1 . Leah Brown aged 36 fell several hundred feet from Oregon’s highest mountain right before the eyes of a group of volunteer rescue workers who rushed to her aid and helped save her life.
The woman was coming down a popular path (小路) on Mt. Hood, about 70 miles east of Portland, on Saturday morning, according to the local police. Mt. Hood is the highest in Oregon, standing at around11.240 feet.
The fall was seen by members of Portland Mountain Rescue (PMR), a volunteer organization focused on helping people in mountainous areas. The group called 911 and rushed to the woman, providing medical care. They helped keep the woman warm for seven hours as the police worked to get her off the mountain safely. Finally, the woman was evacuated (转移) to a parking lot at 9:30 pm and taken to a hospital.
The climber, Leah Brown, said she didn’t know what caused her fall. “I can only guess it was either an ice tool or a crampon (冰爪) that didn’t land and stick like it should have, so I became detached from the mountain,” Brown said. “The thing I’d like to most stress is my appreciation for the members of PMR who evacuated me and took good care of me the whole time,” Brown added. “They saved my life. ”
In a statement after the rescue, PMR warned of the dangerous winter conditions at the mountain. “The short days and lower temperatures mean that the snow tends to be very hard and icy, and the conditions tend to be much steeper. Climbing the mountain in icy conditions is much more difficult,” the group said.
1. What happened to Brown on Saturday morning?| A．She lost her way in a forest. | B．She hurt her eye unexpectedly. |
| C．She failed to call her family. | D．She fell down on a downhill path. |
| A．Different. | B．Hidden. | C．Separated. | D．Tired. |
| A．Thankful. | B．Regretful. | C．Surprised. | D．Concerned. |
| A．Climbing requires teamwork. | B．Climbing in winter is too risky. |
| C．We must remain positive in hard times. | D．We can admire the view on sunny days. |
2 . Today, there are more humans on Earth than ever and nature is in freefall. In just 50 years, wildlife populations have dropped on average by 69 percent. In the same period, our population has doubled, and demand for non-living and living material from Earth has grown six times. The biggest contributors to biodiversity (生物多样性) loss are habitat destruction and over-development of species, both driven by completely unsustainable consumption (不可持续的消耗) and caused by increasing human numbers. It is important that we address this over-consumption, and that means thinking seriously the influence our species’ population growth is having on the breakdown of the natural world.
December’s biodiversity summit (峰会) in Canada didn’t meet the challenges we face. Only two of the 23 topics are intended to address consumption and speak of “greatly reducing overconsumption”. But the message is unclearly defined and unquantified (未被量化的), short of necessary facts for any real application. Given all the goals of the former biodiversity protection plan were missed, it is truly impossible to imagine that governments will gather the bravery to catch the chance.
In November last year, our population reached 8 billion and there are predictions that it will reach 10.4 billion in the 2080s. The goal of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is for us to live “in harmony (和谐) with nature” by 2050. Let me make it clear: there is no doubt that the 1.7 billion more people predicted will make this greatly harder to achieve. However much we try to reduce our consumption and our influence, every plan and rule that moves us forward will have a gradually lower influence.
And let me say it again: it isn’t about any particular humans among those billions, this is about us as a species of resource-consuming organism.
We must now ensure governments deal with their tasks with great efforts instead of any short-sighted, short-term solutions. Tolerating (忍受) the cruel idea that economic growth is the answer to our problems, and totally ignoring unsustainable population growth, must end. Or we all die.
1. What’s the function for the first paragraph?| A．To conduct a survey. | B．To explore the reason. |
| C．To introduce the topic. | D．To discuss a problem. |
| A．It is far from contenting the author. | B．It has pointed the way to our future. |
| C．It clears up many people’s confusion. | D．It helps deal with the consumption issues. |
| A．By giving examples. | B．By showing data. |
| C．By making comparisons. | D．By defining a concept. |
| A．Tolerate existing issues and wait. |
| B．Put population growth in second place. |
| C．Expect economic growth to solve the problem. |
| D．Let governments adopt effective solutions wisely. |
Being nearsighted is far more common than it once was. The case rate of myopia (近视) in Americans
Myopia results when eyeballs are
Some experts connect the myopia to the many hours young people spend in staring at
This new study shows that a lack of direct sunlight may damage vision. Strong correlations (关联) were found between current eyesight and
4 . Recently, research on how a new virtual (虚拟的) reality (VR) experience educated primary children about the fire disasters was done. It was developed by the University of South Australia, aiming to educate children to learn how to be safer in a fire.
