1 . A significant proportion of the American populace within the working-age demographic are encountering challenges in meeting the financial demands associated with health care, as per a recent comprehensive evaluation.
This study, which is the inaugural edition of the Health Care Affordability Survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund, reveals that a substantial 51 percent of adults falling within the age bracket of 19 to 64 years have expressed that affording health care for themselves and their family is either exceedingly challenging or moderately difficult. This observation encompasses 43 percent of individuals who are beneficiaries of health insurance provided by their employers and an even higher 57 percent who have secured health insurance through a marketplace or have opted for an individual plan.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that nearly one-half of the working-age adults who are under the Medicare program and 45 percent of those who are recipients of Medicaid also admit to facing hardships in covering their health care expenses. It is particularly striking that a majority, specifically 65 percent, of working-age adults have indicated that the escalation in the cost of various goods and services over the past year has had a detrimental impact on their capacity or that of their family to manage health care expenses.
The aforementioned survey, which is based on a sample that is representative of the nation and comprises nearly 7,900 individuals who are 19 years of age or older, was carried out from the mid-point of April through the month of July in the current year. This survey follows on the heels of another analysis conducted by the research entity known as KFF, which demonstrated an upward trend in the costs associated with health insurance for employer-sponsored plans as well as an increase in the contributions made by workers towards these plans in the year 2023.
The newly disseminated analysis has further unearthed that 38 percent of the individuals who participated in the survey identified cost as the primary factor that led them or a family member to either forgo or postpone the receipt of necessary health care services or the procurement of prescribed medication within the last 12 months. This includes 29 percent of those who are under the protection of employer-based coverage, 37 percent who are insured through individual and marketplace health plans, 42 percent who are covered by Medicare, and 39 percent who are recipients of Medicaid.
Furthermore, it is observed that more than six-tenths of the individuals who are devoid of any form of health insurance have reported that they or a family member have had to delay or forgo medical care due to financial constraints. Among all those who have reported such instances of skipping or delaying care, a considerable 57 percent have stated that a health issue has consequently deteriorated.
1. How does the article present Americans’ health care payment situation?| A．By citing data. | B．By giving examples. |
| C．By giving reasons. | D．By making comparisons. |
| A．Their heavy debt. | B．Unemployment. |
| C．Higher cost of living. | D．Higher health care payment. |
| A．Declined. | B．Climbed up. | C．Remained stable. | D．Kept uncertain. |
| A．They may get worse if they have health problems. |
| B．They are sure to obtain help from the government. |
| C．They may have to skip or delay any health problems. |
| D．They may not get affected with any diseases. |
2 . Upon the release of the publication “The Mountain People” by the American ethnologist Colin Turnbull in the year 1972, he characterized the subjects of his study — a Ugandan tribe known as the Ik — as “a populace devoid of affection.” Turnbull, after a period of two years spent in observation, concluded that the Ik exemplified the primal tendencies of mankind: deceit, larceny, and a callous indifference to the suffering of others. However, when Athena Aktipis and her associates from the Human Generosity Project delved more profoundly into the matter, they discovered a society that engaged in the communal sharing of all resources. “Turnbull’s observations coincided with a calamitous famine in Uganda. What he witnessed was merely a reflection of the dire circumstances that arise when individuals are gripped by hunger,” Aktipis remarks. Yet, her research team uncovered that, despite the oppressive conditions they faced, the Ik held in high esteem the act of mutual assistance whenever it was within their means to do so.
Aktipis posits that the phenomenon of selflessness is more pervasive and advantageous than the field of evolutionary social science has historically acknowledged. “The prevailing assumption was that individuals are inherently inclined to act solely in their own interests or those of their kin,” she states. By examining the distinctive and unselfish behaviors that have enabled nine communities across the globe to persist, the scholars from the Project aim to demonstrate that humanity is indeed capable of extensive collaboration.
The Maasai populace in Kenya offers a principal illustration of the Project’s findings. They depend on reciprocal friendships to secure necessities such as sustenance or hydration during times of scarcity, with no expectation of reciprocation. Similarly, in the distant locale of New Mexico, while individuals frequently render aid in the transportation of livestock and receive support in kind, they will also provide assistance gratuitously in instances of adversity, such as personal injury or the bereavement of a cherished one.
Aktipis is convinced that the theoretical models she has refined through the study of these communities can be broadly applied to any interdependent systems. Her overarching ambition is to devise social-welfare frameworks that offer sustenance to all members of society. Take, for instance, the market-driven insurance models prevalent in the United States: They are priced according to individual risk factors, including health profiles and geographic location, which results in millions of Americans being priced out of coverage. In contrast, a system founded on the principles of communal support and pooled financial resources would distribute the burden equitably during collective trials, such as natural catastrophes and pandemics.
