was “isolated”. And when this agent ultimately parted ways with me, I felt like I had failed. Now with time and distance, I realize I tried to fit Lotus into a neurotypical style to please my agent. And as a result, Lotus lost her Lotus-ness.
When that agent discouraged me from writing Lotus as autistic(自闭的), he said that would make Lotus seem more “vulnerable(脆弱的)” or an “obvious victim”. I didn’t want Lotus to seem vulnerable. Lotus’ autism is what makes her powerful, I tried to explain. But from a neurotypical perspective, Lotus’ autism could only be seen as a weakness.
Unsure of how to convince my agent of the strength and power autistic women hold, I began to write Lotus as “neurotypical”. And I failed miserably. After all, what do I know about being neurotypical? My whole life, autism was my default. Not being diagnosed until 2020, I assumed the way I saw the world was “normal”.
My current agent encourages me to write from my neurodivergent(神经多样性的) experience. With this invitation, I revisited Lotus and saw her the way I first wrote her. And when I did, the characters and the entire narrative began to make more sense.
Identifying my characters as neurodivergent not only gives me joy as a writer, but it has produced my strongest writing. For so long, I’ve combatted the advice to “write what I know”, in part because I didn’t know what I actually knew. I didn’t know I was neurodivergent. But as I mine the specificity of my lived experience, my writing is stronger. There is a power to our lived experience. It’s not a limitation on our craft, but a swinging open of the gates.
1. How did the author feel when receiving the repeated response from the first agent?| A．Confused. | B．Convinced. | C．Determined. | D．Disappointed. |
| A．Lotus no longer lived inside the author | B．the author attempted to please the agent |
| C．the agent failed to sympathize with Lotus | D．Lotus was considered childish and lonely |
| A．She regretted parting with the agent. |
| B．She owed her success in life to autism. |
| C．She was aware of her autism in the early years. |
| D．She was empowered by her autistic experience. |
| A．Stick to your dream despite discouragement. |
| B．Be true to yourself and write from your heart. |
| C．Giving in to authority is the barrier to success. |
| D．Everyone is born an original instead of a copy. |
8 . When evaluating people on various psychological tests, psychologists often distinguish between markers of absolute performance and relative performance. Absolute performance reflects the raw measurement of something, like the time it takes to run a mile. Relative performance is how a person rates in relation to their peers, as in what place a runner gets in a race.
The standards we use to evaluate ourselves are almost always relative, as we compare ourselves to our peers and the standards that are most familiar to us. For instance, in my private practice, I have one patient I will call “Omar” who is dependent on social services and makes less than $30,000 per year at his job. While this level of poverty would lead most people to wake up depressed each day, Omar is one of the most optimistic and appreciative individuals I know. Why? Because most of his closest peers — his siblings and friends from childhood — have lives far worse than his.
In contrast to Omar, I have another patient, an adolescent I’ll call “Lena”, whose family has property over $5 million. Lena, however, lives in an upper-class neighborhood where her family is at the lower end of the income level. Though Lena's family allows her to enjoy possessions and experiences that less than I percent of her peers across the world can share, she consistently feels “less than”. Why? Because Lena doesn't compare herself to the rest of the world; This is too abstract an exercise for her, as it would be for most of us.
Accordingly, whether a psychologist is psychodynamic or cognitive-behavioral, therapy (疗法) with individuals struggling with situational or psychological depression aims to solve the problems associated with basing one's self-worth on comparisons with others. Psychologists try to help people focus on personal growth around the achievement of concrete goals in line with their values. independent of the achievement of others. For all of us, defining these goals, especially during Periods of emotional calm, can go a long way in helping us to avoid the trap of relativity that often leads to situational and psychological depression.
1. What is the function of Paragraph 1?| A．To show the significance of evaluating people. |
| B．To motivate readers to study psychological tests. |
| C．To help people perform well in psychological tests. |
| D．To provide some background information on evaluating people. |
| A．To measure different achievement. |
| B．To introduce the standards to evaluate people. |
| C．To explain relative performance with examples. |
| D．To contrast relative performance and absolute performance. |
| A．Setting goals in life is essential for everyone. |
| B．It's important to avoid unhealthy comparisons. |
| C．A sense of achievement can affect one's happiness, |
| D．Improving self-worth can help get rid of depression. |
| A．Happiness: Is it all relative? |
| B．Self-worth: Is it measurable? |
| C．Self-worth: Is it based on efforts? |
| D．Happiness: Is it associated with achievement? |
9 . 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. |
10 . Nowadays, the world is slowly becoming a high-tech society and we are now surrounded by technology. Facebook and Twitter are innovative tools; text messaging is still a somewhat existing phenomenon and even e-mail is only a flashing spot on the screen when compared with our long history of snail mail. Now we adopt these tools to the point of essentialness, and only rarely consider how we are more fundamentally affected by them.
Social media, texting and e-mail all make it much easier to communicate, gather and pass information, but they also present some dangers. By removing any real human engagement, they enable us to develop our abnormal self-love without the risk of disapproval or criticism. To use a theatrical metaphor (隐喻), these new forms of communication provide a stage on which we can each create our own characters, hidden behind a fourth wall of tweets, status updates and texts. This unreal state of unconcern can become addictive as we separate ourselves a safe distance from the cruelty of our fleshly lives, where we are imperfect, powerless and insignificant. In essence, we have been provided not only the means to be more free, but also to become new, to create and project a more perfect self to the world. As we become more reliant on these tools, they become more a part of our daily routine, and so we become more restricted in this fantasy.
So it is that we live in a cold era, where names and faces represent two different levels of closeness, where working relationships occur only through the magic of email and where love can start or end by text message. An environment such as this reduces interpersonal relationships to mere digital exchanges.
Would a celebrity have been so daring to do something dishonorable if he had had to do it in person? Doubtful. It seems he might have been lost in a fantasy world that ultimately convinced himself into believing the digital self could obey different rules and regulations, as if he could continually push the limits of what’s acceptable without facing the consequences of “real life.”
1. What can we know about new communication tools?| A．Destroying our life totally. | B．Posing more dangers than good. |
| C．Helping us to hide our faults. | D．Replacing traditional letters. |
| A．Sheltering us from virtual life. | B．Removing face-to-face interaction. |
| C．Leading to false mental perception. | D．Making us rely more on hi-tech media. |
| A．Technologies have changed our relationships. |
| B．The digital world is a recipe for pushing limits. |
| C．Love can be better conveyed by text message. |
| D．The digital self need not take responsibility. |
| A．Addiction to the Virtual World | B．Cost of Falling into Digital Life |
| C．Interpersonal Skills on the Net | D．The Future of Social Media |
