1 . Researchers hope brain implants will one day help people with aphasia(失语症) to get their voice back—and maybe even to sing. Now, for the first time, scientists have demonstrated that the brain’s electrical activity can be decoded and used to reconstruct music.
A new study analyzed data from 29 people monitored for epileptic seizures(癫痫发作), using electrodes(电极) on the surface of their brain. As participants listened to a selected song, electrodes captured brain activity related to musical elements, such as tone, rhythm, and lyrics. Employing machine learning, Robert Knight from UC Berkeley and his colleagues reconstructed what the participants were hearing and published their study results. The paper is the first to suggest that scientists can “listen secretly to” the brain to synthesize(合成) music.
To turn brain activity data into musical sound, researchers trained an artificial intelligence (AI)model to decode data captured from thousands of electrodes that were attached to the participants as they listened to the song while undergoing surgery. Once the brain data were fed through the model, the music returned. The model also revealed some brain parts responding to different musical features of the song.
Although the findings focused on music, the researchers expect their results to be most useful for translating brain waves into human speech. Ludovic Bellier, the study’s lead author, explains that speech, regardless of language, has small melodic differences—tempo, stress, accents, and intonation—known as prosody(韵律). These elements carry meaning that we can’t communicate with words alone. He hopes the model will improve brain-computer interfaces (BCI), assistive devices that record speech-associated brain waves and use algorithms to reconstruct intended messages. This technology, still in its infancy, could help people who have lost the ability to speak because of aphasia.
Future research should investigate whether these models can be expanded from music that participants have heard to imagined internal speech. If a brain-computer interface could recreate someone’s speech with the prosody and emotional weight found in music, it could offer a richer communication experience beyond mere words.
Several barriers remain before we can put this technology in the hands—or brains— of patients. The current model relies on surgical implants. As recording techniques improve, the hope is to gather data non-invasively, possibly using ultrasensitive electrodes. However, under current technologies, this approach might result in a lower speed of decoding into natural speech. The researchers also hope to improve the playback clarity by packing the electrodes closer together on the brain’s surface, enabling an even more detailed look at the electrical symphony the brain produces.
| A．Electrodes can analyze musical elements. |
| B．The decoding of brain data helps recreate music. |
| C．Machine learning greatly enhances brain activity. |
| D．The AI model monitors music-responsive brain regions. |
| A．The prosody of speech. | B．The collection of brain waves. |
| C．The emotional weight of music. | D．The reconstruction of information. |
| A．Unlocking the Secrets of Melodic Mind | B．Brain Symphony: Synthesized Human Speech |
| C．BCI Brings Hope to People with Aphasia | D．Remarkable Journey: Decoding Brain with AI |
2 . Have we reached the peak of the culture war? Looking at my social media feeds, it seems that polarised thinking and misinformation have never been more common. How am I supposed to feel when users I once admired now draw on questionable evidence to support their beliefs?
Perhaps it is time for us all to adopt a little “existential humility”. I came across this idea in a paper by Jeffrey Greenat Virginia from Common Wealth University and his colleagues. They build on a decade of research examining the benefits of “intellectual humility” more generally — our ability to recognise the errors in our judgement and remain aware of the limits of our knowledge.
You can get a flavour of this research by rating your agreement with the following statements, ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very like me): I question my own opinions because they could be wrong; I recognise the value in opinions that are different from my own; in the face of conflicting evidence, I am open to changing my opinions.
People who score highly on this assessment are less likely to form knee-jerk reactions on a topic, and they find it easier to consider the strengths or weaknesses of a logical argument. They are less likely to be influenced by misinformation, since they tend to read the article in full, investigate the sources of a news story and compare its reporting to other statements, before coming to a strong conclusion about its truth.
Developing “intellectual humility” would be an excellent idea in all fields, but certain situations may make it particularly difficult to achieve. Greenat points out that some beliefs are so central to our identity that any challenge can activate an existential crisis, as if our whole world view and meaning in life are under threat. As a result, we become more insistent in our opinions and seek any way to protect them. This may reduce some of our feelings of uncertainty, but it comes at the cost of more analytical thinking.
For these reasons, Greenat defines “existential humility” as the capacity to entertain the thought of another world view without becoming so defensive and closed-minded. So how could we achieve it? This will be the subject of future research, but the emotion of awe (a feeling of great respect and admiration) may offer one possibility. One study found that watching awe-inspiring videos about space and the universe led to humbler thinking, including a greater capacity to admit weaknesses.
