“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. |
5 . 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. |
6 . The pandemic has affected nearly all aspects of modern life, from the clothes we wear to the food we eat. There is one thing, however, that has remained almost unchanged: the emojis we send.
According to data from the Unicode Consortium (统一码联盟), nine of the 10 most-used emojis from 2019 also ranked among the top 10 this year. The tears of joy emoji ranked No.1, despite members of Gen Z deeming it uncool.
“It speaks to how many people use emojis. If emojis were a purely Gen Z thing, then you wouldn’t see it so highly ranked,” said Alexander Robertson, an emoji researcher at Google. “Because of the large number of people using emojis, even if one group thinks something is lame, they have to be a really big group to affect these statistics.”
And it makes sense that Gen Z would think that certain emojis aren’t fashionable. It’s part of the “teenager experience of creating a sense of subculture where there’s a right way and a wrong way of behaving.” Plus, there is a range of laughter that can be expressed: There’s light chuckling. There’s acknowledgement laughter, which is just a marker of empathy. Using emojis, such as the skull face (“I’m dead”) or crying face ( uncontrollable tears of laughter), can help to illustrate that range.
“It basically indicates that we have what we need to communicate a broad range of expression, or even very specific concepts,” Mr Robertson said. “You don’t necessarily need a Covid emoji.”
“We did see a rise in the use of the virus emoji. But it wasn’t made remotely into the most-commonly used ones because we still had plenty to laugh about and plenty to cry about, whether it was because of the pandemic or not,” said Lauren Gawne, a senior lecturer in linguistic at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia.
“Even in the midst of this massive global pandemic that preoccupied so much of our time,” She added. “We still spent a lot of time wishing each other happy birthday or checking or laughing about some new and unexpected elements of this slow-burning weirdness.”
1. Why does the tears of joy emoji ranked No.1 despite the dislike from the Z generation?A.The emoji is a purely Z generation thing. |
B.The Z generation are too young to influence the rank. |
C.Though they dislike it, the Z generation vote for it ultimately. |
D.The Z generation take up a very small portion in emoji users. |
A.the virus emoji | B.a Covid emoji |
C.the use of the virus emoji | D.the rise in the use of the virus emoji |
A.The massive global pandemic has come to an end. |
B.The pandemic has little influence on people’s daily life. |
C.We have a broad range of expression for communication. |
D.Some new and useful emojis are created to replace the virus emoji. |
A.The Pandemic and the Emoji. |
B.Gen Z, the Emoji Generation. |
C.The Emoji of the Year. |
D.The Rise of Virus Emoji |
7 . 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. |
8 . Today’s world is not an easy adjustment for young adults. Key skill set for success is persistence (毅力), a characteristic that researchers say is heavily influenced by fathers. Researchers from Brigham Young University discovered that fathers are in a unique position to help their adolescent children learn persistence.
BYU professors Laura Padilla-Walker and Randal Day arrived at these findings after following 325 American families over several years. And over time, the persistence gained through fathers led to higher achievement in school.
“There are relatively few studies that stress the unique role of fathers,” Padilla-Walker said. “This research also helps to prove that characteristics such as persistence-which can be taught-are key to a child’s life success.”
Researchers determined that dads need to practice an “authoritative” parenting style. Authoritative parenting is not authoritarian:rigid,demanding or controlling. Rather, an authoritative parenting style includes some of the following characteristics:children feel warmth and love from their father; responsibility and the reasons behind rules are stressed children are given an appropriate level of autonomy (自主权).
In the study, about 52 percent of the dads exhibited above-average levels of authoritative parenting. A key finding is that over time, children raised by an authoritative father were significantly more likely to develop persistence, which leads to better outcomes in school.
This particular study examined 11 to 14-year-olds living in two-parent homes. Yet the researchers suggest that single parents still may play a role in teaching the benefits of persistence, which is an avenue of future research.
What would an authoritative father do when raising his children?A.Ignore their demands. |
B.Make decisions for them. |
C.Control their behaviors. |
D.Explain the rules to them. |
9 . Those of us who shop online may scan customer reviews to get a better sense of products we can't judge for ourselves at a physical store. We may check out online testimonials before booking a haircut or visiting a new restaurant. But what happens if some of those reviews can't be trusted?
