I pressed my fist into Dad’s old baseball glove as I stared out of the window of my stepfather’s van. Not a day went by that I didn’t think about Dad and how much I missed him.

The van stopped at the edge of the baseball field. “Hey, buddy, have fun at practice. And don’t forget about your sister’s recital (表演) tonight,” said my stepfather as I climbed out.

Zoe is not my sister, and you can’t tell me what to do, I grumbled (嘟囔) to myself.

A bunch of guys from the team waved from the dugout. I jogged over half-heartedly. “Why do you look so unhappy?” David asked. “I have to go to my stepsister’s dance recital,” I sighed. “It could be worse,” David replied. I shot him an I-highly-doubt-that expression. “What if you had to perform in it?” Kevin said as he leaped and twirled (旋转) like a rodeo bull. I tried not to smile.

The truth was that I had a lot of mixed-up feelings since Mom remarried a few months ago. I had always loved baseball, but even that felt different lately. I could barely concentrate.

After practice, David and I sat together waiting for our ride. “I wish things didn’t have to change,” I said, “you know, for my mom and me.” “I have a stepmother and stepbrother too,” David said as if it were no big deal. “Seriously?” I hadn’t realized that, so I asked. David shrugged, “They’re just Mom and Dennis now. Give it a chance.” I let out a breath, still unsure about the recital tonight. Still unsure about everything!

Back home, I found Zoe in her costume, but something was wrong. Her arms were folded tight across her chest, and her eyes were glossed with tears. “What’s wrong, Zoe?” I asked. “Opening night jitters (战战兢兢),” my stepfather said. “She doesn’t want to be in the recital,” Mom said.

Huh. This should have been the best thing that could have happened — the possibility of not having to go to the performance. But somehow it wasn’t. Zoe had practiced so hard. And she’d reminded me at least a thousand times where she would be onstage.

Thinking of Kevin’s funny dance, I had an idea.

After Zoe disappeared into dancers backstage, we found our seats.

3 . Animal appear to predict earthquakes by sensing electricity in the air — the first study to find reliable evidence of the phenomenon has shown.

Cameras revealed an “amazing” drop in the number of animals up to 23 days before a major quake hit their rainforest home at Yanachaga National Park in Peru. Lead scientist Dr Rachel Grant, from Anglia Ruskin University, said, “The results showed that just before the earthquake, animals’ activity dropped right down.”

On a normal day the cameras placed around Yanachaga National Park record between 5 and 15 animals. But in the 23 days before the earthquake, the number of animals dropped to five or fewer per day. No animals were photographed at all on five of the seven days immediately before the quake.

Another study showed that animal activity remained normal in the park over a different period when seismic (地震的) activity was low. Co-author, professor Friedemann Freund, said, “The cameras were located at an altitude of 900 meters. If air ionization occurred, the animals would escape to the valley below, where there were fewer positive ions ( 离子). With their ability to sense their environment, animals can help us understand small changes that occur before major earthquakes.”

Other evidence suggested that before the earthquake, the air around the high mountain sites filled with positive ions that can be produced when rocks are placed under stress. Positive ions have been known to cause ill effects in humans as well as animals. Scientists believe the animals were made to feel uncomfortable by the positive ions, leading them to avoid the area. They are thought to have escaped to lower ground, where the air was less ionized. The findings may help experts develop better short-term seismic forecasts.

8 . 假定你是学校音乐俱乐部的负责人李华，上周俱乐部举行了一场留学生（international students）乐器比赛，请为本周三的颁奖仪式写一篇英文发言稿。内容包括：

1. 表示祝贺；

2. 回顾比赛；

3. 你的期望。

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10 . On March 7, 1907, the English statistician Francis Galton published a paper which illustrated what has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate.

This effect capitalizes on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and some to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whatever reasons, people’s errors become correlated or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down.

But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist (转折) on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.

In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the dominant response. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together”. Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global reduction in error. Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain, the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.