1. What did Turnbull think of the Ik people?| A．Heartless. | B．Helpful. | C．Restless. | D．Generous. |
| A．Trying to be strong and tough to survive. |
| B．Making full use of the surrounding resources. |
| C．Being devoted to themselves or their relatives. |
| D．Caring about the needs and happiness of others. |
| A．Friendships guarantee a well-being life. |
| B．Folks assist each other to get support. |
| C．Cooperation is a good and natural instinct. |
| D．People tend to provide resources for free. |
| A．By designing a policy for public health. |
| B．By monitoring individual health histories. |
| C．By creating a system against collective hardship. |
| D．By lowering insurance prices for individual victims. |
3 . 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? |
Short-form videos, which gained popularity on the Chinese platform Douyin, have given rise to a new trend in entertainment: ultra-short (超短) dramas.
Despite the initial success of ultra-short dramas, Chinese authorities
What’s equally concerning is
It’s natural for us to seek entertainment. But it’s also worth pausing to consider the consequences
5 . 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 |
6 . A report from the UN warns that countries’ current commitments would reduce carbon by only about 7.5% by 2030, far less than the 45% cut, which scientists say is needed to limit global temperature rises to 1.5℃, the aim of the COP26 summit (峰会).
Antonio Guterres, the UN secretary-general, described the findings as a “thundering wake-up call” to world leaders, while experts called for action against fossil fuel companies.
Although more than 100 countries have promised to reach net zero emissions (净零排放) around mid-century, this would not be enough to avoid climate disasters, according to the UN emissions report, which examines the shortfall (差额) between countries’ intentions and actions needed on the climate. Many of the net zero commitments were found to be unclear, and unless accompanied by strict cuts in emissions this decade would allow global heating of a potentially disastrous extent.
Gutierrez said: “The heat is on, and as the contents of the report show, the leadership we need is off. Far off. Countries are wasting a massive opportunity to invest Covid-19 finance and recovery resources in sustainable, cost-saving, planet-saving ways. As world leaders prepare for COP26, that is another thundering wake-up call. How many do we need?”
Inger Andersen, the director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said: “Climate change is no longer a future problem. It is a now problem. To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5℃, we have 8 years to almost halve greenhouse gas emissions: 8 years to make the plans, put in place the policies, carry them out and deliver the cuts. The clock is ticking loudly.”
Emissions fell by about 5.4% last year during Covid lockdowns, the report found, but only about one-fifth of the economic recovery spending goes towards reducing carbon emissions. This failure to “build back better”, despite promises by governments around the world, cast doubt on the world’s willingness to make the economic shift necessary to settle the climate crisis, the UN said.
In the run-up (前期) to COP26, countries were supposed to submit (递交) national plans to cut emissions—called nationally determined contributions (NDCs) —for the next decade, a requirement under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But the UNEP report found only half of countries had submitted new NDCs, and some governments had presented weak plans.
1. Why were the findings described as a “thundering wake-up call” in Para. 2?| A．Because the world has failed to live up to its current commitments. |
| B．Because the opportunities presented by covid-19 have been wasted. |
| C．Because the world is falling behind in slowing down temperature rises. |
| D．Because the serious problems were brought about by global fossil fuels. |
| A．strict measures are taken to reduce emissions |
| B．current commitments of many countries remain unchanged |
| C．huge gaps are bridged between previous and present proposals |
| D．global sustainable environmental resources develops significantly |
| A．To show the number of alarm clocks required. |
| B．To explain the reason for the world’s wasting chances. |
| C．To ask for the number of the countries attending the meeting. |
| D．To stress the need to make the most of resources and reduce emissions. |
| A．Few countries have submitted plans to reduce the emissions. |
| B．Many countries’ plans to cut emissions are far from satisfactory. |
| C．Most of the countries work under the Paris Climate Agreement. |
| D．Much progress in reducing emissions his been made these years. |
7 . In the days before the Internet, critical thinking was the most important skill of informed citizens. But in the digital age, according to Anastasia Kozyreva, a psychologist at the Max Planck Institute of Human Development, and her colleagues, an even more important skill is critical ignoring.
As the researchers point out, we live in an attention economy where content producers on the Internet compete for our attention. They attract us with a lot of emotional and eye-catching stories while providing little useful information, so they can expose us to profit-generating advertisements. Therefore,we are no longer customers but products, and each link we click is a sale of our time and attention. Toprotect ourselves from this, Kozyreva advocates for learning the skill of critical ignoring, in which readers intentionally control their information environment to reduce exposure to false and low-quality information.