Focusing on children aged 10-12 years old, the new VR experience presents a situation where children are tasked to look after a friend’s dog just before a fire event begins to spread. They participate in a series of problem-solving activities to help save and protect themselves and the dog.
The findings showed that more than 80 percent of children reported that they felt more confident to calmly assess the situation and make wise decisions to protect themselves from a fire. This isl especially important considering that 91 percent of participants originally lacked any knowledge of fires, and that 67 percent had said that they were too young to make safety decisions in a fire.
The researchers believed such immersive (沉浸式的) VR experiences had real potential (潜力) to attract and educate the young. “As children born in digital times, they are interested in such technology and they can experience events realistically yet within the safe environment.” said Delene Weber, one of the researchers. “Well-designed VR can provide a chance for children to apply newly-acquired knowledge, strengthen their learnt concepts, and enable immediate reaction—all incredibly valuable learning tools.”
Meanwhile, because children have fewer life experiences, aren’t as physically strong, and are less likely to have learned much about fire safety, they’re often most at risk. Yet the ability for children to contribute to fire safety at their household should not be underestimated (低估).
“Children do not need to be passively attacked by disasters and with purpose-built virtual reality experiences such as these, we can help children understand the risks and realize they can help,” said Weber.
1. How does the new VR experience try to educate children?| A．By introducing a virtual friend to them. | B．By finding the causes of a fire event. |
| C．By letting them solve virtual problems. | D．By guiding them to ask a dog for help. |
| A．Many children found it hard to adapt to them. |
| B．They helped children deal with fire postively. |
| C．They benefited children with knowledge of animals. |
| D．Most children had a misunderstanding about them. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Indifferent. | C．Disapproving. | D．Supportive. |
| A．VR experiences educate kids to survive a fire | B．VR experiences make learning easier for kids |
| C．VR education appeals to the young generation | D．VR technology makes no sense in fighting a fire. |
5 . We see hundreds of logos on signs, vehicles, websites, and even on the clothes we are dressed in. All these logos are intended to attract our attention.
Researchers gave 85 students a simple assignment to draw the logo of a famous company from memory. Surprisingly, only one student could make it.
Logos are typically designed to be simple and easy to recognize with a quick glance. Yet the frequent exposure to these logos can actually make our brains overlook them. This process is known as attention saturation (注意力饱和)
Nowadays, logos are everywhere. A fancy design or a thoughtful (体贴的) colour combination may be a good start for a logo concept , but there are some other things to consider.
| A．When we see some logos over and over again, |
| B．People will know the product behind the logo. |
| C．This may be inspiring to logo designers. |
| D．So why is it so difficult for people to recall the details? |
| E．They also help us remember a product or service connected with them. |
| F．Our brains actually signal us to ignore information we don’t think we will need to remember. |
| G．Logo designers need to know that people will only remember what they believe is worthwhile. |
6 . The cultural products we create reflect the times we live in. “Works of popular culture, we reasoned, should reflect the extent to which nature occupies our collective consciousness (集体意识), ” says psychologist Dr Selin Kesebir. “If novelists, songwriters or filmmakers have fewer encounters with nature these days than before, or if they don’t expect their audiences to respond to it, nature would feature less frequently in their works.”
The researchers drew up a list of 186 nature-related words belonging to four categories: general words relating to nature such as cloud, or sunrise; names of flowers; names of trees; and birds’ names. Then they analyzed how often these occurred in the output of popular culture. They looked at English-language fiction, pop songs and film plots, each of which featured thousands of examples.
The results were consistent across books, songs and movies. “The space taken by nature has been decreasing in the collective imagination and cultural conversation since the 1950s. Nature features significantly less in English popular culture today than it did in the first half of the 20th century” says Dr Kesebir.
Why? Some people suggest it’s the growth of cities that has fuelled the change. “Urbanization swallows up natural areas and cuts people off from their natural surroundings,” says Dr Kesebir. But, she goes on, the growth rate of cities over the 20th century is gradual, but the data shows a marked change from the 1950s onwards. So it’s not just the fact that fewer of us are living in rural areas that explains the decline (减少).
