6 . What goes on in our brains when we decide to hit the share button, and what makes something go viral? Since the dawn of the Internet, businesses, media outlets and influencers alike have been trying to answer these questions. Now, researchers have come one step closer to cracking this mysterious model by shining a light on the neuroscience (神经科学) of viral content.

“Our study finds a way to obtain brain signals that would predict how much information gets shared.” said Emily Falk, professor of communication, psychology and marketing and Hang-Yee Chan, a lecturer of communication.

Their new study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on October 23, investigated both the U. S. and the Netherlands using a broader range of news categories—including health and climate change.

“When we see greater activation of regions that track self-relevance (Is it important to me) and social-relevance (Is it important to people I know), the news articles are more likely to be shared widely,” Falk and Chan said. By studying these brain responses, the team managed to build a value-based model to accurately predict how widely the articles would be shared online. This link between brain activity and sharing was seen in both the American and Dutch participants, suggesting that this model is accurate across cultures.

“Seeing how people’s brains react inside the scanner gives us insight into why people ultimately share information nowadays,” Chan said. “If we understand these signals, we might be able to use that knowledge to help important news get shared and stop misinformation from going viral.” It is also helpful for content creators to maximize their reach. “Our current study demonstrates how tapping into the brain would help content creators optimize their messages’ influence,” Falk and Chan said. “We are interested in building on these results to develop ways to counter harmful information and false news, in addition to spreading high-quality content.” “A lot of our most pressing problems in society are influenced by the decisions people make, and the decisions we make are influenced by the news. What you share matters, and so understanding why you share it matters, too.”

8 . 阅读下面材料，根据其内容和所给段落开头语续写两段，使之构成一篇完整的短文。

I was at the back of a group of eight horse riders when one of my fellow safari (观兽旅行) camp guides called my name, nodding to the spot behind me. I turned to see a male lion, fully grown, not 10 metres away.

I’d been working as a guide at the safari camp in Botswana for a year and had seen lions a few times, usually in the heat of the day. Guests paid to come on guided rides between tented camps 20 miles apart. It was a very remote area. We left at 7 am that morning; it was three hours later when the lion appeared.

Just as I saw it, the horses ran wildly, leaving riders hanging on as the lion began its chase (追逐). I wasn’t in control of my horse, Acaba, which was heading into a much thicker bush, away from the path and the rest of the group. I realised that the lion had chosen to drive Acaba away from the others.

I thought we were going to die together. I screamed in pure panic. Suddenly, Acaba ran into a really thick bush and stopped without control, throwing me into a bush. By the time I got myself out of the low woody plants, the lion was killing him.

Unbelievable! Acaba hid me in the bushes and left himself in extreme danger! It protected me! Scared... shocked... moved... my mind went blank. I was only two metres away! Acaba was on the ground, feet in front of him. He tried to push himself up. But the lion was on top of him, covering his body entirely, his front feet around Acaba’s neck.

I seized a device hanging around my neck, which is known as a bear banger. It has a spring, and when you pull the trigger (扳机) the spring fires off containers that explode when they land. It’s like a small firework but as loud as a shotgun.

Somehow my panic died down. I found myself moving closer to Acaba and the lion.

注意: (1) 续写词数应为150左右；

(2) 请按如下格式在答题卡的相应位置作答。

Paragraph 1:

I pulled the trigger, and it worked.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Paragraph 2:

One of the guides gave me a horse and I planned to find Acaba.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9 . In the wake of the banning of white coats for doctors, Dr. Max explorers whether the rule makes sense.

White coats, replaced by plastic aprons, were banned, along with things like ties, because it was claimed that they were an infection risk, often covered with organic matter. Many doctors have felt offended by this — not because they are being required to observe rules, but because the rules make no sense.

In fact, it’s actually a dangerous policy because it mists the real problems faced when tackling hospital-acquired infections. Along with hand washing, the only other variable that has been consistently shown to be relevant to hospital-acquired infections are bed occupancy rates. Put simply, the quicker the turnaround in hospitals and the more pressure there are on beds, the more infections there are.

Rather than look critically at the current model for the NHS (National Health Service), which is all about cutting beds, and realizing that this is directly contributing to hospital infections, it’s far easier to look to the innocent white coat and ban that instead.

By banning white coats and ties, doctors now don’t look “smart” and have lost their “presence” in hospitals. Most frustratingly for doctors, who are encouraged to practice evidence-based medicine, there’s no clear evidence that white coats actually carry any disease-causing bugs. A review commissioned by the Department of Health (DH) found that most of the bugs that were found on white coats were simply from the doctor’s skin and would be on any item of clothing they wore — and didn’t cause disease anyway.

The fact that the white coats don’t spread disease is borne out not just by studies, but in practice too. In Hong Kong, for example, where white coats are still standard uniform for all doctors, the rates of hospital acquired infection are still considerably lower than UK hospitals. In fact, in other European countries where white coats are worn, the infection rates are also lower than the UK.

The case against white coats was shallow and fueled by politics not evidence. Surely, it’s time doctors rose up and put on their white coats once more.