1 . Like most of us, I try to be mindful of food that goes to waste. The arugula (芝麻菜)was to make a nice green salad, rounding out a roast chicken dinner. But I ended up working late. Then friends called with a dinner invitation. I stuck the chicken in the freezer. But as days passed, the arugula went bad. Even worse, I had unthinkingly bought way too much; I could have made six salads with what I threw out.
In a world where nearly 800 million people a year go hungry, “food waste goes against the moral grain,” as Elizabeth Royte writes in this month’s cover story. It’s jaw-dropping how much perfectly good food is thrown away — from “ugly” (but quite eatable) vegetables rejected by grocers to large amounts of uneaten dishes thrown into restaurant garbage cans.
Producing food that no one eats wastes the water, fuel, and other resources used to grow it. That makes food waste an environmental problem. In fact, Royte writes, “if food waste were a country, it would be the third largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world.”
If that’s hard to understand, let’s keep it as simple as the arugula at the back of my refrigerator. Mike Curtin sees my arugula story all the time — but for him, it's more like 12 bones of donated strawberries nearing their last days. Curtin is CEO of DC Central Kitchen in Washington, D.C., which recovers food and turns it into healthy meals. Last year it recovered more than 807,500 pounds of food by taking donations and collecting blemished (有瑕疵的) produce that otherwise would have rotted in fields. And the strawberries? Volunteers will wash, cut, and freeze or dry them for use in meals down the road.
Such methods seem obvious, yet so often we just don’t think. “Everyone can play a part in reducing waste, whether by not purchasing more food than necessary in your weekly shopping or by asking restaurants to not include the side dish you won’t eat,” Curtin says.
1. What does the author want to show by telling the arugula story?A.We pay little attention to food waste. | B.We waste food unintentionally at times. |
C.We waste more vegetables than meat. | D.We have good reasons for wasting food. |
A.Moral decline. | B.Environmental harm. |
C.Energy shortage. | D.Worldwide starvation. |
A.It produces kitchen equipment. | B.It turns rotten arugula into clean fuel. |
C.It helps local farmers grow fruits. | D.It makes meals out of unwanted food. |
A.Buy only what is needed. | B.Reduce food consumption. |
C.Go shopping once a week. | D.Eat in restaurants less often. |
2 . You’ve heard that plastic is polluting the oceans — between 4.8 and 12.7 million tonnes enter ocean ecosystems every year. But does one plastic straw or cup really make a difference? Artist Benjamin Von Wong wants you to know that it does. He builds massive sculptures out of plastic garbage, forcing viewers to re-examine their relationship to single-use plastic products.
At the beginning of the year, the artist built a piece called “Strawpocalypse,” a pair of 10-foot-tall plastic waves, frozen mid-crash. Made of 168,000 plastic straws collected from several volunteer beach cleanups, the sculpture made its first appearance at the Estella Place shopping center in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Just 9% of global plastic waste is recycled. Plastic straws are by no means the biggest source (来源) of plastic pollution, but they’ve recently come under fire because most people don’t need them to drink with and, because of their small size and weight, they cannot be recycled. Every straw that’s part of Von Wong’s artwork likely came from a drink that someone used for only a few minutes. Once the drink is gone, the straw will take centuries to disappear.
In a piece from 2018, Von Wong wanted to illustrate (说明) a specific statistic: Every 60 seconds, a truckload’s worth of plastic enters the ocean. For this work, titled “Truckload of Plastic,” Von Wong and a group of volunteers collected more than 10,000 pieces of plastic, which were then tied together to look like they’d been dumped (倾倒) from a truck all at once.
Von Wong hopes that his work will also help pressure big companies to reduce their plastic footprint.
1. What are Von Wong’s artworks intended for?A.Beautifying the city he lives in. | B.Introducing eco-friendly products. |
C.Drawing public attention to plastic waste. | D.Reducing garbage on the beach. |
A.To show the difficulty of their recycling. |
B.To explain why they are useful. |
C.To voice his views on modern art. |
D.To find a substitute for them. |
A.Calming. | B.Disturbing. |
C.Refreshing. | D.Challenging. |
A.Artists’ Opinions on Plastic Safety |
B.Media Interest in Contemporary Art |
C.Responsibility Demanded of Big Companies |
D.Ocean Plastics Transformed into Sculptures |
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 . As data and identity theft becomes more and more common, the market is growing for biometric(生物测量) technologies—like fingerprint scans—to keep others out of private e-spaces. At present, these technologies are still expensive, though.
