1 . You are what you eat-and what you eat may be encoded in your DNA. Studies have indicated that your genes play a role in determining the foods you find delicious or disgusting. But exactly how big a role they play has been difficult to figure out. “Everything has a genetic component even if it’s small,” says Joanne Cole, a geneticist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. “We know that there is some genetic contribution to why we eat the foods we eat. Can we take the next step and actually locate the regions in the genome (基因)?”
New research led by Cole has gotten a step closer. Through a large-scale genomics analysis, her team has identified 481 genome regions that were directly linked to dietary patterns and food preferences. The findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, were presented last month at the American Society for Nutrition’s annual conference.
The team based the new study on a 2020 Nature Communications study by Cole and her colleagues that used data from the U.K. Biobank, a public database of the genetic and health information of 500,000 participants. By scanning genomes, the new analysis was able to identify 194 regions associated with dietary patterns and 287 linked to specific foods such as fruit, cheese, fish, tea and alcohol. Further understanding how genetics impact how we eat could reveal differences in nutritional needs or disease risks.
“One of the problems with a lot of these genomics studies is that they’re very small. They don’t have enough people to really be able to identify genes in ways that are credible. This study had a huge group of people, so it’s really powerful.” says Monica Dus, a geneticist at the University of Michigan. “The other thing that I thought was really great is that there are so many different features that they’re measuring related to diet including cholesterol (胆固醇), the body and socioeconomic backgrounds.” As the research advances, Dus says, such genome analysis could potentially assist health care providers and even policymakers to address larger issues that affect food access and health.
It’s definitely true that it may contribute to making sure there aren’t food deserts-areas which have limited access to fresh, healthy and affordable food or to making sure that there’s a higher minimum wage so that everyone can afford to eat, although the journey ahead remains lengthy and challenging.
1. How did researchers conduct the present study?| A．By involving a substantial number of participants. |
| B．By directly analyzing the data from a public database. |
| C．By building on a previous study based on large-scale data. |
| D．By identifying genome regions associated with dietary patterns. |
| A．Powerful participants were involved in the current study. |
| B．The methods employed for the previous studies were credible. |
| C．The genome analyses have helped address larger social issues. |
| D．Various features linked to diet were considered in the present study. |
| A．The benefits of latest large-scale diet-related genome analyses. |
| B．The contribution of genes to diet patters and food preferences. |
| C．The significance of a newly published diet-related genome discovery. |
| D．The introduction of a research on identifying diet-related genome regions. |
| A．National Geographic | B．Sports Illustrated for kids |
| C．Scientific American | D．The Wall Street Journal |
2 . 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.
1. What is paragraph 2 of the text mainly about?| A．The methods of estimation. | B．The underlying logic of the effect. |
| C．The causes of people’s errors. | D．The design of Galton’s experiment. |
| A．the crowds were relatively small | B．there were occasional underestimates |
| C．individuals did not communicate | D．estimates were not fully independent |
| A．The size of the groups. | B．The dominant members. |
| C．The discussion process. | D．The individual estimates. |
| A．Unclear. | B．Dismissive. | C．Doubtful. | D．Approving. |
3 . Thanks to in-depth reporting by the Wall Street Journal, we now know that Facebook has long been aware its product Instagram has harmful effects on the mental health of many adolescent users. Young girls, in particular, struggle with their body image thanks to a constant stream of photos and videos showing beautiful bodies that users don’t think they can attain.
While the information the Journal covered is essential and instructive, it does not tell the whole story. Deep down, this is not an Instagram problem; it’s a people problem. Understanding that distinction can make the difference between a failed attempt to contain a teen’s interest in an addictive app and successfully addressing the underlying problem leading to mental distress induced (诱发) by Instagram.
Critics were quick to shame Facebook for sitting on the data and not releasing it to researchers or academics who asked for it. Others criticize the social media giant for not using the research to create a safer experience for its teen users. The anger, while understandable, is misplaced.
While I’m reluctant to defend Facebook, I’m not sure it’s reasonable to blame the company for withholding data that would hurt its business. Have you ever binge-watched (狂看) a Netflix series? I assure you it wasn’t a healthy endeavor. You were in active, likely did nothing productive, mindlessly snacked and didn’t go outside for fresh air. It is an objectively harmful use of time to stare at a TV or laptop for a full weekend. Should we respond by shaming Netflix for not alerting us to how damaging an addictive product can be?
While it’s reasonable to say Instagram makes esteem issues worse, it strains credulity (夸张到难以置信) to believe it causes them in the first place. You create your own experiences on social media. For the most part, you choose which accounts to follow and engage. If you’re already vulnerable to insecurities and self-sabotage (自损) — as many teens are — you will find accounts to obsess over. And this isn’t a new phenomenon.
Before social media, there were similar issues fueling self-esteem issues. Whether the target be magazines, movies or television shows depicting difficult-to-attain bodies, there has been a relatively steady chorus (异口同声) of experts nothing the damage new media could cause young viewers.
Self-esteem issues have an underlying cause — one that’s independent of social media use. Instagram merely enhances those feelings because it provides infinitely more access to triggers than older forms of media. It’s more worthwhile to address those underlying factors rather than to attack Facebook.