More likely, she believes, we’re seeing the impact of technological change leading to more indoor recreational activities. Yes, TV, video games and the Internet are to blame. “These technologies may well have been substituted for nature as a source of joy, recreation and entertainment.”
Books, songs and films shape our culture as well as reflecting it, says Dr Kesebir. “The declining cultural attention to nature means a muting of the message that nature: is worth paying attention to and talking about. It also means a loss of opportunities to awaken curiosity, appreciation and awe for nature.”
1. How did the researchers conduct their study of popular culture?| A．By having interviews. | B．By doing field research. |
| C．By analyzing collected data. | D．By referring to previous studies. |
| A．It highlighted fictional stories. | B．It caught the public’s imagination. |
| C．Its nature elements were greatly reduced. | D．Its focus shifted from fiction to conversations. |
| A．Technology. | B．The population. |
| C．City development. | D．The environment. |
| A．Explanation. | B．Silence. | C．Exchange. | D．Emphasis. |
7 . Walking in the city is very different from walking in the park. A small psychology study suggests urban(城市的) environments can slow your step and possibly increase your mental load. A walk through nature, on the other hand, appears to ease your mind and quicken your pace. The findings show that natural settings may potentially reduce cognitive (认知的)tiredness and improve reaction times straight away. The study, which includes two experiments with two different approaches, was conducted among 65 university students in the lab.
The first of the two experiments in the new study focused on people’s way of walking and cognitive load. During this trial, participants were fitted with sensors and a dozen motion control cameras were set up to watch them repeatedly walk down a 15-metre room at their natural speed. The wall opposite them showed an image of either a nature scene or a city scene. After each walk, participants were asked to rate their feelings of discomfort in the visual environment. On the whole, when walking in city settings, people reported more discomfort and they walked at a slower pace, indicating a higher cognitive load.
The second experiment dug into some of the higher-level cognitive processes that might be at play. In the trial, participants were asked to distinguish between basic visual shapes on the computer while also in the presence of a natural or urban image(the same ones from the first experiment). Measuring reaction times in both natural and urban settings, the team found results to support their idea. In urban environments, participants were slower in distinguishing between simple shapes. The authors think this is because urban environments are more distracting(令人分心的) for our brains and take longer to process, but more research is needed to prove that idea.
1. How were the experiments conducted mainly?| A．By comparing. | B．By giving data. |
| C．By giving examples. | D．By explaining facts. |
| A．It can make us feel relaxed and react quickly. | B．It can activate our thinking and speed up our step. |
| C．It can make us less tired and improve our memory. | D．It can make us become more focused and creative. |
| A．They had a lower cognitive load. | B．They had to slow down their pace. |
| C．They couldn’t concentrate properly. | D．They felt uncomfortable after walking. |
| A．Urban environment makes us more concentrated. | B．People’s feelings are decided by their pace of walking. |
| C．The result of the experiments is widely appreciated. | D．People tend to get tired more easily walking in the city. |
In a heartwarming event that has touched the nation, a police officer in Warren, Michigan, was considered as a true hero by saving the life of an 18-month-old boy who had suddenly stopped breathing. This event happened on the evening of August 29 and has since touched the hearts of many.
Officer Brandan Fraser was on duty, focusing on speed and absent-minded driving, when he noticed a car speeding past him. What in the beginning seemed like a common traffic violation (违规) rapidly turned into a life-and-death crisis.
As Fraser came up to the car, he was met with a sad cry from a woman, who screamed, “We got a baby in here dying. Help! Help!” Both the woman and the man in the car were frightened as they handed over the baby boy, who appeared to be lifeless, not breathing and turning blue.
Rather than giving in to the pressure of the moment, Fraser immediately sprang into action. He examined the baby and doubted that he might be choking (窒息). Fraser quickly positioned the baby on his forearm and performed a series of back blows to force any obstruction (阻塞物) from the baby’s airway out.
However, the baby still showed no signs of breathing. Fraser’s heart raced, but his training kicked in here. After making sure the baby’s airway was clear, he then continued to perform CPR on the baby. His hands pressed the baby’s tiny chest and at the same time, he blew some air into the baby’s mouth to help make his heart beat again. Fraser continued these life-saving efforts tirelessly, knowing that every second counted.
Surprisingly, the baby began to breathe once more. Fraser described the moment, saying, “The baby started breathing, and you saw that color started coming back around his lips. You realized that something happened here, and we were heading in the right direction.”