According to Kozyreva, critical ignoring comprises three strategies. The first is to design ourenvironments, which involves the removal of low-quality yet hard-to-resist information from around. Successful dieters need to keep unhealthy food out of their homes. Likewise, we need to set up a digital environment where attention-grabbing items are kept out of sight. As with dieting, if one tries to bank onwillpower not to click eye-catching “news”, he’ll surely fail. So, it’s better to just keep them out of sightto begin with.
The next is to evaluate the reliability of information, whose purpose is to protect you from false and misleading information. It can be realized by checking the source in the mainstream news agencies which have their reputations for being trustworthy.
The last goes by the phrase “do not feed the trolls.” Trolls are actors who internationally spread false and hurtful information online to cause harm. It may be appealing to respond to them to set the facts straight, but trolls just care about annoying others rather than facts. So, it’s best not to reward their bad behaviour with our attention.
By sharpening our critical ignoring skills in these ways, we can make the most of the Internet while avoiding falling victim to those who try to control our attention, time, and minds.
1. What can we learn about the attention economy from paragraph 2?| A．It offers little information. | B．It features depressing stories. |
| C．It saves time for Internet users. | D．It seeks profits from each click. |
| A．To discuss the quality of information |
| B．To prove the benefits of healthy food. |
| C．To show the importance of environments. |
| D．To explain the effectiveness of willpower. |
| A．Reveal their intention. | B．Turn a deaf ear to them. |
| C．Correct their behaviour. | D．Send hard facts to them. |
| A．Reasons for critical thinking in the attention economy. |
| B．Practising the skill of critical ignoring in the digital age. |
| C．Maximizing the benefits of critical ignoring on the Internet. |
| D．Strategies of abandoning critical thinking for Internet users |
8 . Colin Chapman, the founder of Lotus Cars, was once of motor racing’s most influential engineers. Between 1962 and 1978 Lotus won seven Formula One constructors championships. He summed up his philosophy as “simplify, then add lightness”. It appears to be an uncommon insight. A paper published in Nature suggests that humans struggle with subtractive(减法的) thinking. When asked to improve something, they tend to suggest adding new things rather than removing what is already there, even when additions lead to subpar(低于标准的) results.
The research was motivated by everyday observation rather than psychological theory, says Gabrielle Adams, the paper’s first author, who cites folk wisdom such as “less is more” and “keep it simple”. Perhaps the need for such reminders was evidence of a blind spot in people’s thinking?
Along with colleagues at the University of Virginia, Dr. Adams conducted a series of observational studies. In one, when participants were asked to alter an essay they had written, 16% cut words while 80% added them. Others gave similar results. Of 827 suggestions received by the new boss of an American university for how the institution could be improved, 581 involved adding new things and just 70 suggested removing something.
Having established that addition does indeed seem to be more popular than subtraction, the next step was to work out why. One possibility was that people were considering subtractive options, but deliberately choosing not to pursue them. Another was that they were not even thinking of them in the first place.
Let’s enter a new set of experiments. One experiment asked participants to redesign a lopsided(不平衡的) Lego structure so that it could support a house-brick. Participants could earn a dollar for fixing the problem, but each piece of Lego they added cut that reward by ten cents. Even then, only 41% worked out that simplifying the structure by removing a single block, rather than strengthening it by adding more, which was the way to maximise the payout. Another example, asking people to make a golf course worse rather than better did not change their preference for additions, which suggested that many were simply not thinking of the possibility, at least at first.
What all this amounts to, says Benjamin Converse, another of the study’s authors, is evidence for a new entry in the list of “cognitive biases” that skew(歪曲) how humans think. Instead of thinking a problem through and coming up with an ideal solution, they tend to use cognitive shortcuts that are fast and mostly “good enough” in their mind.
Such research has inspired an entire field dedicated to working out when such shortcuts lead people astray(迷失). Dr. Adams and her colleagues, meanwhile, are keen to investigate their result thoroughly. One question is whether the preference for addition is inborn or learned.
1. Why does the author mention the story of Colin Chapman?| A．To provide evidence. |
| B．To highlight the experience. |
| C．To present background information. |
| D．To introduce the topic of the passage. |
| A．People prefer additions to subtractions in most situations |
| B．The philosophy “less is more” is well-received for long. |
| C．Strengthening the structure is the way to maximize the payout. |
| D．People tend to use shortcuts and come up with ideal solutions. |
| A．A way that people automatically think. |
| B．A fact that people routinely forget. |
| C．A view that shortcuts are good enough. |
| D．A point that addition is always better. |
| A．The benefits of subtractions for people. |
| B．The ways of changing how people think. |
| C．The details of the preference for addition. |
| D．The influence of cognitive biases on people. |
9 . Rachel Maclean’s toy shop on Ayr high street appears like any other in a town centre at first sight. Step inside and you will notice that familiar promotional entreaties (恳求) are backwards: Don’t Buy Me, Nothing Must Go. Everything is upside down and nothing is for sale.