Researchers from Georgia Tech say that they have come up with a low-cost device(装置) that gets around this problem: a smart keyboard. This smart keyboard precisely measures the cadence(节奏) with which one types and the pressure fingers apply to each key. The keyboard could offer a strong layer of security by analyzing things like the force of a user’s typing and the time between key presses. These patterns are unique to each person. Thus, the keyboard can determine people’s identities, and by extension, whether they should be given access to the computer it’s connected to—regardless of whether someone gets the password right.
It also doesn’t require a new type of technology that people aren’t already familiar with. Everybody uses a keyboard and everybody types differently.
In a study describing the technology, the researchers had 100 volunteers type the word “touch” four times using the smart keyboard. Data collected from the device could be used to recognize different participants based on how they typed, with very low error rates. The researchers say that the keyboard should be pretty straightforward to commercialize and is mostly made of inexpensive, plastic-like parts. The team hopes to make it to market in the near future.
1. Why do the researchers develop the smart keyboard?A.To reduce pressure on keys. | B.To improve accuracy in typing. |
C.To replace the password system. | D.To cut the cost of e-space protection. |
A.Computers are much easier to operate. |
B.Fingerprint scanning techniques develop fast. |
C.Typing patterns vary from person to person. |
D.Data security measures are guaranteed. |
A.It’ll be environment-friendly. | B.It’ll reach consumers soon. |
C.It’ll be made of plastics. | D.It’ll help speed up typing. |
A.A diary. | B.A guidebook | C.A novel. | D.A magazine. |
5 . We live in a town with three beaches. There are two parts less than 10 minutes’ walk from home where neighborhood children gather to play. However, what my children want to do after school is pick up a screen — any screen — and stare at it for hours. They are not alone. Today’s children spend an average of four and a half hours a day looking at screens, split between watching television and using the Internet.
In the past few years, an increasing number of people and organisations have begun coming up with plans to counter this trend. A couple of years ago film-maker David Bond realised that his children, then aged five and three, were attached to screens to the point where he was able to say “chocolate” into his three-year-old son’s ear without getting a response. He realised that something needed to change, and, being a London media type, appointed himself “marketing director from Nature”. He documented his journey as he set about treating nature as a brand to be marketed to young people. The result was Project Wild Thing, a film which charts the birth of the World Network, a group of organisations with the common goal of getting children out into nature.
“Just five more minutes outdoors can make a difference,” David Bond says. “There is a lot of really interesting evidence which seems to be suggesting that if children are inspired up to the age of seven, then being outdoors will be on habit for life.” His own children have got into the habit of playing outside now: “We just send them out into the garden and tell them not to come back in for a while.”
Summer is upon us. There is an amazing world out there, and it needs our children as much as they need it. Let us get them out and let them play.
1. What is the problem with the author’s children?A.They often annoy their neighbours. | B.They are tired of doing their homework. |
C.They have no friends to play with | D.They stay in front of screens for too long. |
A.By making a documentary film. | B.By organizing outdoor activities. |
C.By advertising in London media. | D.By creating a network of friends. |
A.records | B.predicts | C.delays | D.confirms |
A.Let Children Have Fun | B.Young Children Need More Free Time |
C.Market Nature to Children | D.David Bond: A Role Model for Children |
Stop Asian Hate
During the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, New York City saw a sharp increase in harassment and violence against Asian people and communities, especially Asian elders. Discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, age, and disability, including having or
We all want to live in a world that is free from prejudice and
Since the pandemic, something has been made nasty in the media by comments from Donald Trump calling it “the China virus”, and ESEA people all over the world have found that their lives have been turned upside down. In the wake of the tragic deaths in the US and several studies
Working towards a world where no racism exists is always important to us, and will always be something
7 . Thanks to in-depth reporting by the Wall Street Journal, we now know that Facebook has long been aware its product Instagram has harmful effects on the mental health of many adolescent users. Young girls, in particular, struggle with their body image thanks to a constant stream of photos and videos showing beautiful bodies that users don’t think they can attain.
While the information the Journal covered is essential and instructive, it does not tell the whole story. Deep down, this is not an Instagram problem; it’s a people problem. Understanding that distinction can make the difference between a failed attempt to contain a teen’s interest in an addictive app and successfully addressing the underlying problem leading to mental distress induced (诱发) by Instagram.
