1 . In our information-driven society, shaping our worldview through the media is similar to forming an opinion about someone solely based on a picture of their foot. While the media might not deliberately deceive us, it often fails to provide a comprehensive view of reality.
Consequently, the question arises: Where, then, shall we get our information from if not from the media? Who can we trust? How about experts- people who devote their working lives to understanding their chosen slice of the world? However, even experts can fall prey to the allure of oversimplification, leading to the “single perspective instinct” that hampers (阻碍) our ability to grasp the intricacies (错综复杂) of the world.
Simple ideas can be appealing because they offer a sense of understanding and certainty. And it is easy to take off down a slippery slope, from one attention-grabbing simple idea to a feeling that this idea beautifully explains, or is the beautiful solution for, lots of other things. The world becomes simple that way.
Yet, when we embrace a singular cause or solution for all problems, we risk oversimplifying complex issues. For instance, championing the concept of equality may lead us to view all problems through the lens of inequality and see resource distribution as the sole panacea. However, such rigidity prevents us from seeing the multidimensional nature of challenges and hinders true comprehension of reality. This “single perspective instinct” ultimately clouds our judgment and restricts our capacity to tackle complex issues effectively. Being always in favor of or always against any particular idea makes you blind to information that doesn’t fit your perspective. This is usually a bad approach if you would like to understand reality.
Instead, constantly test your favorite ideas for weaknesses. Be humble about the extent of your expertise. Be curious about new information that doesn’t fit, and information from other fields. And rather than talking only to people who agree with you, or collecting examples that fit your ideas, consult people who contradict you, disagree with you, and put forward different ideas as a great resource for understanding the world. If this means you don’t have time to form so may opinions, so what?
Wouldn’t you rather have few opinions that are right than many that are wrong?
1. What does the underlined word “allure” in Para.2 probably mean?A.Temptation. | B.Tradition. | C.Convenience. | D.Consequence. |
A.They meet people’s demand for high efficiency. |
B.They generate a sense of complete understanding. |
C.They are raised and supported by multiple experts. |
D.They reflect the opinions of like-minded individuals. |
A.Simplifying matters releases energy for human brains. |
B.Constant tests on our ideas help make up for our weakness. |
C.A well-founded opinion counts more than many shallow ones. |
D.People who disagree with us often have comprehensive views. |
A.Embracing Disagreement: Refusing Overcomplexity |
B.Simplifying Information: Enhancing Comprehension |
C.Understanding Differences: Establishing Relationships |
D.Navigating Complexity: Challenging Oversimplification |
内容包括:
1. 遵守交通法规的重要性;
2. 遵守交通法规的做法及倡议。
注意:
1. 词数80左右;
2. 短文的题目和首句已给出,不计入词数。
Traffic Safety, Our Responsibility
Recently, many teenagers have got injured or even killed in traffic accidents.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3 . In the 19th century, three pioneering women struggled to find their place in a male-controlled field. Elizabeth Blackwell, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and Sophia Jex-Blake—among the first female doctors—are the heroines of Olivia Campbell’s new book. The story is lively and interesting, and the main characters are full of personality and individualism. Jex-Blake is described as “big and confident, a determined educational reformer with large eyes and an even lager personality”. Garrett Anderson, referred to as “Lizzie” throughout, was equally determined but also educated, and polite. The result is a great read for anyone looking for an introduction to the history of medical women.
The biographies of the three women are woven into a bigger, grander story about medicine in the 19th century and it is slow and unwilling acceptance of female physicians (医师). Though British, Blackwell attended medical school in the US. “Lizzie” was admitted to the medical school only via a loophole (漏洞) in the admissions policy. And Jex-Blake’s attempt to sit a medical exam in Edinburgh was met with a storm of protest.
Unsurprisingly, the three heroines faced many difficulties, but their efforts finally proved successful. Women in White Coats is, therefore, a successful tale of social progress. The final concluding chapter paints a sunny picture of present-day equality within the medical profession. However, in its efforts to tell an inspiring story, the book glosses over continuing problems within the profession today. Though more women than men now graduate from medical school, they face struggles with career progression and sexism.
We need more books that don’t offer a “great white men” approach to history. However, they have to deal with the incomplete and uneven nature of progress. Inspiring as it is to read stories of heroines trying hard and succeeding against the odds, that isn’t the whole picture. Medicine might be better for women now than in the past, but the problems of the Victorian era continue to exist and we still have far to go.
1. Who might particularly enjoy reading Women in white Coats?A.People favoring science fiction novels. |
B.Researchers studying great white men in history. |
C.Those interested in female pioneers in medicine. |
D.Students curious about the development of medicine. |
A.To praise their strong personality. |
B.To state the success of women in medicine. |
C.To prove their determination and confidence. |
D.To show the challenges faced by female physicians. |
A.Solves. | B.Ignores. | C.Stresses. | D.Defends. |
A.Gender equality has been achieved in medicine. |
B.The problems faced by women are a thing of the past. |
C.History books should inspire people with women’s success. |
D.History books should cover the successes and struggles of women. |
4 . Preamble of《China: Democracy that works》
Published by the State Council on December 4, 2021
Democracy is a common value of humanity and an ideal that has always been cherished by the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people.
