1 . Science has a lot of uses. It can uncover laws of nature, cure diseases, make bombs, and help bridges to stand up. Indeed science is so good at what it does that there’s always a temptation (诱惑) to drag it into problems where it may not be helpful. David Brooks, author of The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement, appears to be the latest in a long line of writers who have failed to resist the temptation.
Brooks gained fame for several books. His latest book The Social Animal, however, is more ambitious and serious than his earlier books. It is an attempt to deal with a set of weighty topics. The book focuses on big questions: What has science revealed about human nature? What are the sources of character? And why are some people happy and successful while others aren’t?
To answer these questions, Brooks surveys a wide range of disciplines (学科). Considering this, you might expect the book to be a dry recitation of facts. But Brooks has structured his book in an unorthodox (非常规的), and perhaps unfortunate, way. Instead of introducing scientific theories, he tells a story, within which he tries to make his points, perhaps in order to keep the reader’s attention.So as Harold and Erica, the hero and heroine in his story, live through childhood, we hear about the science of child development and as they begin to date we hear about the theory of sexual attraction. Brooks carries this through to the death of one of his characters.
On the whole,Brooks’ story is acceptable if uninspired. As one would expect, his writing is mostly clear and, to be fair, some chapters stand out above the rest. I enjoyed, for instance, the chapter in which Harold discovers how to think on his own. While Harold and Erica are certainly not strong or memorable characters, the more serious problems with The Social Animal lie elsewhere. These problems partly involve Brooks’ attempt to translate his tale into science.
1. The author mentions the functions of science at the beginning of the passage to__________.| A．illustrate where science can be applied |
| B．demonstrate the value of Brooks’ new book |
| C．remind the reader of the importance of science |
| D．explain why many writers use science in their works |
| A．Its strong basis. |
| B．Its convincing points. |
| C．Its clear writing. |
| D．Its memorable characters. |
| A．Contradictory. |
| B．Supportive. |
| C．Cautious. |
| D．Critical. |
| A．Problems with the book. |
| B．Brooks’s life experience. |
| C．Death of the characters. |
| D．Brooks’s translation skills. |
Its formal, serious style closely matches its content, a school-masterly book on schooling. The author, W. H. Armstrong, starts with the basics: reading and writing. In his opinion, reading doesn’t just mean recognizing each word on the page; it means taking in the information, digesting it and incorporating it into oneself just as one digests a sandwich and makes it a part of himself. The goal is to bring the information back to life, not just to treat it as dead facts on paper from dead trees. Reading and writing cannot be completely separated from each other; in fact, the aim of reading is to express the information you have got from the text. I’ve seen it again and again: some one who can’t express an idea after reading a text is just as ineffective as someone who hasn’t read it at all.
Only a third of the book remains after that discussion, which Armstrong devotes to specific tips for studying languages, math, science and history. He generally handles these topics thoroughly and equally, except for some weakness in the science and math sections and a bit too much passion (激情) regarding history to his students, that was a hundred times more than my history teachers ever got across. To my disappointment, in this part of the book he ignores the arts. As a matter of fact, they demand all the concentration and study that math and science do, though the study differs slightly in kind. Although it’s commonly believed that the arts can only be naturally acquired, actually, learning the arts is no more natural than learning French or mathematics.
My other comment is that the text aged. The first edition apparently dates to the 1960s—none of the references(参考文献) seem newer than the late 1950s. As a result, the discussion misses the entire computer age.
These are small points, though, and don’t affect the main discussion. I recommend it to any student and any teacher, including the self-taught student.
1. According to Armstrong, the goal of reading is to ________.
| A．gain knowledge and expand one’s view |
| B．understand the meaning between the lines |
| C．express ideas based on what one has read |
| D．get information and keep it alive in memory |
| A．requires great efforts |
| B．demands real passion |
| C．is less natural than learning maths |
| D．is as natural as learning a language |
| A．Some ideas are slightly contradictory. |
| B．There is too much discussion on studying science. |
| C．The style is too serious. |
| D．It lacks new information. |
| A．an advertisement | B．a book review |
| C．a feature story | D．A news report |
