增加：在缺词处加一个漏字符号(^)，并在其下面写出该加的词。
删除：把多余的词用斜线(\)划掉。
修改：在错的词下划一横线，并在该词下面写出修改后的词。
注意：1．每处错误及其修改均仅限一词;
2．只允许修改10处，多者(从第11处起)不计分。
We all know that cycling is a greatly exercise. A doctor tells me people who lives the longest are dancers and cyclists. Maybe it is because the combination of fresh air, smooth movement and exercise. Whether you ride a bicycle, you don’t use petrol. So they are not producing carbon dioxide and not cause air pollution. Just see how cars have been taken over our cities. They often run at high speeds, what may put our lives in danger. And there were traffic jams, too. Our cities will be better places if we replace cars with bicycle.
2 . When almost everyone has a mobile phone, why are more than half of Australian homes still paying for a landline (座机)?
These days you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in Australia over the age of 15 who doesn’t own a mobile phone. In fact plenty of younger kids have one in their pocket. Practically everyone can make and receive calls anywhere, anytime.
Still, 55 percent of Australians have a landline phone at home and only just over a quarter (29%) rely only on their smartphones according to a survey (调查). Of those Australians who still have a landline, a third concede that it’s not really necessary and they’re keeping it as a security blanket — 19 percent say they never use it while a further 13 percent keep it in case of emergencies. I think my home falls into that category.
More than half of Australian homes are still choosing to stick with their home phone. Age is naturally a factor (因素)— only 58 percent of Generation Ys still use landlines now and then, compared to 84 percent of Baby Boomers who’ve perhaps had the same home number for 50 years. Age isn’t the only factor; I’d say it’s also to do with the makeup of your household.
Generation Xers with young families, like my wife and I, can still find it convenient to have a home phone rather than providing a mobile phone for every family member. That said, to be honest the only people who ever ring our home phone are our Baby Boomers parents, to the point where we play a game and guess who is calling before we pick up the phone (using Caller ID would take the fun out of it).
How attached are you to your landline? How long until they go the way of gas street lamps and morning milk deliveries?
1. What does paragraph 2 mainly tell us about mobile phones?| A．Their target users. | B．Their wide popularity. |
| C．Their major functions. | D．Their complex design. |
| A．Admit. | B．Argue. |
| C．Remember. | D．Remark. |
| A．They like smartphone games. | B．They enjoy guessing callers’ identity. |
| C．They keep using landline phones. | D．They are attached to their family. |
| A．It remains a family necessity. |
| B．It will fall out of use some day. |
| C．It may increase daily expenses. |
| D．It is as important as the gas light. |
3 . Who is a genius? This question has greatly interested humankind for centuries.
Let’s state clearly: Einstein was a genius. His face is almost the international symbol for genius. But we want to go beyond one man and explore the nature of genius itself. Why is it that some people are so much more intelligent or creative than the rest of us? And who are they?
In the sciences and arts, those praised as geniuses were most often white men, of European origin. Perhaps this is not a surprise. It’s said that history is written by the victors, and those victors set the standards for admission to the genius club. When contributions were made by geniuses outside the club—women, or people of a different color or belief—they were unacknowledged and rejected by others.
A study recently published by Science found that as young as age six, girls are less likely than boys to say that members of their gender(性别)are “really, really smart.” Even worse, the study found that girls act on that belief: Around age six they start to avoid activities said to be for children who are “really, really smart.” Can our planet afford to have any great thinkers become discouraged and give up? It doesn’t take a genius to know the answer: absolutely not.
Here’s the good news. In a wired world with constant global communication, we’re all positioned to see flashes of genius wherever they appear. And the more we look, the more we will see that social factors(因素)like gender, race, and class do not determine the appearance of genius. As a writer says, future geniuses come from those with “intelligence, creativity, perseverance(毅力), and simple good fortune, who are able to change the world.”