Perhaps we could all benefit from interrupting our despair with awe-inspiring content. At the very least, we can try to question our preconceptions before offering our views on social media and be a little less ready to criticize when others disagree.
1. Regarding the culture war on social media, the author is _______.| A．embarrassed | B．concerned | C．panicked | D．stressed |
| A．Existential humility reduces the threat to identity. |
| B．People with intellectual humility tend to jump to conclusions. |
| C．Awe could promote existential humility by encouraging modest thinking. |
| D．The higher you score on the assessment, the more you stick to your values. |
| A．Overcome an Existential Crisis | B．Show a Little Humility |
| C．The Path to Screening Information | D．The Approach to Achieving Humility |
3 . When I teach research methods, a major focus is peer review. As a process, peer review evaluates academic papers for their quality, integrity and impact on a field, largely shaping what scientists accept as “knowledge”- By instinct, any academic follows up a new idea with the question, “Was that peer reviewed?”
Although I believe in the importance of peer review and I help do peer reviews for several academic journals-I know how vulnerable the process can be.
I had my first encounter with peer review during my first year as a Ph. D student. One day, my adviser handed me an essay and told me to have my -written review back to him in a week. But at the time, I certainly was not a “peer”-I was too new in my field. Manipulated data (不实的数据) or substandard methods could easily have gone undetected. Knowledge is not self-evident. Only experts would be able to notice them, and even then, experts do not always agree on what they notice.
Let’s say in my life I only see white swans. Maybe I write an essay, concluding that all swans are white. And a “peer” says, “Wait a minute, I’ve seen black swans.” I would have to refine my knowledge.
The peer plays a key role evaluating observations with the overall goal of advancing knowledge. For example, if the above story were reversed, and peer reviewers who all believed that all swans were white came across the first study observing a black swan, the study would receive a lot of attention.
So why was a first-year graduate student getting to stand in for an expert? Why would my review count the same as an expert’s review? One answer: The process relies almost entirely on unpaid labor.
Despite the fact that peers are professionals, peer review is not a profession. As a result, the same over-worked scholars often receive masses of the peer review requests. Besides the labor inequity, a small pool of experts can lead to a narrowed process of what is publishable or what counts as knowledge, directly threatening diversity of perspectives and scholars. Without a large enough reviewer pool, the process can easily fall victim to biases, arising from a small community recognizing each other’s work and compromising conflicts of interest.
Despite these challenges, I still tell my students that peer review offers the best method for evaluating studies aird advancing knowledge. As a process, peer review theoretically works. The question is whether the issues with peer review can be addressed by professionalizing the field.
1. What can we learn about peer review in the first paragraph?| A．It generates knowledge. | B．It is commonly practiced. |
| C．It is a major research method. | D．It is questioned by some scientists. |
| A．Complexity of peer review ensures its reliability. |
| B．Contradictions between scientists may be balanced. |
| C．Individuals can be limited by personal experiences. |
| D．Experts should detect unscientific observation methods. |
| A．Workload for scholars. | B．Toughness of the process. |
| C．Diversification of publications. | D．Financial support to reviewers. |
| A．what fuels peer review | B．why peer review is imperfect |
| C．how new hands advance peer review | D．whether peer reviewers are underrated |
4 . While some allergies (过敏症) disappear over time or with treatment, others last a lifetime. For decades, scientists have been searching for the source of these lifetime allergies.
Recently, researchers found that memory B cells may be involved. These cells produce a different class of antibodies known as IgG, which ward off viral infections. But no one had identified exactly which of those cells were recalling allergens or how they switched to making the IgE antibodies responsible for allergies. To uncover the mysterious cells, two research teams took a deep dive into the immune (免疫的) cells of people with allergies and some without.
Immunologist Joshua Koenig and colleagues examined more than 90, 000 memory B cells from six people with birch allergies, four people allergic to dust mites and five people with no allergies. Using a technique called RNA sequencing, the team identified specific memory B cells, which they named MBC2s that make antibodies and proteins associated with the immune response that causes allergies.
