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)
2 . Frozen in time, a 125-million-year-old mammal attacking a dinosaur. A 39-million-year-old whale, the heaviest animal that ever lived. The oldest known jellyfish, from 505 million years ago. Paleontology (古生物学) produces newsworthy discoveries.
Fossils (化石), moreover, provide direct evidence for the long history of life, allowing paleontologists to test hypotheses (假设) about evolution with data only they provide. They allow investigation of present and past life on Earth. Flows of biological diversity, appearances of new life forms and the extinctions of long existing ones, would go undiscovered without these efforts. But the headlines over exciting new fossils greatly underestimate the true importance of paleontology. Its real significance lies in how such discoveries brighten the grand history of life on Earth. From its beginnings, more than three billion years ago, to the present day, fossils record how life adapted or disappeared in the face of major environmental challenges.
Paleontologists provide us with a unique vantage on modern climate change. They play an essential role in interpreting ancient environments, in reconstructing ancient oceans, continents and climates. Fossils provide key limitation on the climate models that are essential for predicting future climate change. And the fossil record gives important insights into how life will respond to predicted future climate conditions, because these have occurred before in Earth’s history.
In addition, paleontology has provided a fundamental contribution to human thought: the reality of species extinction and thus of a world that has dramatically changed over time. In documenting the history of life, paleontologists recognized that many extinction episodes could occur suddenly, such as the event 66 million years ago that ended the dinosaurs. The search for the causes of past mass extinctions started pioneering studies from across the scientific spectrum (科学界), focusing on potential future threats to humanity.
Not only do paleontologists know what happens to life when things go bad, they also know how long it takes for ecosystems and biodiversity to recover from these disasters, which can take far longer than modern humans have existed.
Paleontologists thus provide a unique perspective on the nature and future long-term ecological impact of the current human-produced biodiversity crisis, the so-called Sixth Extinction, and therefore the importance of protecting modern biodiversity. The very concept of a Sixth Extinction would not exist without paleontologists documenting the first five.
Paleontologists know that understanding life’s past is critical to anticipating and adapting to life’s and humanity’s future. Paleontology is important because it brings its unique and critical perspective to current challenges in climate change, biodiversity loss and the environment. Paleontologists can predict the future because they know the past.
1. The first two paragraphs are written to _______.| A．describe an event | B．raise a question |
| C．present an opinion | D．make a comparison |
| A．A positive effect. | B．A valuable suggestion. |
| C．A quick decision. | D．A comprehensive view. |
| A．Ecological recovery takes shorter than imagined. |
| B．Past lessons can help to predict the future threats. |
| C．Paleontologists can handle the biodiversity crisis. |
| D．Fossil studies focus on the causes of mass extinctions. |
| A．Paleontology: A Pioneering Study |
| B．Paleontology: A History Recorder |
| C．Paleontology Tells More About Nature Than Humans |
| D．Paleontology Is Far More Than New Fossil Discoveries |
Do you have trouble finishing your work within a given time? Do you find yourself having to scramble (艰难完成) through your work because time is running out? It is important to manage your time properly.
First, you should write down your tasks on paper. This is to make sure that you do not miss any of them. Having them written down somewhere ensures that you will get the task completed even if you forget about it. Of course, you need to make sure that the task list is always within your sight. Make sure you have a clear view of your tasks. You can write them down in a diary.
After you have written down your tasks, it is time to plan your action. Which tasks need not be completed as urgently How much time are you going to give each task? I suggest that you complete the urgent tasks first, but at the same time, be sure to include some time to take breaks in between. The breaks ensure that you have a moment to run away from stress until you return to continue from where you left off.
Above all, however, don’t procrastinate because it is your number one enemy. Procrastination can also mean that you will not be focused when you do your work. Time is valuable, so do not waste it by procrastinating. Focus on completing the task and get it over once and for all.
1. Where can you write your tasks down?2. Why should we take breaks between tasks?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
Our biggest enemy when we manage our time properly is that we will not be focused.
4. Do you think it is important to manage your time properly? Why or why not? (About 40 words)
4 . A new artificial intelligence (AI) tool called ChatGPT has excited the Internet community with its superhuman abilities to solve math problems, produce college articles and write research papers. Some educators are warning that such Al systems will change the world of learning, teaching, and research, for better or worse.
Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, sees its benefits as a learning partner. He has used it as his own teacher’s assistant, for help with preparing a lecture and grading instructions for MBA students. “You can ask it to find a mistake in your writing and correct it and tell you why you got it wrong,” he said. “It’s really amazing.”
But the superhuman assistant has its limitations (局限). ChatGPT was created by humans, after all. OpenAI has trained the tool using a large dataset of real human conversations. It sometimes lies to you, with confidence. There have been situations in which ChatGPT won’t tell you when it doesn’t have the answer.
That’s what Teresa Kubacka, a data scientist based in Zurich, Switzerland, found when she experimented with the language model. “I asked it about something that I thought that I know doesn’t exist (存在) so that I can judge whether it actually also has the idea of what exists and what doesn’t exist.” she said. ChatGPT produced an answer so specific sounding, backed with citations (引文), that Kubacka had to find out whether the made-up thing was actually real. “This is where it becomes kind of dangerous,” she said.
ChatGPT doesn’t produce good science, says Oren Etzioni, the founding CEO of the Allen Institute for AI. But he sees ChatGPT’s appearance as a good thing. He sees this as a moment for review. “ChatGPT is just a few days old, I like to say,” said Etzioni. “It’s giving us a chance to understand what he can and cannot do and to begin the conversation of ‘What are we going to do about it?’”
1. How did Ethan Mollick feel about ChatGPT?| A．It could be used in many different fields. |
| B．It was popular with university students. |
| C．It would replace teachers’ assistants. |
| D．It was advantageous to him. |
| A．The Al tool is not dependable sometimes. |
| B．The Al tool always gives wrong answers. |
| C．The Al tool does not always answer questions. |
| D．The Al tool gives dangerous guidance sometimes. |
| A．It is too early to discuss ChatGPT’s limitations. |
| B．ChatGPT is open for review and suggestions. |
| C．ChatGPT is worth praising for its superhuman abilities. |
| D．It takes time to see whether ChatGPT works well or not. |
A． | B． |
C． | D． |
5 . “When I stopped in at our local tourism office in Montreal to ask where they would recommend visitors to go to smell, taste, and listen to the city, I just received blank stares. They only know about things to see, not about the city’s other sensory attractions, its soundmarks and smellmarks,” says Howes, the director of Sensory Studies, a growing field often referred to as “sensory urbanism”.
Around the world, researchers like Howes are investigating how non-visual information defines the character of a city and affects its livability. Using methods ranging from low-tech sound walks to data collecting, wearables (clothing or glasses that contain computer technology), and virtual reality, they’re fighting what they see as a limiting visual preference in urban planning.
“Just being able to close your eyes for 10 minutes gives you a totally different feeling about a place,” says Oguz Öner, an academic and musician. He has spent years organizing sound walks in Istanbul where participants describe what they hear at different spots with their eyes covered. His research has identified locations where a wave organ could be constructed to strengthen the sounds of the sea, something he was surprised to realize people could hardly hear, even along the waterfront.
Although his findings have not been considered into local urban plans yet, this kind of individual feedback (反馈) about the sensory environment is already being put to use in Berlin, where quiet areas identified by citizens using a free mobile app have been included in the city’s latest noise action plan.
The best way to determine how people react to different sensory environments is a subject of some debate within the field. Howes and his colleagues are using observation and interviews to develop a set of best practices for good sensory design in public spaces. Other researchers are going more high-tech, using wearables to track biological data like heart-rate variability to reveal different sensory experiences.
As data collection about people’s sensory experiences becomes more widespread, many of these experts warn that concerns about privacy and surveillance (监视) need to be taken into account. Issues of fairness and inclusion also come into play when determining whose sensory experiences are factored into planning. “Sensory awareness is not independent or simply biological; whether we find something pleasant or not has been shaped culturally and socially,” says Monica Degen, an urban cultural sociologist at Brunel University London.
Degen cites the example of a London neighborhood where inexpensive restaurants for local youth were replaced by trendy cafes. “It used to smell like fried chicken,” she says, but newer residents found that smell annoying rather than welcoming. “Now it smells like the popular Italian coffee, cappuccinos.”