Critics were quick to shame Facebook for sitting on the data and not releasing it to researchers or academics who asked for it. Others criticize the social media giant for not using the research to create a safer experience for its teen users. The anger, while understandable, is misplaced.
While I’m reluctant to defend Facebook, I’m not sure it’s reasonable to blame the company for withholding data that would hurt its business. Have you ever binge-watched (狂看) a Netflix series? I assure you it wasn’t a healthy endeavor. You were in active, likely did nothing productive, mindlessly snacked and didn’t go outside for fresh air. It is an objectively harmful use of time to stare at a TV or laptop for a full weekend. Should we respond by shaming Netflix for not alerting us to how damaging an addictive product can be?
While it’s reasonable to say Instagram makes esteem issues worse, it strains credulity (夸张到难以置信) to believe it causes them in the first place. You create your own experiences on social media. For the most part, you choose which accounts to follow and engage. If you’re already vulnerable to insecurities and self-sabotage (自损) — as many teens are — you will find accounts to obsess over. And this isn’t a new phenomenon.
Before social media, there were similar issues fueling self-esteem issues. Whether the target be magazines, movies or television shows depicting difficult-to-attain bodies, there has been a relatively steady chorus (异口同声) of experts nothing the damage new media could cause young viewers.
Self-esteem issues have an underlying cause — one that’s independent of social media use. Instagram merely enhances those feelings because it provides infinitely more access to triggers than older forms of media. It’s more worthwhile to address those underlying factors rather than to attack Facebook.
1. The author thinks the criticisms against Instagram __________.A.are successful attempts to change teens’ interest in addictive apps |
B.address the Instagram - induced mental pain |
C.are only based on the data released by Facebook |
D.are not directed at the fundamental problem |
A.compare the criticisms against it and Facebook |
B.defend why Facebook is to blame |
C.suggest the critics’ remarks are not to point |
D.show Netflix does more harm to teens |
A.it is human nature to get addicted to social media |
B.users decide on their experiences on social media |
C.people have a tendency to feel insecure online |
D.people are keen on fabricating their self - profile |
A.the unprecedented criticism facing Facebook |
B.the alarming online habits of teenagers worldwide |
C.the root cause of Instagram - induced mental strains |
D.the harmful impact of Instagram on teenagers |
8 . One of the curious things about social networks is the way that some messages, pictures, or ideas can spread like wildfire while others that seem just as catchy or interesting barely register at all.
Before you go deep into the puzzle, consider this: If you measure the height of your male friends, for example, the average is about 170 centimeters. You are 172 and your friends are all about the same height as you are. Indeed, the mathematical concept of “average” is a good way to capture the nature of this data set.
But imagine that one of your friends was much taller than you. This person would dramatically skew the average, which would make your friends taller than you, on average. In this case, the “average” is a poor way to capture this data set.
Exactly this situation occurs on social networks. On average, your coauthors will be cited more often than you, and the people you follow will post more frequently than you, and so on.
Now Lerman from University of Southern California has discovered a related paradox, which they call the majority illusion. They illustrate this illusion with an example. They take 14 nodes linked up to form a small network. They then color three of these nodes and count how many of the remaining nodes link to them in a single step.
In one situation, the uncolored nodes see more than half of their neighbors as colored. This is the majority illusion — the local impression that a specific feature is common when the global truth is entirely different.
So how popular is it in the real world? It’s found out that the majority illusion occurs in almost all network scenarios. “The effect is largest in the political blogs network, where 60% of nodes will have majority active neighbours, even when only 20% of the nodes are truly active,” says Lerman.
It immediately explains many interesting phenomena. For a start, it shows how some content can spread globally while other similar content does not — the key is to start with a small number of well-connected early adopters fooling the rest of the network into thinking it is common. The affected nodes then find it natural to follow the trend. A real spread finally comes into being.
But it is not yet a marketer’s charter. For that, marketers must first identify the popular nodes that can create the majority illusion for the target audience. These influencers must then be persuaded to adopt the desired behavior or product, which is essential to the prospect of the marketing plan.