Matilda Coleman, six, picked up one of the toys—a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Disney princess(公主), and turned her upside down. Underneath the skirt was a pale-faced witchy (女巫的) version. The girl liked it, and then was confused that the toy wasn’t available to buy. Maclean’s work playfully breaks the grasp that consumer culture has on modern minds.
“What art can do best is to make you look at things that you’re very used to in a different way,” said Maclean (b.1987), a Glasgow-based multi-media artist who has rapidly established herself as one of the most distinctive voices in the UK. “Sadly the decline of our city centres is something that is common these days, so I want to bring people into a space where they can reflect on it in a fun way.”
“When the shop first opened, everyone was interested in finding out what it was,” said Parker, a local teenager. “It has lots of different themes about identity, consumerism, capitalism, but they are silent messages and everyone has different thoughts about it.”
Maclean has taken over this former butcher’s shop in Ayr as part of Jupiter Plus, a new arts and education initiative, which aims to reluyenate empty high street shops in towns and cities in Scotland with free art exbibitions and workshops for young people. People’s immediate joy at seeing something happening in here is abivious and it drives conversations about how they remember the high street and how the space could be used again.
1. Why is Matilda Coleman mentioned in paragraph 2?| A．To illustrate consumer culture. | B．To show the girl’s passion for toys. |
| C．To erase doubts about Maclean’s work. | D．To highlight the features of Maclean’s shop. |
| A．By giving examples. | B．By using quotes. |
| C．By making comparisons. | D．By sharing experiences. |
| A．Expand. | B．Refresh. | C．Replace. | D．Surround. |
| A．She has a creative mind. | B．She respects others’opinions. |
| C．She makes profits in a different way. | D．She draws public attention to education. |
10 . If you only have a few close friends, you may feel like an outcast in society. However, studies show that loners typically have greater intelligence than popular folks. So, if you prefer being alone most of the time, don’t beat yourself up about it.
Evolutionary psychologists Satoshi Kanazawa and Norman Li conducted a national survey involving 15,000 respondents aged from 18 to 28. The research revealed that people who lived in densely populated urban areas reported lower life satisfaction in general and that the more people socialized with close friends, the higher their self-reported happiness was. Of course, the only exception occurred when it came to intelligent individuals.
“The effect of population density on life satisfaction was therefore more than twice as large for low-IQ individuals than for high-IQ individuals,” they found. More intelligent individuals were actually less satisfied with life if they socialized with their friends more frequently. In other words, when intelligent people hang out more with their friends, they feel less happy.
What makes highly intelligent people so different from the average person? They prefer to spend their time alone usually because they have a larger goal in mind. They see socializing as a distraction when they could use their time more wisely. Also, they don’t appear to be as sensitive to population density as those with lower IQs. Therefore, they can navigate the challenges of modern living more efficiently and perhaps find novel solutions to most significant problems.
According to Kanazawa and Li’s savanna theory of happiness (稀树草原幸福理论), in the past, we would have lived in tribes instead of densely populated cities, helping to avoid loneliness. “Our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers in small bands of about 150 individuals,” they explain. “In such settings, having frequent contact with friends was necessary for their survival.” While we no longer live in small tribes now, most of us still require close friends and family to survive. That may explain the epidemic of loneliness affecting millions of people worldwide.
However, highly intelligent people are the exception to this theory. They don’t mind spending most of their time alone. So, if you don’t have many friends, you may have learned to overcome your primitive instincts. Perhaps you represent this small group of humans who can thrive in the modern era.
1. What do Kanazawa and Li find out?| A．People today like living in densely populated urban areas. |
| B．People today have lower life satisfaction than before. |
| C．Socializing can enhance one’s happiness generally. |
| D．Happiness mainly lies in the joy of achievement. |
| A．They are extremely sensitive to the environment. |
| B．They dislike spending much time socializing. |
| C．They can’t handle life challenges effectively. |
| D．They enjoy the company of other people. |
| A．Loneliness poses a great health threat to us. |
| B．People now are smarter than our ancestors. |
| C．Densely populated urban areas are harmful to us. |
| D．We still need to make contact with others to survive. |
| A．Why do smart people keep just a few close friends? |
| B．Why do most people tend to live in urban areas? |
| C．How do the brains of intelligent people work? |
| D．What is the key to happiness? |