1. The underlined phrase “blank stares” in Paragraph 1 implies that______.| A．Montreal is lacking in visual appeal |
| B．Montreal’s non-visual information is ignored |
| C．the tourism officers object to sensory urbanism |
| D．there are too many tourist attractions to recommend |
| A．Many methods are used to limit the visual preference. |
| B．Potential concerns about collecting data can be relieved. |
| C．People may fail to notice sound attractions even in better locations. |
| D．Individual feedback restricts the development of sensory environment. |
| A．People’s perceptions of their sensory surroundings are subjective. |
| B．Sensory urbanism needs to focus on developing sensory facilities. |
| C．Sensory experience is dominant in shaping the character of a city. |
| D．Choices of sensory attractions in urban planning depend on tourists. |
6 . “Flying insects don’t fly directly to lights from far away because they’re attracted to them, but appear to change course toward a light if they happen to be passing by due to a strange inborn biological response,” writes Samuel Fabian, a bioengineer, in a research paper.
Until now, the leading scientific hypothesis has been that insects use the moon’s light to direct the way at night and mistake artificial lights for the moon. But this idea doesn’t explain why insects that only fly during the day also gather around lights.
To find out what really happens, Samuel’s team track the precise movements of insects in the wild around lights using a high-speed camera. This revealed two notable behaviours. First, when insects fly above lights, they often invert (转向) themselves and try to fly upside down, causing them to fall very fast. Just after insects pass under a light, they start doing a ring road. As their climb angle becomes too steep, they suddenly stop and start to fall. Second, when insects approach a light from the side, they may circle or “orbit” the light.
The videos show that the inversions sometimes result in insects falling on lights. It can appear to the naked eye as though they are flying at the lights. “Instead, insects turn their dorsum toward the light, generating flight perpendicular(垂直) to the source,” the team write. It is common to the two behaviours that the insects are keeping their backs to the light, known as the dorsal light response (DLR). This DLR is a shortcut for insects to work out which way is up and keep their bodies upright, as the moon or sun is usually more or less directly above them, and this direction allows them to maintain proper flight attitude and control. They also find that the insects fly at right angles to a light source, leading to orbiting and unstable flights as the light’s location relative to them changes as they move.
Samuel’s team suggest that a possible outcome of the research could help the construction industry to avoid the types of light that most attract insects.
1. What does the research focus on?| A．Why insects gather around lights. |
| B．Where artificial lights lead insects to. |
| C．What biological response insects are born with. |
| D．How to design environment friendly artificial lights. |
| A．They fly directly to lights. | B．They circle close to lights. |
| C．Their flying speed is steady. | D．Their inversions can be controlled. |
| A．balance their flying | B．keep their route straight |
| C．decide their body positon | D．shorten their flight distance |
7 . We humans are in trouble. We have let loose a new evolutionary process that we don’t understand and can’t control.
The latest leaps forward in artificial intelligence (AI) are rightly causing anxiety. Yet people are responding as though AI is just one more scary new technology, like electricity or cars once were. We invented it, the argument goes, so we should be able to manage it for our own benefit. Not so. I believe that this situation is new and potentially dangerous.
My thinking starts from the premise that all design anywhere in the universe is created by the evolutionary algorithm (算法). This is the process in which some kind of information is copied many times, the copies vary slightly and only some are selected to be copied again. The information is called the replicator (复制者), and our most familiar example is the gene.
But genes aren’t the only replicator, as Richard Dawkins stressed in The Selfish Gene. People copy habits, stories, words, technologies and songs; we change, recombine and pass them on in ever greater variety. This second replicator, evolving much faster than genes ever could, Dawkins called memes (模仿传递行为) — and they are selfish too.
As we face up to the recent explosion in AI, new questions arise. Could a third replicator take advantage of the first two? And what would happen if it did?
For billions of years, all of the Earth’s organisms were gene machines, until, about 2 million years ago, just one species — our ancestors — started imitating sounds, gestures and ways of processing food. They had let loose a second replicator and turned us into meme machines. Following the same principle, could a third replicator appear if some object we made started copying, varying and selecting a new kind of information?