1. The phrase skew the average in the passage most probably refers to the action of ________.A.hiding the real average to be unrecognizable to others |
B.producing an average against the general feature of data |
C.working out the common feature suggested by the average |
D.ignoring the average because of the frequency by which it is reviewed |
A.Majority illusion rarely has impacts except in political blogs field. |
B.The majority illusion on social networks relies on that people you follow post more than you. |
C.The essence of successful opinion spread is to initiate the trend with well-connected sharers. |
D.The spread scale of ideas on networks mainly depends on the quality of content. |
A.thoroughly understand the concept of majority illusion |
B.accurately figure out who is the powerful person to affect others |
C.definitely decide who are the target audience for the promotion |
D.successfully convince the influencers to practice certain action |
A.The social network vision that tricks your mind. |
B.Who is stealing your network identity? |
C.Minority network opinion spread, curse or blessing? |
D.Have you been misled during the last political voting? |
9 . Why isn’t science better? Look at career incentives.
There are often substantial gaps between the idealized and actual versions of those people whose work involves providing a social good. Government officials are supposed to work for their constituents. Journalists are supposed to provide unbiased reporting and penetrating analysis. And scientists are supposed to relentlessly probe the fabric of reality with the most rigorous and skeptical of methods.
All too often, however, what should be just isn’t so. In a number of scientific fields, published findings turn out not to replicate (复制), or to have smaller effects than, what was initially claimed. Plenty of science does replicate — meaning the experiments turn out the same way when you repeat them — but the amount that doesn’t is too much for comfort.
But there are also ways in which scientists increase their chances of getting it wrong. Running studies with small samples, mining data for correlations and forming hypotheses to fit an experiment’s results after the fact are just some of the ways to increase the number of false discoveries.
It’s not like we don’t know how to do better. Scientists who study scientific methods have known about feasible remedies for decades. Unfortunately, their advice often falls on deaf ears. Why? Why aren’t scientific methods better than they are? In a word: incentives. But perhaps not in the way you think.
In the 1970s, psychologists and economists began to point out the danger in relying on quantitative measures for social decision-making. For example, when public schools are evaluated by students’ performance on standardized tests, teachers respond by teaching “to the test”. In turn, the test serves largely as of how well the school can prepare students for the test.
We can see this principle—often summarized as “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”—playing out in the realm of research. Science is a competitive enterprise. There are far more credentialed (授以证书的) scholars and researchers than there are university professorships or comparably prestigious research positions. Once someone acquires a research position, there is additional competition for tenure (终身教授) grant funding, and support and placement for graduate students. Due to this competition for resources, scientists must be evaluated and compared. How do you tell if someone is a good scientist?
An oft-used metric (标准,度量) is the number of publications one has in peer-reviewed journals, as well as the status of those journals. Metrics like these make it straightforward to compare researchers whose work may otherwise be quite different. Unfortunately, this also makes these numbers susceptible to exploitation.
If scientists are motivated to publish often and in high-impact journals, we might expect them to actively try to game the system (钻空子). And certainly, some do—as seen in recent high-profile cases of scientific fraud (欺诈). If malicious (恶意的) fraud is the prime concern, then perhaps the solution is simply heightened alertness.
However, most scientists are, I believe, genuinely interested in learning about the world, and honest. The problem with incentives is that they can shape cultural norms without any intention on the part of individuals.
1. Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage?A.Scientists are expected to persistently devoted to exploration of reality. |
B.The research findings fail to achieve the expected effect. |
C.Hypotheses are modified to highlight the experiments’ results. |
D.The amount of science that does replicate is comforting. |
A.The public. | B.The incentive initiators. |
C.The peer researchers. | D.The high-impact journal editors. |
A.Good scientists excel in seeking resources and securing research positions. |
B.Competition for resources pushes researchers to publish in a more productive way. |
C.All the credentialed scholars and researchers will take up university professorships. |
D.The number of publication reveals how scientists are bitterly exploited. |
A.High-impact journals are encouraged to reform the incentives for publication. |
B.The peer-review process is supposed to scale up inspection of scientific fraud. |
C.Researchers are motivated to get actively involved in gaming the current system. |
D.Career incentives for scientists are expected to consider their personal intention. |
Even Very Young Children Can Be Depressed
If you doubted it, I would introduce you to Susan, who came to my office and talked constantly about her “bad feeling”. Susan
Susan was six years old and
The risk for depression does tend to increase as we grow older. Depression in young children is rare but real. Rene Spitz, a
Approximately 1% of preschoolers experience depression; they often have great difficulty expressing their feelings, because not all of their language skills
Although a diagnosis of clinical depression is rare in preschool children, there are times when it is appropriate. In most cases, the child who