In another experiment, Koenig and colleagues used a peanut protein to go fishing for memory B cells from people with peanut allergies. The team pulled out the same type of cells found in people with birch and dust mite allergies. In people with peanut allergies, those cells increased in number and produced IgE antibodies as the people started treatment to desensitize them to peanut allergens.
Another group led by Maria Curotto de Lafaille, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, also found that similar cells were more plentiful in 58 children allergic to peanuts than in 13 kids without allergies. The team found that the cells are ready to switch from making protective IgG antibodies to allergy-causing IgE antibodies. Even before the switch, the cells were making RNA for IgE but didn’t produce the protein. Making that RNA enables the cells to switch the type of antibodies they make when they encounter allergens. The signal to switch partially depends on a protein called JAK, the group discovered. “Stopping JAK from sending the signal could help prevent the memory cells from switching to IgE production,” Lafaille says. She also predicts that allergists may be able to examine aspects of these memory cells to forecast whether a patient's allergy is likely to last or disappear with time or treatment.
“Knowing which population of cells store allergies in long-term memory may eventually help scientists identify other ways to kill the allergy cells,” says Cecilia Berin, an immunologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “You could potentially get rid of not only your peanut allergy but also all of your allergies.”
1. Why did scientists investigate the immune cells of individuals with and without allergies?| A．To explore the distinctions between IgG and IgE. |
| B．To uncover new antibodies known as IgG and IgE. |
| C．To identify cells responsible for defending against allergies. |
| D．To reveal cells associated with the development of allergies. |
| A．Make. . . less destructive. | B．Make. . . less responsive. |
| C．Make. . . less protective. | D．Make. . . less effective. |
| A．MBC2s make antibodies and proteins that prevent allergies. |
| B．Memory B cells generate both RNA for IgE and the corresponding protein. |
| C．JAK plays a role in controlling antibody production when exposed to allergens. |
| D．Allergists are capable of predicting whether an allergy will last or disappear. |
| A．RNA Sequencing Is Applied in Immunology Research |
| B．Specific Cells Related to Peanut Allergies Are Identified |
| C．Unmasking Cells’ Identities Helps Diagnose and Treat Allergies |
| D．Newfound Immune Cells Are Responsible for Long-lasting Allergies |
Studying abroad has become an extremely popular study option amongst university students. While studying abroad is extremely expensive, it exposes students to a wide range of people, cultures and experiences that will reward them later on in their careers. In my opinion, students are far better off studying abroad even though it might be a bit costly.
One of the greatest advantages of studying in a foreign country is that it exposes students to essential life experiences that will develop them professionally, impossible if they have studied only in their own country. Being in another country forces people to pop and come out of their bubble of comfort, opening them to a wide range of opportunities, which can help them advance in their careers. When I went to study in the UK as an eighteen-year-old, I had to push myself out of my comfort zone and become self-reliant, making me much more mentally and emotionally mature. These ultra-challenging experiences are what develops a person.
A negative aspect of studying overseas is that it is extremely expensive. It is not just high university fees that drive up the expenses; it includes stationery and study material expenses, travelling costs, rent, money spent on food, and other different expenses. I had to take an. education loan of 30000 pounds to fund my tuition fees. Moreover, during my stay in the UK. I had to take up a job as a part-time waiter to earn enough to pay my monthly rent and meet a part of my monthly expenses.
An increasing number of students are opting to study overseas. Although studying abroad can make a hole in your pocket, it will test and challenge you mentally and emotionally, helping your overall personal and professional development. In my opinion, long-term professional and personal gains from overseas studies justify every penny spent on it.
1. What’s the author’s opinion towards studying abroad?2. What drives up the expenses of studying abroad?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then change it and explain why. Studying abroad can make a hole in your pocket and challenge you, so overseas studies are not worth it.
4. Apart from what have been mentioned towards studying abroad, what else do you think of it?(In about 40 words )
6 . We have been defending humanities for many decades now, but the crisis of the humanities only grows. In the face of declining student interest and mounting political scrutiny (审查), universities and colleges are increasingly putting humanities departments on the chopping block.
As a humanist, I am prepared to admit that I do not know what the value of the humanities is. I once asked the best teacher I ever had why she no longer taught her favorite novel, and she said that she stopped teaching a book when she found she was no longer curious about it. The humanistic spirit is, fundamentally, an inquisitive one.