It could, and I believe it has. Our digital technology can copy, store and spread vast amounts of information with near-perfect accuracy. While we had mostly been the ones selecting what to copy and share, that is changing now. Mindless algorithms choose which ads we see and which news stories they “think” we would like. Once a digital replicator takes off, its products will evolve for its own benefit, not ours.
All is not lost, though. We already cope with fast-evolving parasites such as viruses by using our immune systems, machines and vaccines. Now, we need to build our collective mental immunity, our critical thinking and our ability to protect our attention from all that selfish information. Taking lessons from evolution, we can stop imagining we are the controllers of our accidentally dangerous offspring and start learning how to live with them.
1. As for people’s attitude toward AI, the author is ____________.| A．disapproving | B．unconcerned |
| C．sympathetic | D．tolerant |
| A．memes are composed of selfish genes | B．the speed of evolution is underestimated |
| C．replicators vary with human interference | D．memes and genes share a common feature |
| A．Technologies can be double-edged. |
| B．Collective efforts make a better world. |
| C．We should live in harmony with nature. |
| D．Past experience is relevant to future action. |
| A．The pace of technological progress is unstoppable. |
| B．The initiative of algorithm should be strengthened. |
| C．The new evolution can bring about negative effects. |
| D．The artificial intelligence can satisfy our real desires. |
8 . In the 1770s, an English doctor called Edward Jenner gave his gardener’s son cowpox (牛痘) and then deliberately infected him with smallpox (天花) to test his assumption that people who were frequently exposed to cowpox, a similar but less severe virus, would avoid catching smallpox. It worked and cowpox as the vaccine (疫苗) was highly effective. “Vaccination”, from the Latin word for cow, soon became commonplace.
Challenge trials are forms of research where, rather than relying on data from natural infections, we intentionally expose someone to a disease in order to test the effectiveness of a vaccine or treatment. Things have changed a lot since Jenner’s time, of course, when it was not uncommon for doctors to conduct this kind of research. Even so, there’s the continuous sense that there’s something immoral about making someone ill on purpose.
But this shouldn’t blind us to the extraordinary power of challenge trials. They could become increasingly important weapons in the medical research, in a situation where vaccine technology is advancing and the threat of diseases jumping from animals into human beings is increasing.
Much has been done to reduce the risks of challenge trials. Like respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), researchers have involved adults who are at a low risk of severe illness. These acts have already cut down a massive range of vaccine candidates. With their help, the world will soon have the first vaccines against RSV, which kills tens of thousands of newborn babies each year. But not all diseases are like these ones. We don’t always know the dangers volunteers might face; we don’t always have treatments ready. What then?
We could, of course, just avoid these questions entirely, and rely on other types of research.But that doesn’t always work: sometimes, animal testing is tricky and uninformative, because the disease doesn‘t develop in the same way as it would in humans. In contrast, challenge trials can be deeply informative within weeks, with far fewer volunteers. And the benefits can be surprisingly high. Take the latest pandemic. At the end of last year, as the number of deaths is estimated to have reached about 17.8 million, it’s also estimated that 20 million had been saved by vaccines.In the years to come, they will hopefully save millions more.
In order to make sure we are as protected as possible from current and future threats, we should try to get rid of the misbelief in challenge trials, making them a more familiar part of our tool kits. Perhaps the greatest reward of all would be to make sure participants’ efforts are worthwhile: by designing trials to be fair and effective and applying them when and where they might make a real difference. In short, by helping them to save thousands, if not millions of lives.
1. The author tells the story of Edward Jenner mainly to______.| A．give a definition of challenge trials |
| B．introduce the topic of challenge trials |
| C．highlight the effectiveness of his vaccine |
| D．explain the origin of the word “vaccination” |
| A．The issues behind challenge trials can be solved. |
| B．The dangers of challenge trials outweigh the benefits they bring. |
| C．Challenge trials can benefit numerous lives in spite of their risks. |
| D．Challenge trials can set back the development of vaccine technologies. |
| A．People should still be careful about challenge trials. |
| B．A more open attitude should be taken towards challenge trials. |
| C．Challenge trials guarantee participants protection against threats. |
| D．More volunteers involved can improve the accuracy of challenge trials. |
| A．Should we use challenge trials to find cures? |
| B．Can challenge trials be a block to medical progress? |
| C．Can challenge trials be the end of infectious diseases? |
| D．Should we replace animal testing with challenge trials? |
9 . Which is healthier: a bag of crisps or a vegetable salad? That is easy. Now which is healthier: a pizza made from scratch or one made from the same basic ingredients, with the same number of calories, pulled out of a box in the freezer? Many people would instinctively(本能地) say the former, perhaps showing a vague concern with processed food. Such food can often be delicious. And there is much to cheer about calories being cheap and abundant.