1. What does the author think of victors’ standards for joining the genius club?| A．They’re unfair. | B．They’re conservative. |
| C．They’re objective. | D．They’re strict. |
| A．They think themselves smart. |
| B．They look up to great thinkers. |
| C．They see gender differences earlier than boys. |
| D．They are likely to be influenced by social beliefs |
| A．Improved global communication. |
| B．Less discrimination against women. |
| C．Acceptance of victors’ concepts. |
| D．Changes in people’s social positions. |
| A．Geniuses Think Alike | B．Genius Takes Many Forms |
| C．Genius and Intelligence | D．Genius and Luck |
4 . We all know that unpleasant feeling when we’re talking about something interesting and halfway through our sentence we’re interrupted. But was that really an interruption? The answer depends on whom you ask, according to new research led by Katherine Hilton from Stanford University.
Using a set of controlled audio clips (录音片段), Hilton surveyed 5, 000 American English speakers to better understand what affects people’s perceptions of interruptions. She had participants listen to audio clips and then answer questions about whether the speakers seemed to be friendly and engaged, listening to one another, or trying to interrupt.
Hilton found that American English speakers have different conversational styles. She identified two distinct groups: high and low intensity speakers. High intensity speakers are generally uncomfortable with moments of silence in conversation and consider talking at the same time a sign of engagement. Low intensity speakers find it rude to talk at the same time and prefer people speak one after another in conversation.
The differences in conversational styles became evident when participants listened to audio clips in which two people spoke at the same time but were agreeing with each other and stayed on topic, Hilton said. The high intensity group reported that conversations where people spoke at the same time when expressing agreement were not interruptive but engaged and friendlier than the conversations with moments of silence in between speaking turns. In contrast, the low intensity group perceived any amount of simultaneous (同时) chat as a rude interruption, regardless of what the speakers were saying.
“People care about being interrupted, and those small interruptions can have a massive effect on the overall communication,” Hilton said. “Breaking apart what an interruption means is essential if we want to understand how humans interact with each other.”
1. What does Hilton’s research focus on?| A．What interruptions mean to people. |
| B．Whether interruption is good or not. |
| C．How to avoid getting interrupted. |
| D．Why speakers interrupt each other. |
| A．Record an audio clip. | B．Answer some questions. |
| C．Listen to one another. | D．Have a chat with a friend. |
| A．It’s important. | B．It’s interesting. |
| C．It’s inefficient. | D．It’s impolite. |
| A．Human interaction is complex. |
| B．Communication is the basis of life. |
| C．Interruptions promote thinking. |
| D．Language barriers will always exist. |
I’ve always known that I’m very quick with my hands. If someone throws something, I catch it almost before I’m aware it has been thrown. When I was young, I had no idea how useful this skill would become.
Last week, I was going to visit a friend with her newborn and was on my way to a toy store to buy a gift. I’d once lived in the neighbourhood and I decided to head back to my old cupcake shop for a coffee. Sitting alone at a table outside with my drink, I was approached by an older man, who in a calm and very matter-of-fact way told me to call 911, because there was a baby on a fire escape.
I jumped up to see where the baby was. I was so surprised to see it, wearing a little onesie (连体衣) and lying on the fire escape railings (栏杆) between the second and third storeys. I was nervous, so the baby boy became my only priority.
As I was on the phone to the emergency services, I made eye contact with the child, keeping him calm, telling him to stay there. Some people were going up the stairs to find the parents, who were apparently sleeping through the whole drama.
I just wanted the child to feel safe. I hoped he’d stay there until somebody could rescue him. Apparently he had slipped through pieces of cardboard placed next to an air-conditioning unit in the window, and without bars to protect him he’d crawled (爬) out and up the fire escape towards the next storey. He was only 16 months old. For him to even climb up and balance in that position was incredible.
Then he slipped. Instinctively (本能), he grabbed on the railing as he fell, hanging by his arms. I knew he couldn’t hold on, 25 feet above the street, for long. I sensed people had gathered behind, but my attention was purely focused on my intention to catch the baby.