In contrast, defenses of the humanities are not - and cannot be - conducted in an inquisitive spirit, because a defensive spirit is inimical to an inquisitive one. Defensiveness is, it must be admitted, an understandable response when the chopping block is brought out and you need to explain why you shouldn’t be on it, which requires their participants to pretend to know things that they do not actually know.
Nonetheless, we should be alert to the danger of becoming accustomed to putting our worst foot forward. An atmosphere of urgency and calls for immediate action are hostile to fields of study like literature and philosophy that require a reflective mood, and the pretense (假装) of knowing what one doesn’t actually know is hostile to forms of inquiry that demand an open mind.
A defensive mindset also encourages politicization. If the study of literature or philosophy helps to fight sexism or to promote democracy — and everyone agrees that sexism is bad, and democracy is good-then you have your answer as to why we shouldn’t cut funding for the study of literature or philosophy. Politicization is a way of arming the humanities for its political battles, but it comes at an intellectual cost. Why is sexism so bad? Why is democracy so good? Politicization silences these and other questions, whereas the function of the humanities is to raise them.
Humanists are not alone in their ignorance about the purpose of their disciplines. But scientists are under a lot less pressure to explain why they exist because the society at large believes itself to already have the answer to that question. If at some point I am called on to defend the study of Homer or Descartes at some official hearing, I will do my best, but I will not run to battle; the battle will have to come to me.
The task of humanists is to invite, to welcome, to excite, to engage. And when we let ourselves classrooms but also in our public-self presentation, we find we don’t need to defend or prove anything: We are irresistible.
1. What is the main concern regarding the crisis in humanities?| A．Students’ lack of interest in studying humanities courses. |
| B．People’s little knowledge regarding the purpose of humanities. |
| C．The mounting political scrutiny faced by humanities departments. |
| D．The pressure on humanists to argue for the value of their disciplines. |
| A．contrary. | B．relevant. | C．sensitive. | D．immune. |
| A．It is the worst action to take in the face of the crisis. |
| B．It leads to a compromise on human’s intellectual depth. |
| C．It requires a reflective mood on the study of humanities. |
| D．It brings about a lower chance of survival for humanities. |
| A．Humanities may not need any defense. | B．Science is more useful than humanities. |
| C．The future of humanities remains cloudy. | D．The battle of humanities is a hard one to fight. |
7 . Borders, departments, or issue areas all represent what systems analysts call system boundaries. System boundaries divide the big, messy, interconnected world into smaller subsystems. This is useful, even necessary. Our minds and our collective governance systems would be stuck if we had to always consider all the connections of everything to everything else. But dividing systems into subsystems can sometimes break a natural cooperativity. For instance, a decarbonizing country will spend money in its energy and transportation sectors and save money in its health system.
Decarbonization could be a win for the whole, but it might be experienced as a bother for particular subsystems.
Donella Meadows, the early systems modeler, wrote that system boundaries are “lines in the mind, not in the world.” And that is actually good news. If departments, and disciplines are just ideas, then there is nothing immovable about them. We can make these borders less obvious and conduct partnerships across them. We can even redraw them to include more of what matters in a single project or investment. That’s the premise of multisolving — using one investment of time or effort to achieve several goals at once.
For instance, Warm Up New Zealand (WUNZ) upgraded the energy efficiency of residential buildings and provided jobs in the building sector after a financial downturn. The project resulted in better health for residents, as well. That translated into health systems savings. Taken together, a 2011 study estimated that across all these benefits, the project saved $3.90 for every $1 invested.
Multisolving seems possible everywhere and like an obvious choice. Yet, it is very much the exception, not the rule. Why is multisolving still so rare when it has the power to boost progress on some of the most urgent issues we face?
Unfamiliarity stands in the way, as does an often-unexamined assumption that making issues smaller makes them easier to address. We often hear the viewpoint, “I already work on poverty (or climate, etc.) and that’s hard enough. Why should I add biodiversity or pollution to the mix?” Fundraising for crossing borders can be a struggle too. Funders want the “visible results” shown, but they don’t always see crossing borders as an essential part of achieving those results.
It is easy to devalue and underemphasize connection-building. After all, it can be delicate and not always visible. But to realize goals in today’s world, from equitable policies and low-carbon facilities to values like cooperation and fairness, we do need deep shifts, and we need them soon. And facilitating the flow of ideas back and forth across borders is one way to speed change.