This year marks the centenary of the CPC. Since its founding in 1921, the Party has taken wellbeing for the Chinese people and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as its abiding goals, and has made continuous efforts to ensure the people’s status as masters of the country. China is a country with a feudal (封建的) history dating back several thousand years that descended into a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society after the Opium War of 1840. Over the past hundred years, the Party has led the people in realizing people’s democracy in China. The Chinese people now truly hold in their hands their own future and that of society and the country.
The people’s status as masters of the country is the essence of people’s democracy. Since the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, with a deeper understanding of China’s path to democracy and the political system, the Party has developed whole-process people’s democracy as a key concept and striven to translate it and relevant democratic values into effective institutions and concrete actions.
Whole-process people’s democracy integrates process-oriented democracy with results-oriented democracy, procedural democracy with substantive (本质上的) democracy, direct democracy with indirect democracy, and people’s democracy with the will of the state. It is a model of socialist democracy that covers all aspects of the democratic process and all sectors of society. It is a true democracy that works.
Democracy is a concrete phenomenon that is constantly evolving. Rooted in history, culture and tradition, it takes diverse forms and develops along the paths chosen by different peoples based on their exploration and innovation.
The best way to evaluate whether a country’s political system is democratic and efficient is to observe whether the succession of its leaders is orderly and in line with the law, whether all the people can manage state and social affairs and economic and cultural undertakings in conformity with legal provisions, whether the public can express their requirements without hindrance, whether all sectors can efficiently participate in the country’s political affairs, whether national decision-making can be conducted in a rational and democratic way, whether people of high caliber in all fields can be part of the national leadership and administrative systems through fair competition, whether the governing party is in charge of state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and whether the exercise of power can be kept under effective restraint and supervision.
Democracy is not a decorative ornament, but an instrument for addressing the issues that concern the people. Whether a country is democratic depends on whether its people are truly the masters of the country; whether the people have the right to vote, and more importantly, the right to participate extensively; whether they have been given verbal promises in elections, and more importantly, how many of these promises are fulfilled after elections; whether there are set political procedures and rules in state systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly enforced; whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and more importantly, whether the exercise of power is genuinely subject to public scrutiny and checks.
Democracy is the right of the people in every country, rather than the prerogative of a few nations. Whether a country is democratic should be judged by its people, not dictated by a handful of outsiders. Whether a country is democratic should be acknowledged by the international community, not arbitrarily decided by a few self-appointed judges. There is no fixed model of democracy; it manifests itself in many forms. Assessing the myriad political systems in the world against a single yardstick and examining diverse political structures in monochrome are in themselves undemocratic.
In the richly diverse world, democracy comes in many forms. China’s democracy is thriving alongside those of other countries in the garden of civilizations. China stands ready to contribute its experience and strength to global political progress through cooperation and mutual learning.
1. Which of the following is the foundation of people’s democracy in China?A.Fighting against the feudal power which held the nation backwards. |
B.Striving to translate Whole-process democracy and relevant democratic values into effective institutions and concrete actions. |
C.Asserting their power to rule the country effectively. |
D.Ensuring that the public can express their requirements without hindrance and all sectors can efficiently participate in the country’s political affairs. |
A.Its democracy being rooted in history, culture and tradition as well as taking diverse forms based on exploration and innovation. |
B.Even a little bit of shade from the feudal history has been swept away while continuously revoluting its democracy for the better. |
C.Teenagers willing to take an active part in political activities such as the Simulated CPPCC. |
D.People are able to exercise their rights within the scope of the law unhinderedly (不受阻地). |
A.Observing whether the succession of its leaders is orderly and in line with the law. |
B.Raising our status as masters of the country with concrete actions. |
C.Always innovating for a better future, not only for ourselves but also for our democracy. |
D.Persisting in the Party’s strong leadership. |
A.A full and accurate foreword introducing existing circumstances of democracy. |
B.An informative official document giving people knowledge on democracy in China. |
C.An introduction of how democracy works in China. |
D.Telling people what are thus how to distinguish various kinds of democracy. |
1. 你的发现;
2. 你的倡议。
注意:
1. 词数80左右;
2. 可以适当增加细节,以使行文连贯。
Dear fellow students,
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Student Union
August 8, 2022
6 . Wholesale prices for gas and electricity are increasing suddenly across Europe,raising the possibility of increases in already-high utility (公共事业)bills and further pain for people who have taken a financial hit fromCOVID-19.
