1 . Running is often tiring and a lot of hard work, but nothing beats the feeling you get after finishing a long workout around the track.
But while it’s long been believed that endorphins (内啡肽) —chemicals in the body that cause happiness—are behind the so-called “runner’s high”, a study suggested that there may be more to this phenomenon than we previously knew.
According to a recent study published by a group of scientists from several German universities, a group of chemicals called endocannabinoids (内源性大麻素) may actually be responsible for this familiar great feeling.
To test this theory, the scientists turned to mice. Both mice and humans release high levels of endorphins and endocannabinoids after exercise. After exercising on running wheels, the mice seemed happy and relaxed and displayed no signs of anxiety. But after being given a drug to block their endorphins, the mice’s behavior didn’t seem to change. However, when their endocannabinoids were blocked with a different drug, their runners’ high symptoms seemed to fade.
“The long-held notion of endorphins being responsible for the runner’s high is false. Endorphins are effective pain relievers, but only when it comes to the pain in your body and muscles you feel after working out,” Patrick Lucas Austin wrote on science blog Lifchacker.
Similar studies are yet to be carried out on humans, but it’s already known that exercise is a highly effective way to get rid of stress or anxiety. The UK’s National Health Service even prescribes (开药 方) exercise to patients who are suffering from depression. “Being depressed can leave you feeling low in energy, which might put you off being more active. Regular exercise can improve your mood if you have depression, and its especially useful for people with mild to moderate (中等的) depression,” it wrote on its website.
It seems like nothing can beat that feeling we get after a good workout, even if we don’t fully understand where it comes from. At least if we’re feeling down, we know that all we have to do is to put on our running shoes.
1. What did scientists from German universities recently discover?| A．Working out is a highly effective way to treat depression. |
| B．The runner’s high could be caused by endocannabinoids. |
| C．Endorphins may contribute to one’s high spirits after running. |
| D．The level of endorphins and endocannabinoids could affect one’s mood. |
| A．To find what reduces the runner’s high symptoms. |
| B．To see the specific symptoms of the runner’s high. |
| C．To identify what is responsible for the runner’s high. |
| D．To test what influences the level of endocannabinoids released. |
| A．Effect. | B．Goal. | C．Opinion. | D．Question |
| A．They can help ease depression symptoms. |
| B．They are the best way to treat depression. |
| C．They only work for those with serious depression. |
| D．They can help people completely recover from depression. |
2 . Girls are better at reading and writing than boys as early as fourth grade, according to a study, and the gap continues to widen until senior year.
Scientists generally agree that boys and girls are psychologically more alike than they are different. But reading seems to be a(n)
David Reilly, lead author of the study, said the study
Factors explaining the results could include learning
To investigate how
| A．distinction | B．exception | C．objection | D．limitation |
| A．pattern | B．standard | C．circumstance | D．feature |
| A．strategy | B．signal | C．sign | D．evidence |
| A．confirmed | B．represented | C．questioned | D．introduced |
| A．underestimated | B．overemphasized | C．underrepresented | D．justified |
| A．increasing | B．promoting | C．accepting | D．reducing |
| A．objectives | B．drills | C．difficulties | D．advantages |
| A．contributions | B．differences | C．communications | D．similarities |
| A．literacy | B．literary | C．academic | D．cognitive |
| A．pulled down | B．settled down | C．turned down | D．broke down |
| A．granted | B．measured | C．designed | D．engineered |
| A．Likewise | B．Overall | C．However | D．Besides |
| A．overtake | B．discourage | C．parallel | D．distinguish |
| A．psychological | B．emotional | C．behavioral | D．mental |
| A．in line with | B．at the mercy of | C．on account of | D．in favor of |
3 . As the concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has gone global, we’ve watched professionals fail as they try to improve their emotional intelligence because they either don’t know where to focus their efforts or they haven’t understood how to improve these skills on a practical level. In our work consulting with companies and coaching leaders, we have found that if you’re looking to develop particular EI strengths, it helps to consider areas for improvement others have identified along with the goals you want to achieve and then to actively build habits in those areas rather than simply relying on understanding them conceptually.