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。
After a while, the baby gave out a cry, a sign that life was returning.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Then the baby was quickly transported to a nearby hospital.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 . We, modern humans, spend 90% of our time inside, traveling between homes and offices, schools and apartments, restaurants and gyms. I’ve been hearing this statistic so much that I started to wonder if it was an urban legend. It’s not! The best reference for the statistic appears to be The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS).
The survey was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “EPA’s main purpose for collecting the NHAPS data was to provide diary records that could be used as inputs for computer-based human exposure models,” says the study. In other words, in order to understand how humans might be impacted by pollutants in our various indoor and outdoor environments, scientists needed to know how much time we spend in different locations.
The survey was conducted by the University of Maryland’s Survey Research Center. The survey used telephone interviews to collect 24-hour retrospective (回顾的) diaries from each respondent (调查对象). Between 340 and 1,713 respondents were interviewed in each of the ten EPA regions across the 48 neighboring states. Respondents were generally representative of the whole nation for gender, age, race, and educational attainment.
Americans spend 87% of their time indoors and an additional 6% in an enclosed vehicle. These proportions (比例) are also fairly constant across various regions of the United States and Canada. The finding that emerges is that we are basically an indoor species. In a modern society, total time outdoors is the most negligible part of the day, often so small that it barely shows up in the total.
Is the study accurate? Probably not. It may not take into account some populations that spend a high proportion of time outside. As the study states, “Those who were away from a home for extended periods were not included in the survey. These individuals may be more likely than those who were at home to spend large quantities of time outdoors.” Also, the survey methodology also doesn’t account well for bits of time spent taking out the trash, walking to the car, or taking a smoke break outside.
1. What can we learn about modern humans according to NHAPS?| A．They’re an indoor species. | B．They’re an urban legend. |
| C．They enjoy a leisurely life. | D．They like living in modern cities. |
| A．Humans’ different living habits. | B．Humans’ way of keeping a diary. |
| C．Humans’ time spent in various locations. | D．Humans’ attitude towards the researchers. |
| A．Fixed. | B．Noticeable. | C．Rewarding. | D．Insignificant. |
| A．A suggestion for further studies. | B．A possible reason for the finding. |
| C．An explanation of the research method. | D．A major limitation of the study. |
10 . A new study, led by the University of Massachusetts Amherst, reveals that the wealthiest Americans, those whose income places them in the top 10% of earners, are responsible for 40% of the nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions (排放).
More than that, they also discovered that the top 1% of earners alone generate 15-17% of the nation’s emissions. In general, white, non-Spanish-speaking households had the highest emission-linked income and black households the lowest. Emissions tended to increase with age, peaking with the 45-54 age group, before declining.
Scientists and environmentalists have long known that consumption—the amount and kind of food we eat, the vehicles we drive and all the stuff we buy—is closely linked to greenhouse gas emission. Traditional environmental policy has then sought to either limit consumption or guide it into more environmentally friendly approaches; replacing red meat with plant-based diets or replacing a gas-car with an electric vehicle.
“But,” says Jared Starr, a sustainability scientist at UMass Amherst and the lead author of the new study, “consumption-based approaches to limiting greenhouse gas emissions have downsides. They unfairly punish the poor while having little impact on the extremely wealthy, who tend to save and invest (投资) a large share of their income.”
“Consumption-based approaches miss something important: carbon pollution generates income, but when that income is reinvested into stocks (股票), rather than spent on necessities, it isn’t subject to a consumption-based carbon tax,” Jared continued.
The study is the first to link income, especially income from financial investments, to the emissions used in generating that income. The authors suggest that policymakers adopt taxes focused on shareholders and the carbon intensity of investment incomes in order to justly meet the goal of keeping the global temperature to 1.5℃ of warming.
1. Which of the following generates the most emissions?| A．An English-speaking black teenager. |
| B．A 48-year-old Spanish-speaking white worker. |
| C．A 49-year-old Spanish-speaking billionaire. |
| D．A 50-year-old English-speaking billionaire. |
| A．By controlling. | B．By punishing. | C．By preventing. | D．By recycling. |
| A．Unconcerned. | B．Critical. | C．Favourable. | D．Uncertain. |
| A．A book review. | B．A science fiction. | C．A science journal. | D．A travel guide. |