1. The author thinks the criticisms against Instagram __________.| A．are successful attempts to change teens’ interest in addictive apps |
| B．address the Instagram - induced mental pain |
| C．are only based on the data released by Facebook |
| D．are not directed at the fundamental problem |
| A．compare the criticisms against it and Facebook |
| B．defend why Facebook is to blame |
| C．suggest the critics’ remarks are not to point |
| D．show Netflix does more harm to teens |
| A．it is human nature to get addicted to social media |
| B．users decide on their experiences on social media |
| C．people have a tendency to feel insecure online |
| D．people are keen on fabricating their self - profile |
| A．the unprecedented criticism facing Facebook |
| B．the alarming online habits of teenagers worldwide |
| C．the root cause of Instagram - induced mental strains |
| D．the harmful impact of Instagram on teenagers |
4 . Did you ever have to say “no” to somebody? Such as a classmate who asks to go to lunch with you? New research suggests that, at least socially, a rejection (拒绝) should not include an apology. In other words, saying you are sorry does not make the person being rejected feel any better. In fact, it might make the rejected person feel worse. That is surprising. Many people consider it to be good manners to say they are sorry when they turn down a request.
Gili Freedman is doing some related research at Dartmouth College. For her research, she asked over 1,000 people to respond to different examples of social rejection. In one example, the researchers asked people for their reaction (反应）after a person named Taylor asked to join a co-worker who went out to lunch every Friday. And Taylor was told “no”. But in some cases, the person rejecting Taylor offered an apology. In other cases, the people doing the rejection did not say they were sorry. People were asked how they would feel if they were being turned down, just as Taylor was. Most said they would be more hurt by a rejection with an apology than a rejection without an apology.
Freedman said the reason is that apologies make people feel like they need to say that the rejection was okay— even when they felt like it was not okay. Rejection without an apology lets them express their feelings of disappointment, hurt or anger more easily. Freedman also said that an apology often makes the person doing the rejection feel better—even as it makes the person being rejected feel worse.
Her research deals only with social communication. A business situation might be very different. “If a manager rejects a job interviewee or a boss must tell an employee that he or she is being fired from a job,” Freedman said, “reactions to apologies may be different.”
1. Why do people say they are sorry when they express rejection?| A．Because they think it is more polite. |
| B．Because they think it helps them express their dislike better. |
| C．Because they think apologies are the basis of communication. |
| D．Because they think it sounds more comfortable for the listener. |
| A．rejected others without an apology |
| B．offered an apology when rejecting others |
| C．would be more hurt by a rejection with an apology |
| D．were asked to answer the question in different situations |
| A．It makes the rejection more acceptable. |
| B．It makes a good impression on the listener. |
| C．It makes the communication more pleasant. |
| D．It makes the person doing the rejecting feel better. |
| A．The effect of an apology during a rejection. |
| B．Gili Freedman’s research on business situations. |
| C．A rejection with an apology in a business situation. |
| D．The difference between a social situation and a business one. |
5 . It is a great truth because once we truly understand and accept it, then life is no longer difficult.
Most do not fully see this truth.
| A．Problems are the serious test that tells success from failure. |
| B．Life is not a trap set for us by God so that he can condemn (责难) us for failing. |
| C．It is through the pain of meeting and working out problems that we learn. |
| D．Yet, it is in this whole process of solving problems that life has its meaning. |
| E．Instead they complain about their problems and difficulties as if life should be easy. |
| F．We can register to make money and participate in problem solving collaboration (合作、协作) groups. |
| G．What makes life difficult is that the process of facing and solving problems is a painful one. |
6 . I don’t want to talk about being a woman scientist again. There was a time in my life when people asked constantly for stories about what it’s like to work in a field dominated (controlled) by men. I was never very good at telling those stories because truthfully I never found them interesting. What I do find interesting is the origin of the universe, the shape of space, time and the nature of black holes.
At 19, when I began studying astrophysics (天体物理学), it did not bother me in the least to be the only woman in the classroom. But while earning my Ph.D. at MIT and then as a post-doctor doing space research, the issue started to bother me. My every achievement — jobs, research papers, awards — was viewed through the lens (镜片) of gender (性别) politics. So were my failures. Sometimes, when I was pushed into an argument on left brain versus (相对于) right brain, or nature versus nurture (培育), I would instantly fight fiercely on my behalf and all womankind.
Then one day a few years ago, out of my mouth came a sentence that would eventually become my reply to any and all provocations (挑衅): I don’t talk about that anymore. It took me 10 years to get back the confidence I had at 19 and to realize that I didn’t want to deal with gender issues. Why should curing sexism be yet another terrible burden on every female scientist? After all, I don’t study sociology or political theory.
Today I research and teach at Barnard, a women’s college in New York City. Recently, someone asked me how many of the 45 students in my class were women. You cannot imagine my satisfaction at being able to answer, 45. I know some of my students worry how they will manage their scientific research and a desire for children. And I don’t dismiss those concerns. Still, I don’t tell them “war” stories. Instead, I have given them this: the visual of their physics professor heavily pregnant doing physics experiments. And in turn they have given me the image of 45 women driven by a love of science. And that’s a sight worth talking about.
1. Why doesn’t the author want to talk about being a woman scientist again?| A．She is fed up with the issue of gender discrimination (歧视). |
| B．She feels unhappy working in male-dominated fields. |
| C．She is not good at telling stories of the kind. |
| D．She finds space research more important. |
| A．the burden she bears in a male-dominated society |
| B．her involvement in gender politics |
| C．her over-confidence as a female astrophysicist |
| D．the very fact that she is a woman |
| A．Lack of confidence in succeeding in space science. |
| B．Unfair accusations from both inside and outside her circle. |
| C．People’s fixed attitude toward female scientists. |
| D．Widespread misconceptions about nature and nurtured. |
| A．Women students needn’t have the concerns of her generation. |
| B．Women can balance a career in science and having a family. |
| C．Women have more barriers on their way to academic success. |
| D．Women now have fewer problems pursuing a science career. |