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。
I made sure I was positioned to catch him.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The moments after he was saved were exciting.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________6 . Science reporting on climate change does lead Americans to adopt more accurate beliefs and support government action on the issue, but these gains are fragile, a new study suggests. Researchers found that these accurate beliefs fade quickly when people are exposed to coverage skeptical of climate change.
“It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically informed reporting when they are exposed to it,” said Thomas Wood, associate professor of political science at the Ohio State University. “But even truly accurate science reporting recedes from people’s frame of reference very quickly.”
Results showed that accurate science reporting didn’t persuade only politicians and people who initially rejected human-caused climate change also had their opinions shifted by reading accurate articles. The study involved 2,898 online participants who participated in four waves of the experiment during the fall of 2020.
In the first wave, they all read authentic articles in the popular media that provided information reflecting the seientifie views on climate change. In the second and third waves, they read either another scientific article, an opinion article that was skeptical of climate science, or an article on an unrelated subjeet. In the fourth wave, the participants simply were asked their beliefs about the science of climate change and their policy attitudes.
To rate participants’ scientific understanding. the researchers asked after each wave if they believed that climate change is happening and has a human cause. To measure their attitudes, researchers asked participants if they favored government action on climate change and if they favored renewable energy.
“What we found suggests that people need to hear the same accurate messages about climate change again and again. If they only hear it once, it recedes very quickly,” Wood said. It was significant that accurate reporting had positive effects on all groups, including those who originally rejected climate change. But it was even more encouraging that it affected attitudes.
1. What does the underlined word “recedes” in paragraph 2 mean?| A．Increases. | B．Graduates. | C．Disappears. | D．Strikes. |
| A．The research object. | B．The research result. |
| C．The research purpose. | D．The research procedure. |
| A．To survey the government’s satisfaction rate. |
| B．To make an assessment on their attitudes. |
| C．To teach them scientific understanding. |
| D．To measure action on climate change. |
| A．Science Report Of Climate Change Can Affect Minds |
| B．Online Participants Joined In A Four-Wave Experiment |
| C．Accurate Science Reporting Don’t Persuade Only Politicians |
| D．People Should Hear Accurate Messages About Climate Change |
7 . It’s commonly acknowledged that our lives are ruled by algorithms (算法), but have we really collectively understood how they have transformed our culture and personality?
In Filterworld: How algorithms flattened culture, Kyle Chayka argues convincingly that the rise of algorithm-driven feeds, used everywhere online from Instagram to Spotify, has led to a more uniform culture. Our tastes and desires increasingly don’t belong to us, but to algorithms that are designed to keep people engaged at all costs. If the collection of our tastes truly shapes our entire personality, then this loss is more psychologically damaging than it first appears. Aimlessly scrolling (滚屏) through Netflix or TikTok may seem harmless, but over days, months or years, we lose touch with what we like and enjoy.
Taste-making algorithms are inescapable. Chayka shows this by working through all corners of life: what we wear(TikTok), where we eat(Google Maps), music we listen to(Spotify), even who we date or marry(Tinder). This universe of algorithm-driven decisions has society-wide implications: “It extends to influence our physical spaces, our cities, and the routes we move through…flattening them in turn.” No one gets out of the Filterworld untouched.
If you’re lucky enough not to need any sort of algorithm-based system for your work, then you have the option to step back from algorithms for a while. But if your friend suggests a film recommended on X/Twitter or you feel the need to buy those shoes suddenly everyone has started wearing after social media advertisements, what are you to do? It all feels fruitless.
This Filterworld may be inescapable, but there is hope. You can start by engaging more with the media you do choose to consume. This could mean reading up about a film you watched or paying artists you like directly. Even the thoughtful act of recommending an album (专辑) to a friend is more rewarding than a random TikTok feed. As Chayka says, resistance to algorithms “requires an act of willpower, a choice to move through the world in a different way.”
