1 . Twelve-year-old Catherine has a lot of friends—632, actually, if you count up her online friends. And she spends a lot of time with them.
But is it possible that Catherine’s online friendships could be making her lonely? That’s what some experts believe. Connecting online is a great way to stay in touch, they say. However, some experts worry that many kids are so busy connecting online that they might be missing out on true friendships.
Could this be true? During your parents’ childhoods, connecting with friends usually meant spending time with them in the flesh. Kids played Scrabble around a table, not words with friends on their phones. When friends missed each other, they picked up the telephone. Friends might even write letters to each other.
Today, most communication takes place online. A typical teen sends 2,000 texts a month and spends more than 44 hours per week in front of a screen. Much of this time is spent on social media platform.
In fact, in many ways, online communication can make friendships stronger. “There’s definitely a positive influence. Kids can stay in constant contact, which means they can share more of their feelings with each other,” says Katie Davis, co-author of The App Generation.
Other experts, however, warn that too much online communication can get in the way of forming deep friendships. “If we are constantly checking in with our virtual world, we will have little time for our real-world friendships,” says Larry Rosen, a professor at California State University. Rosen also worries that today’s kids might mistake the “friends” on the social media for true friends in life. However, in tough times, you don’t need anyone to like your picture or share your blogs. You need someone who will keep your secrets and hold your hand. You would like to talk face to face.
1. What is the purpose of the first paragraph?A.To tell about true friends. | B.To start a discussion. |
C.To encourage online friendships. | D.To summarize(总结) the text. |
A.In any case. | B.In public. | C.In person. | D.In advance. |
A.Unconcerned. | B.Positive. | C.Worried. | D.Confused. |
A.Teenagers need to focus on real-world friendships. | B.It’s easier to develop friendships in real life. |
C.It’s wise to turn to friends online. | D.Social media help people stay closely connected. |
“Multiple measures have been taken to stop the illegal use of farmland,” an official of the Ministry of Natural Resources
Together with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the ministry released two notices in July. One banned the illegal use of farmland
Since the release of the two notices, several regions
Inspections and law enforcement (执行) have also been strengthened in recent months,with satellite remote sensing being introduced.
“The central government has attached great
China established
Nowadays, one of the common
Does the Internet help or harm friendships? Different people have different opinions. Robert thinks talking online is no replacement for face⁃to⁃face contact. Communicating through a screen makes
But Cathy holds the opposite opinion. She thinks the Internet makes communication more
1. How many French songs should DJs play according to the new rule?
A.40 percent. | B.60 percent. | C.90 percent. |
A.More people will not listen to their radio. |
B.No people will listen to their American songs. |
C.The English language will get deeper into their culture. |
A.To protect American culture. | B.To protect French culture. | C.To protect British culture. |
A.They hate it. | B.They don’t care. | C.They’re for it. |
6 . Pullman is a superb writer and Seagull is a brilliant communicator. They had a debate after Seagull posted a question on his social media platform: “When you were trying to create an environment for learning, what were your best pieces of classical music to listen to?” He received hundreds of suggestions — and one negative reply, from Pullman: “That’s not what classical music is for. Treat it with respect.”
That did it! Everyone — professional musicians, students, teachers — weighed into the argument, and the majority supported Seagull and were criticizing Pullman.
It’s easy to see why people are annoyed. We all want classical music to be as accessible as possible, especially to the young. If some of them are using Bach or Schubert as a tool to help them study, what’s the problem? They may also develop an attachment to classical music.
So is Pullman ridiculous and supercilious by objecting to classical music being used as background music? At first sight, his idea seems stuffy and extreme. By suggesting that classical music should be “treated with respect” and not used as background music, Pullman seems to be closing classical music of to millions of people.
It’s worth pointing out, however, that he isn’t the first to express concerns about classical music being devalued by becoming too commonplace in today’s technologically shaped world. In Benjamin Britten’s 1964 speech, the composer expressed exactly the same worries as Pullman. Britten suggested, “The true musical experience demands some preparation, some effort, a journey to a special place, saving up for a ticket, some homework perhaps”. In short, it demands as much effort from listeners as from composers and performers.
I don’t agree with such an extreme viewpoint, but I do think it touches on a reality. You will never fully grasp the beauty of classical music if you half-hear it only in the background. That doesn’t necessarily matter. Music can be enjoyed on many levels. What Pullman and Britten are really saying is that, in a drive for “accessibility”, we shouldn’t deny the emotional and intellectual complexity underpinning (构成) much classical music.
1. What did Seagull’s posting result in?A.Great admiration for Seagull. |
B.Public criticism of classical music. |
C.A discussion about learning environments. |
D.An argument over the role of classical music. |
A.Self-important. | B.Open-minded. | C.Impatient. | D.Considerate. |
A.To show his affection for classical music. |
B.To introduce young people to classical music. |
C.To demonstrate classical music is demanding. |
D.To support Pullman’s idea over classical music. |
A.Favorable. | B.Doubtful. | C.Objective. | D.Uninterested. |
7 . China has set new rules limiting the amount of time children can play online games. The rules limit children to just three hours of online game playing a week. That is one hour between 8 p. m. and 9 p. m. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday most weeks.
Li Zhanguo has two children aged 4 and 8. Even though they do not have smartphones, they enjoy playing online games. Like many other parents. Li is happy with new government rules. But experts say it is unclear if such policies can help prevent addiction to online games. Children might just get addicted to social media instead. In the end, experts say, parents should be the ones to set limits and support good practice.