1. As for systems boundaries, the author is ______.| A．critical | B．puzzled | C．supportive | D．unconcerned |
| A．Prediction. | B．Precondition. | C．Prevention. | D．Presentation. |
| A．People are familiar with multisolving. |
| B．WUNZ performed multisolving successfully. |
| C．Raising money helps to produce visible results. |
| D．Multisolving is widely used to address problems. |
| A．Multisolving: Hard to achieve soon |
| B．Multisolving: Essential to solve small issues |
| C．Multisolving: Conducting partnership across borders |
| D．Multisolving: Making systems whole, healthy, and sustainable |
8 . In the annals of human history, few subjects have generated as much excitement, debate, and guess as artificial intelligence (AI). This revolutionary technology, which enables machines to perform tasks that once required human intelligence, has the potential to transform every part of our society, from healthcare and finance to transportation and entertainment.
At its heart, AI is all about data. Massive amounts of data are fed into algorithms that learn from this data, allowing them to make predictions, recognize patterns, and even make decisions. This “machine learning” is the driving force behind many of the AI applications we see today, from virtual assistants like Siri and Alexa to more advanced systems like IBM’s Watson, which can analyze vast amounts of information to assist doctors in diagnosing diseases.
The transformative potential of AI is undeniable. In the medical field, for instance, AI can assist in early detection of diseases, predict patient outcomes, and even suggest treatment options. In finance, algorithms can predict stock market trends, and provide personalized financial advice. In transportation, self-driving cars equipped with AI systems promise to reduce accidents, ease traffic jams, and transform urban landscapes.
However, with great potential comes great responsibility. The rise of AI has caused debates about is ethical implications (道德含义). The machines are only as good as the data they are fed, and there’s a growing concern about biases (偏见) being built into AI systems. For instance, facial recognition technologies, used in everything from unlocking phones to police monitoring cameras, have come under check for misidentifying individuals based on race or gender.
Moreover, the widespread adoption of AI could lead to significant job displacement. While new roles and industries might emerge as a result of AI, it is not sure that these will pay off the jobs lost. This could increase income inequalities and causes difficulties to social systems.
Another major concern is the “black box” nature of AI. Many AI systems operate in ways that even their creators don’t fully understand. This can be problematic, especially in critical applications like healthcare or criminal justice where understanding the logic behind a decision is important.
Then there’s the potential for AI to be weaponized. In the hands of evil actors, AI could be used to spread misinformation, control public opinion, or even engage in internet warfare. The global community must come together to set standards and regulations to prevent such misuse.
On the brighter side, many experts believe that by setting the right frameworks and investing in education and retraining, we can use the power of AI for the greater good. By fostering (促进) a culture of continuous learning and staying abreast (并排的，并肩的) of technological advancements, society can benefit from the promise of AI while avoiding its potential dangers.
In conclusion, artificial intelligence stands as one of the most profound inventions of our time. While it offers vast opportunities, it also poses significant challenges that we, as a society, must welcome. As we stand at this technological crossroads, our choices will determine whether AI serves as a benefit or a harm for humanity.
1. Which of the following best describes the method by which machines acquire the capability to perform tasks that traditionally required human intelligence?| A．By programming predefined rules. |
| B．Through user interactions every day. |
| C．By ingesting and processing vast amounts of data. |
| D．Via regular software updates from developers. |
| A．By citing numerous statistical data. |
| B．By presenting both the positive potential and the challenges of AI. |
| C．Through personal experiences. |
| D．By focusing on the negative effects of AI. |
| A．The Rise of Virtual Assistants: Siri and Alexa |
| B．Understanding the Mechanisms Behind AI Algorithms |
| C．Artificial Intelligence: Charting the Course for Tomorrow’s Tech |
| D．Balancing the Potential and challenges of AI in Modern Society |
| A．AI has already replaced most human jobs and is the leading cause of unemployment. |
| B．The global community has taken measures to prevent AI misuse. |
| C．The operation of many AI systems is easily understood by their creators. |
| D．The solving to the dilemma brought by AI needs collective efforts of our society. |
9 . Whenever anyone asks me what tech I’d like to see invented, I always say the universal translator, which lets you understand and speak any language.