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced that it was proposing new measures to crack down on fake reviews and other practices used to mislead consumers. The commission published a proposed rule that would prohibit companies from writing or selling fake reviews, buying positive reviews, suppressing negative reviews and more.
“Our proposed rule on fake reviews shows that we're using all available means to attack deceptive advertising in the digital age,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement.
Research shows people overwhelmingly consult online reviews, but humans are also bad at telling which consumer reviews hold water and which are nonsense.
That's potentially worrisome given that nearly one in every three reviews is fake, according to one estimate.
In arguing for the proposal, the FTC cited enforcement actions it had taken against companies that manipulated reviews of their products.In 2022, for example, the commission forced the online retailer Fashion Nova to pay $4.2 million to settle allegations (指控) that it blocked negative reviews from being posted on its website — the first FTC action involving a company's effort to hide negative reviews. For its part, Fashion Nova said in a statement to The New York Times that the FTC's allegations were “inaccurate” and that it only settled the charges to avoid “the distraction and legal fees”.
Comments on the proposed rule have to be received within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register, after which the FTC will decide whether to issue a revised final version.
1. What is the main purpose of the FTC's proposed rule?A.To improve the quality of products and services. |
B.To protect the interests of physical stores. |
C.To ban negative reviews from online platforms. |
D.To ensure true reviews are presented to customers. |
A.Be credible. | B.Be prejudiced. | C.Be official. | D.Be misleading. |
A.To delete negative reviews of its products. |
B.To post customer reviews on its website. |
C.To resolve allegations of deceptive advertising. |
D.To prevent it from facing further criticism and legal fees. |
A.It is well-received. | B.It is still under review. |
C.It has proven to be effective. | D.It has encountered opposition. |
10 . What goes on in our brains when we decide to hit the share button, and what makes something go viral? Since the dawn of the Internet, businesses, media outlets and influencers alike have been trying to answer these questions. Now, researchers have come one step closer to cracking this mysterious model by shining a light on the neuroscience (神经科学) of viral content.
“Our study finds a way to obtain brain signals that would predict how much information gets shared.” said Emily Falk, professor of communication, psychology and marketing and Hang-Yee Chan, a lecturer of communication.
Their new study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on October 23, investigated both the U. S. and the Netherlands using a broader range of news categories—including health and climate change.
“When we see greater activation of regions that track self-relevance (Is it important to me) and social-relevance (Is it important to people I know), the news articles are more likely to be shared widely,” Falk and Chan said. By studying these brain responses, the team managed to build a value-based model to accurately predict how widely the articles would be shared online. This link between brain activity and sharing was seen in both the American and Dutch participants, suggesting that this model is accurate across cultures.
“Seeing how people’s brains react inside the scanner gives us insight into why people ultimately share information nowadays,” Chan said. “If we understand these signals, we might be able to use that knowledge to help important news get shared and stop misinformation from going viral.” It is also helpful for content creators to maximize their reach. “Our current study demonstrates how tapping into the brain would help content creators optimize their messages’ influence,” Falk and Chan said. “We are interested in building on these results to develop ways to counter harmful information and false news, in addition to spreading high-quality content.” “A lot of our most pressing problems in society are influenced by the decisions people make, and the decisions we make are influenced by the news. What you share matters, and so understanding why you share it matters, too.”
1. What do researchers intend to do in their study?A.To find a way to get brain signals. |
B.To work out a mysterious model. |
C.To use a broad range of news categories. |
D.To predict how much information get shared. |
A.The basis and process of the study. |
B.The way to predict brain activation. |
C.The pattern of a value-based model. |
D.The reason why certain news is shared. |
A.To solve most urgent problems. |
B.To understand why viral news matter. |
C.To influence the decisions people will make. |
D.To better the efficiency of positive publicity. |
A.How to Share a Viral News |
B.How to Obtain Brain Signals |
C.How Certain Studies Get Shared |
D.How Brain Identifies Viral Content |