There has been a growing concern in China about gaming addiction among children. Government reports in 2018 found that about one in ten Chinese children were addicted to the Internet. The new rules are part of an effort to prevent young people from spending too much time on unhealthy entertainment. That includes what officials call the “irrational fan culture”
Under the new rules, the responsibility for making sure children play only three hours a day as largely on Chinese gaming companies like Net Ease and Ten cent. Companies have set up real-name registration systems to prevent young users from going past game time limits. They have used facial recognition technology to check their identities. And they have also set up a program that permits people to report what is against the law. It is unclear what punishments gaming companies may face if they do not carry out the policies. And even if such policies are performed, it is also unclear whether they can prevent online addiction.
A specialist treating Internet addiction expects about 20 percent of children will find ways to break the rules by borrowing accounts of their older relatives and find a way around facial recognition. In his opinion, short-video alps such as Douyin and Kuaishou are also very popular in China. They are not under the same restrictions as games.
1. When can children play games according to the new rules?A.Between 8 p. m. and 9 p. m. On Friday. | B.Between 8 p. m. and 9 p. m. On Tuesday. |
C.Between 10 p. m. and 11 p. m. On Saturday. | D.Between 10 p. m. and all p. m. On Thursday. |
A.the new rules can stop children’s addiction to social media |
B.companies are more responsible for kids ‘ obeying the rules |
C.the new rules will help prevent children playing online games |
D.parents play a greater part in limiting the time of online games |
A.Design an advanced program. | B.Use facial recognition systems. |
C.Set up real-name registration systems. | D.Borrow accounts of their older relatives. |
A.Rules Limiting Short-video alps | B.Rules Limiting Video Game Time |
C.Rules Banning Irrational Fan Culture | D.Rules Breaking Addition to Social Media |
In reality,
9 . This question has fascinated behavioural scientists for decades: why do we give money to charity?
The explanations for charitable giving fall into three broad categories, from the purely altruisic (利他的)— I donate because I value the social good done by the charity. The “impurely” altruistic— I donate because I extract value from knowing I contribute to the social good for the charity. And the not-at-all altruistic— I donate because I want to show off to potential mates how rich I am.
But are these motives strong enough to enable people to donate as much as they would want to? Most people support charities in one way or another, but often we struggle to make donations as often as we think we should. Although many people would like to leave a gift to charity in their will, they forget about it when the time comes.
Many people are also aware that they should donate to the causes that have the highest impact, but facts and figures are less attractive than narratives. In a series of experiments, it was found that people are much more responsive to charitable pleas that feature a single, identifiable beneficiary(受益者), than they are to statistical information about the scale of the problem being faced. When it comes to charitable giving, we are often ruled by our hearts and not our heads.
The good news is that charitable giving is contagious—seeing others give makes an individual more likely to give and gentle encouragement from an important person in your life can also make a big difference to your donation decisions— more than quadrupling them in our recent study. Habit also plays a part— in three recent experiments those who volunteered before were more likely to do donate their time than those who had not volunteered before.
In summary, behavioural science identifies a range of factors that influence our donations, and can help us to keep giving in the longer term. This is great news not just for charities, but also for donors.
1. What can we learn about people who do charitable giving?A.Most people support charity as often as they think they should. |
B.Some people don’t want to leave a gift to charity until the time comes. |
C.Those who donate because they can gain an advantage are purely altruistic. |
D.Some people send money to charity simply to tell others they are wealthy. |
A.Not revealing the names of the donors. |
B.Showing figures about the seriousness of the problem. |
C.Telling stories that feature a single, recognizable beneficiary. |
D.Reminding people to write down what to donate in the will in advance. |
A.People will learn from others and follow the suit. |
B.Many people are familiar with charitable giving. |
C.Charitable giving helps the beneficiary in all aspects. |
D.Charitable giving can bring a lot of benefits to donors. |
A.To persuade more people to donate. |
B.To explain the science behind why people donate. |
C.To criticize some false charitable giving behaviours. |
D.To explore approaches to making people donate more. |
10 . About 1.4 billion people around the world do not get enough physical exercise. The world’s adult population is about 5.6 billion, so that is tantamount to about one-fourth of the world’s adult population.
Researchers looked at 358 population-based studies between 2001 and 2016. Those studies referred to nearly 2 million people in 168 countries.
Regina Guthold was the lead author of the report. She said the study also found a wide range of physical activity levels for countries around the world. “Inactivity ranges from as low as 6 per cent in Uganda and Mozambique to 67 per cent in Kuwait. Four countries have prevalence (普遍) of inactivity of over 50 per cent. That’s Kuwait, America Samoa, Saudi Arabia and Iraq,” she said.
The report shows the levels of physical inactivity are more than two times as high in wealthy countries as they are in countries where people have low incomes. In wealthier countries, people are more likely to spend time sitting in offices. They are also more likely to use computers and electronic devices for entertainment.
There are actually many things people can do for themselves. If you work in a high-rise office building, take the stairs instead of an elevator. Go for a walk during your lunch break. Take more breaks during the workday and move around. If your workplace offers a gym or exercise classes, make sure to use them. At home, take walks with your family or friends after dinner.
1. What does the underlined part “tantamount to” in Paragraph 1 mean?A.Familiar to. | B.Harmful to. | C.Used to. | D.Equal to. |
A.Uganda. | B.Kuwait. | C.Saudi Arabia. | D.Iraq. |
A.To draw people’s attention to the problem. |
B.To give some advice to non-exercisers. |
C.To introduce a new topic for discussion. |
D.To add some background information. |