Meta AI recently announced the start of the universal speech translator (UST) project, which aims to create AI systems that enable real-time speech-to-speech translation across all languages, even those that are spoken but not commonly written. Meta says that today’s AI translation models are focused on widely-used written languages, and that more than 40% of primarily spoken languages are not covered by such translation technologies.
According to Meta, the model is the first AI-powered speech translation system for the unwritten language Hokkien (闽南语), a Chinese language spoken in southeastern China. The system allows Hokkien speakers to hold conversations with English speakers, a significant step toward bringing people together wherever they are located.
To build UST, Meta AI focused on overcoming three important translation system challenges. It addressed data scarcity by getting more training data in more languages and finding new ways to use the data it had found. It solved the modeling problems that arise as models grow to serve many more languages. And it sought new ways to improve on its results.
Meta AI claims that the techniques it pioneered with Hokkien can be extended to many other unwritten languages—and eventually work in real time. For this purpose, Meta has released the Speech Matrix, a large collection of speech-to-speech translations, which enables other research teams to create translation models for other languages.
Artificial (人工的) speech translation could play a significant role in our world. For interactions, it will enable people from around the world to communicate with each other more smoothly, making the social net more interconnected. For content, using artificial speech translation allows you to easily localize content.
Yashar Behzadi, CEO and founder of Synthesis AI, believes that technology needs to enable more natural experiences if the digital world is to succeed. He says that one of the current challenges for UST models is the computationally expensive training that’s needed because of the wide range and very slight differences in meaning or sound of languages. Also, to train strong AI models requires vast amounts of typical data. A significant bottleneck to building these AI models in the near future will be to ensure training data collect the privacy in agreement with rules and law.
1. What is the feature of the UST project?| A．It changes spoken languages to written forms. |
| B．It attracts wider attention to written languages in translation. |
| C．It adds 40% of spoken languages into translation technology. |
| D．It enables real-time speech-to-speech translation across all languages. |
| A．Lack. | B．Mistake. | C．Recovery. | D．Management. |
| A．It is expensive to collect typical data. |
| B．It increases the use of a certain language. |
| C．Its techniques are finally developed for Hokkien. |
| D．It helps inspire interactions and content localization. |
| A．AI Translation: Make Translation Faster |
| B．AI Translation: Meet You in All Languages |
| C．Unwritten Language: Bring People Together |
| D．Unwritten Language: Translation Challenge |
If you listen to the stream of articles and podcasts telling us how to become a billionaire in 10 easy steps, you might hold the belief that squeezing ourselves dry each second of the day will bring happiness and success.
But this obsession with productivity is costing us. Even a car doesn’t stay in the same gear the whole time. “We are not machines,” says psychologist Professor Drew Dawson. “Performance declines as a function of time, of task and time of day.”
Instead of moments of boredom, where we might let our minds wander and come up with novel solutions to problems and novel ways of thinking, we seek constant stimulation - and have a lowered tolerance for boredom as a result.
“It leads people to a false assumption that the world’s most successful people are literally making good use of every single minute,” Dawson says. “That’s a myth. We’re not hardwired to act that way as humans, and it’s a good recipe for burnout.”
COVID-19, for a variety of reasons, has led people to question and even opt out of this myth. “Who wants to lie on their deathbed going, ‘I wish I’d been more productive’?” Dawson says. “Post-COVID, people are starting to say, ‘what am I losing compared to what am I gaining?’”
So, if not more productivity, what should we be aiming for?
·Get our priorities straight.
A life spent chasing the state of being able to do everything is less meaningful than a life of focusing on a few things that count. We can reflect on five things that matter most to us and lead a life around them. Once clear on them, we also become clear on where to direct our attention and what to say “no” to.
·Enjoy downtime(停工期)for its own sake
Glorifying productivity can blind us to the value of other parts of our lives, including boredom, connection, creativity and play. But activities in our lives don’t need to always be productive or worthwhile-enjoying an activity is reason enough to spend time on it.
We weren’t meant to be productive all the time, so stop constantly struggling, and start chilling.
1. What does “obsession with productivity” refer to in the passage?2. How has COVID-19 changed the situation according to the passage?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
It is more meaningful to focus on a few things that count in life, so we can reflect on five things in our life to say “no” to. 4. Do you agree with the statement “enjoying an activity is reason enough to spend time on it”? Why or why not?(In about 40 words)