Governments are struggling to find ways to limit costs to consumers as scant natural gas reserves present yet another potential problem, exposing the continent to even more price increases and possible shortages if it’s a cold winter.
In the U.K., many people will see their gas and electricity bills rise next month after the nation’s energy regulator approved a 12% price increase for those without contracts that lock in rates. Officials in Italy have warned that prices will increase by 40% for the quarter that will be billed in October.
There are multiple causes for the price increases, energy analysts say, including tight supplies of natural gas used to generate electricity, higher costs for permits to release carbon dioxide as part of Europe’s fight against climate change, and less supply from wind in some cases.
Analysts at S&P Global Platts say electricity prices have risen due to strong demand from places like data centers and electric cars, but above all because of the rise in the price of natural gas used in generating plants. Utility companies’ exposure to natural gas prices has increased as high-emission coal plants have been retired, while utilities face higher costs for carbon allowances required by the European Union’s emissions trading system, which is aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
The tight gas market could bite even more sharply if there’s an unusually cold winter. That’s because European distributors did not refill reserves reduced during last winter as they typically had done in summer months. In March 2008, when the freeze named “the beast from the east” hit Europe, industrial users in the U.K got a notice that there was a risk of interruption, although it didn’t come to that.
Could Europe run out of gas? “The short answer is Yes, this is a real risk,” said James Huckstepp, an analyst at S&P Global Platts. “Storage stocks are at record lows and there isn’t currently any spare supply capacity that is exportable anywhere in the world.The longer answer is that it’s hard to predict how it will play out given that Europe has never run out of gas in two decades under the current distribution system.”
1. What does the underlined word “scant” in Paragraph 2 probably mean?A.Total. | B.Additional. | C.Limited. | D.Regular. |
A.The closure of some coal plants. |
B.The great demand for electric cars. |
C.The competition between utility companies. |
D.The change in the emissions trading system. |
A.More natural gas will be needed for industrial use. |
B.European distributors don’t make good preparations. |
C.It is not easy to fill reserves during the cold weather. |
D.Utility companies work can be easily interrupted. |
A.Europe is expected to seek help from other countries. |
B.It is hard to control the gas price in Europe at present. |
C.Europe might face a serious shortage of gas in the future. |
D.There’s something wrong with Europe’s distribution system. |
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 . I was at the Gathering for Science in Boston, on 22 April 2017, as were 70.000 other scientists. We were there to stand up for facts and truth.
Where are the crowds of scientists now? Since then, harms from science denial have only increased: global suffering has grown owing to inaction on climate change, and some epidemics have risen along with vaccine skepticism.
I've been out there talking to the science deniers, and I've asked my scientist friends to come with me. “Those people just aren't worth talking to.” they'll say. “I wouldn't make a difference anyway.” What's wrong. Those people can and do change their minds, although it requires someone to put in the time to overcome distrust.
To be sure, many experts have launched themselves against misinformation, enduring abuse on social media and even threats to their safety. But when scientists turn down my invitations, it's not because of fear. Most often, their excuses are grounded in the “backfire effect”, a questionable 2010 finding that people sometimes embrace misconceptions more strongly when fared with corrective information, implying that pushing back against falsehoods is counter-productive. Even the researchers whose results were exaggerated to popularize this idea do not embrace it anymore, and argue that the true challenge is learning how best to target corrective information.
In fact, evidence is growing that rebuttals can he effective. Science deniers all draw on the same flawed reasoning techniques: cherry-picking evidence, relying on fake experts, and engaging in illogical reasoning. A landmark 2019 study showed that critiquing the flawed techniques can contain the spread of misinformation.
So how does “technique rebuttal” work in practice?
Arnaud Gagneur and his colleagues at the University of Sherbrooke conducted more than 1.000 20-minute interviews in which they listened to new parents' concerns about vaccinations and answered their questions. Those parents' children were 9% more likely to receive all the vaccines on the schedule than were those of uninterviewed parents whose babies were delivered in the same maternity ward. One mother told him: “It's the first time that I've had a discussion like this, and I feel respected, and I trust you.” It is self-evident in science communication that you cannot convince a science denier with facts alone; most science deniers don't have a lack of information, but a lack of trust.
So what should scientists do? Even non-experts can use technique rebuttal. A geologist can engage a neighbor who is vaccine hesitant. A protein biologist can coach an aunt or uncle who wants “more evidence” that climate change is real. Instead of shilling to more comfortable conversations, engage in respectful exchange. If you spend more time asking questions than offering explanations, people will be more likely to pay attention to the explanations that you do offer.