1. What is Kyle Chayka’s opinion on algorithms?| A．They improve our tastes. | B．They make our culture more alike. |
| C．They help to identify our personality. | D．They contribute to psychological problems. |
| A．The society with advanced technology. | B．The world without social media platforms. |
| C．The network of algorithm-driven decisions. | D．The community free from algorithmic influence. |
| A．Limiting the use of social media platforms. | B．Making choices based on friends’ suggestions. |
| C．Getting more involved with the selected media. | D．Disconnecting from social media advertisements. |
| A．Algorithms: Cultural Takeover | B．The Secret of Algorithms |
| C．Social Media: Cultural Messenger | D．The Rise of Digital Platforms |
8 . Genetic testing companies have a long history of creative attempts to reach the mainstream. An early example was the sequencing of rock star Ozzy Osbourne’s genes in 2010, with accompanying guess about how they might have influenced his drug habits.
Lately, such projects have taken on a new, highly commercialized tendency. In 2017, we got the “Marmite (马麦酱) gene project,” run by London-based genetic testing start-up DNAfit. It claims to show that love or hate for Marmite was in our genes. The project turned into a full-blown marketing campaign, and even sold Marmite-branded DNA testing tools.
DNAfit is now working with Mercedes-Benz to find out whether specific genetic traits are associated with business wisdom. AncestryDNA, the world’s largest consumer genetic testing company, last year teamed up with Spotify to promote “music tailored to your DNA.” Just a few weeks ago, 23andMe, the second largest, announced a partnership with Airbnb to provide genetically tailored travel experiences, also inspired by ancestral DNA.
I have skin in this game. I run a genetic-testing start-up that connects people who want their genome sequenced with researchers who want data to improve their understanding of genetic disease. I believe that broadening access to DNA testing can be a powerful force for good, providing safer, more effective medicines and giving people more power over their healthcare. But these campaigns risk discrediting the industry, by giving a misleading impression of what genetics can and can't say and its role in determining behaviours and personal preferences.
Take the Marmite study. It covered 261 people — tiny, by the standards of the field. It was published not in a journal, but online on bioRxiv, a server where scientists typically put results before peer-review. Shortly after, researchers looked at the genetic data of more than 500 times as many people in the UK Biobank and found no such correlation. A large peer-reviewed study in 2013 found no significant link between genes and business common sense.
We need to inform the public about what this is all about: that is, the gathering of large amounts of genetic data. We need better regulation to ensure that consumers are clear that this may happen with this sensitive personal information. A checkbox on a 20-page web document full of legal terms should not be enough.
Scientists too, need to start asking hard questions about whether the information they are using has been sourced ethically. DNA testing has a great future, but we can't build this future with data acquired by any means.
1. The author mentions DNAfit, AncestryDNA and 23andMe in order to __________.| A．highlight the problems facing genetic testing |
| B．illustrate the commercial applications of DNA |
| C．compare what progress the companies have made |
| D．reveal the link between DNA and a person's character |
| A．is challenging the available treatment for skin disease |
| B．has a personal investment in the genetic-testing business |
| C．hopes to remove people's misunderstanding of the game rules |
| D．believes that every individual should have access to DNA testing |
| A．The disadvantages of genetic testing. | B．The scientific value of genetic testing. |
| C．The legal system genetic testing needs. | D．The essentials for proper genetic testing. |
| A．DNA Is Anything but a Marketing Tool | B．Genetic Testing Campaigns Aren't Legal |
| C．Creative Marketing Is Key to Genetic Testing | D．DNA Testing Has Become a Booming Industry |
9 . Want to know what is coming soon to a cinema near you? Probably not a 1.5-hour-long movie, as in the old days. On October 20th comes Killers of the Flower Moon. At nearly three and a half hours, its length is nearly double that of the average film last year. Even movie fans struggle to concentrate for that long and some viewers even nod off. Afterwards there is a mad dash for the toilets. When does watching a film become such a slog?
The Economist analyzed over 100,000 feature films released internationally since the 1930s, the start of Hollywood’s golden age, using data from IMDb, a movie database. The average length of productions rose by around 24%, from one hour and 21 minutes in the 1930s to one hour and 47 minutes in 2022. For the ten most-popular titles, the average length grew to around two and a half hours in 2022, nearly 50% higher than in the 1930s.