The first step is to get a sense of how your self-perception (how you see yourself) differs from your reputation (how others see you). This is especially true for the development of EI because we can be blind to how we express and read the emotional components of our interactions. For example, most of us think that we’re good listeners, but very often that’s really not the case. Without this external reality check, it will be difficult for you to identify the ways that your actions affect your performance. Getting teed back from others can also provide proof of the necessity of shifting our behavior and motivation to do so.
To give you the best sense of where the differences lie between your self-perception and reputation, you should use a 360-degree feedback assessment that takes into account the multiple aspects of EI. The key is to find one to give you feedback, which is focused on development and not on performance assessment. And that can give you a detailed understanding of how other people’s assessments of you differ from your own assessments.
Secondly, when you get your feedback from an assessment, let that inform what you want to improve. But also consider what your goals are. When it comes to cultivating strengths in emotional intelligence, you’re at a huge disadvantage if you’re only interested because others say you should be. Your emotional intelligence is so tied up in your sense of self that being intrinsically (内在的) motivated to make the effort matters more when changing longstanding habits than it does when simply learning a skill.
That means the areas that you choose to actively work on should lie at the intersection of the feedback you’ve gotten and the areas that are most important to your own aspirations (抱负). Understanding the influences of your current EI habits relative to your goals will keep you going over a long period at time as you do the work or strengthening your emotional intelligence.
1. What do we know from the first paragraph?| A．EI can be better improved with others’ help. |
| B．Leaders are badly in need of improving their EI. |
| C．EI plays a key role in professional development. |
| D．Professionals fail to understand the concepts of EI. |
| A．You help your siblings make a key decision. |
| B．Your career development speeds up with others’ help. |
| C．You reflected yourself and made a New Year resolution. |
| D．Your teacher directed you towards a better attitude in study. |
| A．To improve your EI, following your inner call is the most reliable. |
| B．It’s bard for others to know your EI because it hides deep inside. |
| C．To improve your EI, you should take your goals into consideration. |
| D．Acquiring a new skill is more significant than improving your EI. |
| A．Your inner self discourages you from improving your EI. |
| B．Effective EI development is determined by different factors. |
| C．The importance of performance assessment is underestimated. |
| D．EI development is unlikely to happen unless you know what EI is. |
| A．work | B．working | C．is working | D．are working |
6 . Public distrust of scientists stems in part from the blurring of boundaries between science and technology, between discovery and manufacture. Most governments, perhaps all governments, justify public expenditure on scientific research in terms of the economic benefits the scientific enterprise has brought in the past and will bring in the future. Politicians remind their voters of the splendid machines “our scientists” have invented, the new drugs to relieve old disorders, and the new surgical equipment and techniques by which previously unmanageable conditions may now be treated and lives saved. At the same time, the politicians demand of scientists that they tailor their research to “economics needs”, and that they award a higher priority to research proposals that are “near the market” and can be translated into the greatest return on investment in the shortest time. Dependent, as they are, on politicians for much of their funding, scientists have little choice but to comply. Like the rest of us, they are members of a society that rates the creation of wealth as the greatest possible good. Many have reservations, but keep them to themselves in what they perceive as a climate hostile to the pursuit of understanding for its own sake and the idea of an inquiring, creative spirit.
In such circumstances no one should be too hard on people who are suspicious of conflicts of interest. When we learn that the distinguished professor assuring us of the safety of a particular product holds a consultancy with the company making it, we cannot be blamed for wondering whether his fee might conceivably cloud his professional judgment. Even if the professor holds no consultancy with any firm, some people may still distrust him because of his association with those who do, or at least wonder about the source of some of his research funding.
This attitude can have damaging effects. It questions the integrity of individuals working in a profession that prizes intellectual honesty as the supreme virtue, and plays into the hands of those who would like to discredit scientists by representing them as corruptible. This makes it easier to dismiss all scientific pronouncements, but especially those made by the scientists who present themselves as “experts”. The scientist most likely to understand the safety of a nuclear reactor, for example, is a nuclear engineer, and a nuclear engineer is most likely to be employed by the nuclear industry. If a nuclear engineer declares that a reactor is unsafe, we believe him, because clearly it is not to his advantage to lie about it. If he tells us it is safe, on the other hand, we distrust him, because he may well be protecting the employer who pays his salary.