1. What can we learn from the passage?A.The Gathering for Science addressed online abuse. |
B.The silence of scientists worsens harm from science denial. |
C.Ineffective vaccines speed up the spread of some epidemics. |
D.The author's friends find it valuable to talk with science deniers. |
A.suggests caution before correcting others |
B.emphasizes the effectiveness of rebuttals |
C.results from flawed reasoning techniques |
D.enjoys wide support in the academic field |
A.the interviewed parents agreed to vaccination due to the sufficiency of the information |
B.geologists and protein biologists need to make sure the conversations are comfortable |
C.scientists are encouraged to listen carefully and ask questions during interaction |
D.scientists should teach non-experts how to conduct respectful exchanges |
A.express concerns for misinformation |
B.analyze the main cause of science denial |
C.advocate employing technique rebuttal |
D.present the problems scientists encounter |
When Ruth was sixty-eight years old, she visited her daughter Judy and teenage granddaughter Marcy in California. They headed for their cabin, moving forty miles up and down the mountains in their car,along a narrow one-lane road that wound terrifyingly close to cliffs (悬崖).
After dinner, Marcy announced the water tank was low and that she would drive the car down to the pump and get water. Ruth was nervous about her young granddaughter driving down the narrow road by herself, but Judy reminded her that Marcy had been driving vehicles up there roads for many years
“Just be careful, Marcy”, her mother warned. “They’ve had a drought up here and the road along the cliff is pretty shaky. Be sure to hug the mountain side.”
Ruth and Judy watched Marcy from the big window where they could see the road winding down the mountainside. Fifteen minutes later, Judy was still watching when suddenly she screamed,”Oh no! She went over the cliff, Momma! The car and Marcy--they went over! We have to help her!Come on!”
Judy took off running desperately. Grabbing a three-foot-long walking stick against the cabin door, Ruth ran behind her, but Judy was quickly out of sight after the first turn in the road. Breathing hard, Ruth ran on and on, trying to catch up with her daughter. It was getting harder and harder to see anything at dusk.
Suddenly she stopped, not knowing where she was.”Marcy!Judy!”she shouted.
A faint voice .”Momma!”It was Judy.
Ruth screamed into the darkness “Judy,where are you?” Off to her right and down the cliff she heard, “Down here,Mother!Don’t come near the edge! I slipped on loose rocks and fell over. I’m down about ten feet.”
“Oh dear! Judy, what can I do?”
“Just stay back, Momma!”
Facing the situation, Ruth felt her heart was pounding, and chest pains almost took her breath away. She started to sob, totally at a loss what to do.
注意:
1. 续写词数应为150左右:
2. 请在答题卡的相应位置作答。
At that moment, Ruth glimpsed at the walking stick, an idea striking her.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ruth held her close and said anxiously. “Judy. We have to get help for Marcy!”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10 . Albert Einstein’s 1915 masterpiece “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity” is the first and still the best introduction to the subject, and I recommend it as such to students. But it probably wouldn’t be publishable in a scientific journal today.
Why not? After all, it would pass with flying colours the tests of correctness and significance. And while popular belief holds that the paper was incomprehensible to its first readers, in fact many papers in theoretical physics are much more difficult.
As the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “There was a time when the newspapers said that only 12 men understood the theory of relativity. I do believe there might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than 12.”
No, the problem is its style. It starts with a leisurely philosophical discussion of space and time and then continues with an exposition of known mathematics. Those two sections, which would be considered extraneous today, take up half the paper. Worse, there are zero citations of previous scientists’ work, nor are there any graphics. Those features might make a paper not even get past the first editors.
A similar process of professionalization has transformed other parts of the scientific landscape. Requests for research time at major observatories or national laboratories are more rigidly structured. And anything involving work with human subjects, or putting instruments in space, involves piles of paperwork.
We see it also in the Regeneron Science Talent Search, the Nobel Prize of high school science competitions. In the early decades of its 78-year history, the winning projects were usually the sort of clever but naive, amateurish efforts one might expect of talented beginners working on their own. Today, polished work coming out of internships(实习) at established laboratories is the norm.
These professionalizing tendencies are a natural consequence of the explosive growth of modern science. Standardization and system make it easier to manage the rapid flow of papers, applications and people. But there are serious downsides. A lot of unproductive effort goes into jumping through bureaucratic hoops(繁文缛节), and outsiders face entry barriers at every turn.
Of course, Einstein would have found his way to meeting modern standards and publishing his results. Its scientific core wouldn’t have changed, but the paper might not be the same taste to read.
1. According to Richard Feynman, Einstein’s 1915 paper ________.A.was a classic in theoretical physics |
B.turned out to be comprehensible |
C.needed further improvement |
D.attracted few professionals |
A.Unrealistic. | B.Irrelevant. |
C.Unattractive. | D.Imprecise. |
A.The application of research findings. |
B.The principle of scientific research. |
C.The selection of young talents. |
D.The evaluation of laboratories. |
A.What makes Einstein great? |
B.Will science be professionalized? |
C.Could Einstein get published today? |
D.How will modern science make advances? |