What’s the distinction between “ultra-processed food(upf)” and “processed food”? Almost everything people consume is processed in some form. Rice is harvested; animals are butchered. Upf is usually described as “formulations of ingredients, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring advanced equipment and technology”.
Upf harms people in ways both known and unknown. It seems to affect the trillions of bacteria that contribute to health in a range of ways. Calorie-rich but usually nutrient-poor, upf contributes to obesity(肥胖症).
Upf displaces healthier alternatives, particularly for poor people.
| A．Environment matters, too. |
| B．It’s cheap to produce and buy. |
| C．But that cheapness and abundance come at a cost. |
| D．Even foods labeled “natural” or “organic” can be processed. |
| E．A pizza made from scratch contains minimally processed food. |
| F．Some people have a particular weakness for salty potato crisps. |
| G．The reasons why upf can be harmful are not always clear, even to scientists. |
10 . Climate experts are having a debate: they are asking whether the UK should focus more on adapting to climate change or trying to prevent it.
David Frost holds that preventing climate change is no longer an option, given the extent to which the Earth now appears certain to heat up. Despite the many policies which attempt to stop climate change, it now seems unavoidable that the world will pass the 1.5℃ or 2℃ increases in average global temperature that are likely to induce large changes in the climate.
David Frost is right in that our economies are growing so much slower than we had anticipated. Our emissions can drop if we reduce emissions per unit of GDP we create—but they can also drop if the GDP is lower. Lower growth means it is more feasible (可行的) for us to achieve targets such as Net Zero, but it also makes it less environmentally urgent to achieve those targets so soon, because we are and have been emitting a lot less carbon than we had anticipated.
The UK authority finds the debate about adaptation difficult. Partly, it is because some activists claim that adaptation is not feasible. They say that climate change will end human civilization, potentially leading to the entire extinction of the human race.
However, the mainstream view of many scientists and economists, who work on climate change, is that global warming could lead to large changes in our environment. Significant parts of the world currently heavily populated could become effectively uninhabitable while other parts currently unsuitable for high-density human habitation would become more habitable. Meanwhile, at higher temperatures both climate and weather are likely to become more volatile—including increased frequency of storms, flooding and other weather events.
These would be significant changes, but it would be perfectly feasible for humans to adapt to them. The issue is not whether adapting would be technically feasible, but whether it would be desirable either in ethical or practical terms. Are we willing to accept a materially warmer world, with humans living in different parts of it? Are we willing to accept the possible extinctions of certain species and the greater flourishing of those currently less successful and of new species yet to evolve? Are we willing to accept the consequences of a large shift in the patterns of human habitation across the world?
It is by no means clear on what basis we ought to ethnically privilege the plants and animals that flourish under today’s climate over those that would flourish under a warmer, more volatile climate. However, adaptation will be feasible and is a necessity given the extent to which warming is now unavoidable. Slower GDP growth and thus slower climate change ought to make greater efforts at adaptation more attractive.
1. According to the passage, who hesitate(s) to adapt to the climate change?| A．The government. | B．Climate experts. |
| C．David Frost. | D．The activists. |
| A．changeable | B．predictable | C．bearable | D．noticeable |
| A．expressing doubts about people’s adaptability |
| B．presenting examples of future climate patterns |
| C．highlighting the consequences of human activities |
| D．helping people decide on their openness to adaptation |
| A．Slowing climate change deserves great efforts. |
| B．Global warming is preventable to some extent. |
| C．Adaptation to climate change is beyond question. |
| D．Protection of the current species should be prioritized. |