One driver of this trend is that studios want to squeeze the most out of their costly intellectual property (知识产权), but they are competing with streaming platforms for eyeballs. The hope is that a spectacular, drawn-out “event” movie will draw audiences away from the small screen and into cinemas. This approach has often paid off: Avengers: Endgame Marvel’s three-hour superhero masterpieces, was the highest-grossing (票房最高的) film in 2019. Last year long movies series made up most of the highest-grossing films in America.
Another explanation for longer films has to do with directors’ growing influence. Who would dare tell the likes of Mr. Nolan to cut out his masterpieces? Moreover, streaming platforms, which do not have to worry as much about the length because viewers can pause whenever they like, may attract big names by promising them sufficient fund and creative freedom. Netflix funded and released three-hour The Irishman in 2019, a film that would have benefited from a decisive editor, Irish or otherwise.
1. The underlined part “a slog” in paragraph 1 refers to a(n)___.| A．pleasure | B．effort | C．conflict | D．feast |
| A．The average length affects the popularity of films. |
| B．Great advances have been made in film industry. |
| C．Hollywood starts a golden age of feature films. |
| D．The average duration of movies has stretched. |
| A．Competition for the target audience. | B．Thirst for more classic productions. |
| C．Influence of streaming platforms. | D．Preference for decisive editors. |
| A．Movie Enthusiasts | B．Movie Marathons |
| C．Movie Production | D．Movie Influence |
10 . Ariel Procaccia has thought a lot about how to cut a cake over the last 15 years. As the father of three children, he knows how hard it is to divide a birthday cake to everyone’s satisfaction. But it’s also because Procaccia’s work focuses on exploring the mathematical rules for dividing stuff up fairly. One way to do that is to think abstractly about dessert.
For decades, researchers have been asking the seemingly simple question of how to cut a cake fairly. The answer reaches far beyond birthday parties. A mathematical problem at its heart, cake cutting connects strict reasoning to real-world issues of fairness, and so attracts not only mathematicians, but also social scientists, economists and more. “It’s a very elegant model in which you can distill what fairness really is, and reason about it,” Procaccia says.
The simplest approach is called the “divider-chooser” method, where one person cuts the cake into two equal pieces in his view, and the other person picks first. Each receives a piece that they feel is as valuable as the other’s. But when personal preferences are taken into account, even the easiest rule becomes complicated. Suppose Alice and Bob are to divide a cake, and Alice knows Bob prefers chocolate, she may knowingly divide the cake unequally so the smaller piece contains more chocolate. Then Bob will choose according to his preference, and Alice will get the larger piece. Both of them are satisfied with what they get, but the meaning of fairness changes in this situation.
The cake is a symbol for any divisible good. When cake-cutting principles are employed to settle disagreements, they are potentially helping the world find solutions. Procaccia has used fair division algorithms (算法) to model food distribution. Social scientist Haris Aziz is exploring situations ranging from how to divide up daily tasks to how to best schedule doctors’ shifts in hospitals.
Even after decades of investigation, cake cutting isn’t like a simple jigsaw puzzle (拼图) with a well-defined solution. Instead, over time, it has evolved into a kind of mathematical sandbox, a constructive playground that brings together abstract proofs and easy applications. The more researchers explore it, the more there is to explore.
1. What does the underlined word “distill” in paragraph 2 mean?| A．Get the essence of. | B．Find the opposite of. |
| C．Keep the focus on. | D．Reduce the impact on. |
| A．Its standard is stable. | B．It prevents unequal division. |
| C．Its concept is complex. | D．It dominates personal preferences. |
| A．The application of its rules. | B．The details of its process. |
| C．The problems it produces. | D．The harmony it symbolizes. |
| A．Who benefits most from fairness? |
| B．How has fairness changed over time? |
| C．What method works best in cake-cutting? |
| D．Why are researchers so interested in cake-cutting? |