1. What is the chief concern of most governments when it comes to scientific research?| A．The decline of public expenditure. | B．Quick economic returns. |
| C．The budget for a research project. | D．Support from the voters. |
| A．They realize they work in an environment hostile to the free pursuit of knowledge. |
| B．They know it takes incredible patience to win support from the public. |
| C．They think compliance with government policy is in the interests of the public. |
| D．They are accustomed to keeping their opinions secrets to themselves. |
| A．some of them do not give priority to intellectual honesty |
| B．sometimes they hide the source of their research funding |
| C．they could be influenced by their association with the project concerned |
| D．their pronouncements often turn out to be short-sighted and absurd |
| A．Scientists themselves may doubt the value of their research findings. |
| B．It may wear out the enthusiasm of scientists for independent research. |
| C．It makes things more trivial for scientists to seek research funds. |
| D．People will not believe scientists even when they tell the truth. |
7 . Women are still underrepresented in top academic positions. One of the possible explanations for this is the increasing importance of obtaining research funding. Women are often less successful in this than men. Psychology researchers Dr. Romy van der Lee and professor Naomi Ellemers investigated whether this difference also occurs at the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and examined potential explanations.
The researchers were assigned by NWO to carry out this study as part of the broader evaluation of NWO’s procedures and its gender diversity policy. The aim was to gain more insight into the causes of the differences in awarding rates for male and female applicants for research funding. The analysis addressed an important “talent programme” of NWO, the Veni grant. “Whoever receives this grant has a greater chance of obtaining an important appointment at a university, ” says Naomi Ellemers.
Van der Lee and Ellemers investigated all the applications submitted by male and female researchers over a period of three years: a total of 2823 applications. Under the direction of NWO these applications were assessed by scientific committees consisting of men and women. The results demonstrate that the awarding rates for female applicants (14.9%) are systematically lower than those for male applicants (17.7%). “If we compare the proportion of women among the applicants with the proportion of women among those awarded funding, we see a loss of 4%,” said Ellemers.
The study reveals that women are less positively evaluated for their qualities as researcher than men are, “Interestingly the research proposals of women and men are evaluated equally positively. In other words, the reviewers see no difference in the quality of the proposals that men and women submit,” says Romy van der Lee.
In search for a possible cause for the differences in awarding rates and evaluations, the researchers also investigated the language use in the instructions and forms used to assess the quality of applications. This clearly revealed the occurrence of gendered language. The words that are used to indicate quality are frequently words that were established in previous research as referring mainly to the male gender stereotype (such as challenging and excellent). Romy van der Lee explains: “As a result, it appears that men more easily satisfy the assessment criteria, because these better fit the characteristics stereoty-pically associated with men.”
In response to the results of this research, NWO will devote more attention to the gender awareness of reviewers in its methods and procedures. It will also be investigated which changes to the assessment procedures and criteria can most strongly contribute to more equal chances for men and women to obtain research funding. This will include an examination of the language used by NWO. NWO chair Jos Engelens said, “The research has yielded valuable results and insights. Based on the recommendations made by the researchers we will therefore focus in the coming period on the development of evidence-based measures to reduce the difference in awarding rates.”
1. Van der Lee and Ellemers carried out the research to find out whether _________.| A．women are less successful than men in top academic positions |
| B．female applicants are at a disadvantage in getting research funding |
| C．NOW’s procedures and gender diversity policy enhance fair play |
| D．there are equal chances for men and women to be admitted to a university |
| A．grant receivers were more likely to get appointments at universities |
| B．men applicants for research funding outnumbered women applicants |
| C．the research proposals of women are equally treated with those of men |
| D．the reviewers have narrow, prejudiced conceptions of women candidates |
| A．The words used in the instructions and forms. |
| B．The reviewers’ preference to applications. |
| C．The methods and procedures for evaluation. |
| D．The vague and unclear assessment criteria. |
| A．Eliminate possibilities for difference in awarding rates. |
| B．Design a language examination for all the reviewers. |
| C．Emphasize the importance of gender awareness. |
| D．Improve the assessment procedures and criteria. |
