1 . Willful ignorance exists in large amount in daily life. People regularly look the other way rather than examining the consequences of their actions. Despite plenty of scientific evidence for climate change, for instance, many people still avoid engaging with facts about global warming.
We wanted to understand how common willful ignorance is and why people engage in it. After collecting data from multiple research projects that involved more than 6,000 individuals, we discovered that willful ignorance is common and harmful, with 40 percent of people choosing “not to know” the consequences of their actions to free themselves of guilt while maximizing their own gains. But we also found that about 40 percent of people are unselfish: rather than avoiding information about the consequences of their actions, they seek it out to increase the benefits to others.
In the experiments, the decisions were made in one of two settings. In the transparent (透明的) setting, decision-makers had information about how their choice would affect themselves and their partner. In an ambiguous (模糊的) setting, decision-makers knew how their choice would matter for themselves but not for their teammate — although they could request that insight.
The overall balance tipped toward selfishness when participants had the option to avoid information. Only 39 percent of people in the ambiguous setting made the choice that ultimately benefited their partner — a significant drop from 55 percent in the transparent condition.
If we can avoid putting a strong moral emphasis on decisions, it may make people feel less threatened and, as a result, be less willfully ignorant. Other research groups have found promising ways to do this. For instance, we could encourage people to think more positively about good deeds rather than guilt-trip them for what they have failed to do. Highlighting recent global achievements, such as healing the ozone (臭氧) layer, can inspire people to keep up the good work rather than feeling like the battle is lost and that the situation is hopeless.
In short, we can encourage one another and ourselves toward more selfless and generous actions.
1. Why do some people choose not to know the consequences of their actions?| A．To make easier choices to be a good person. |
| B．To increase their own benefits more than others’. |
| C．To avoid the influence of consequences on actions. |
| D．To get the most benefits without a sense of shame. |
| A．By focusing less on its morality. | B．By stressing its potential threat. |
| C．By being more positive about oneself. | D．By getting people aware of their actions. |
| A．Culture. | B．Environment. | C．Psychology. | D．Biology. |
| A．The reason for willful ignorance. |
| B．The results of willful ignorance. |
| C．The harmful effects of willful ignorance. |
| D．The influence of willful ignorance on environment. |
2 . In the rich countries of the West, the electric vehicle revolution is well occurring. Climate-conscious consumers drive Teslas or Polestars for reasons of morality (道德) and fashion. Poorer countries are also experiencing a wave of electrified trend. In Bangladesh, electric three-wheeler taxis, known as tuk-tuks, are rapidly replacing gas-powered ones on the streets. Such electric vehicles are climate friendly, cost effective, and help reduce air pollution.
Yet a glance under the hood (引擎盖) of these vehicles shows a poisonous secret: each tuk-tuk runs on five massive lead-acid batteries (铅酸电池), containing almost 300 pounds of lead (铅) in total. Every year and a half or so, when those batteries need to be replaced and recycled, about 60 pounds of lead leaks into the environment. Battery recycling, often at small-scale unregulated factories, is a highly profitable (高利润的) but deadly business.
Lead is dangerous, and any exposure to it is harmful to human health. Lead that has entered the environment hurts people on an unexpected scale. The numerous ways lead enters air, water, soil, and homes across the developing world and the enormous damage it does to human health, wealth, and welfare cause one of the biggest environmental problems in the world yet receives little attention.
The World Bank estimates that lead kills 5.5 million people per year, making it a bigger global killer than AIDS, malaria, diabetes, and road traffic deaths combined. On top of the shocking deaths, the social burden of lead poisoning is heavy, as is its contribution to global inequality — our research on the cognitive (认知的) effects of lead poisoning suggests that it may explain about one-fifth of the educational achievement gap between rich and poor countries.
But unlike many challenges faced by developing countries, lead poisoning is a problem that can be resolved through financial investment (财政投入). Better monitoring, research, and rules can help protect children all over the world from the unpleasant effects of lead poisoning and reduce the massive global costs it brings.
1. How does the author describe the lead problem in paragraph 2?| A．By listing some numbers. | B．By analyzing hidden causes. |
| C．By making an interesting comparison. | D．By explaining its working principle. |
| A．Lead enters poor countries in one way. |
| B．Lead leaking has been avoided in all the countries. |
| C．Lead will definitely not harm anymore. |
| D．Lead poisoning may make poor societies poorer. |
| A．Fixing these used batteries. | B．Reducing the cost of recycling lead. |
| C．Ignoring the illegal use of lead. | D．Putting certain effort and money. |
| A．The Impacts of Lead Poisoning on Man. |
| B．The Global Lead Poisoning Problem. |
| C．The Ways to Solve Lead Problem. |
| D．The Benefits of Using Electric Vehicles. |
3 . Many people assume today’s easy long-distance collaboration (合作) should release a flood of creative scientific research—but, strangely, a new study suggests the opposite may be true.
Several reasons have been suggested for an apparent slowdown in new research ideas, but it seems remote collaboration itself may be a limiting factor. For a recent study in Nature, University of Pittsburgh social scientist Lingfei Wu and his colleagues found that teams collaborating remotely produce fewer breakthroughs.
The researchers analyzed 20 million research papers published between 1960 and 2020 and four million patents filed between 1976 and 2020 to assess how “disruptive” they were by analyzing quotations. Highly disruptive studies were those that put earlier work to shame and open new avenues of research; articles that quote them usually don’t also quote earlier studies they build on. Less disruptive studies build on previous work, and articles quoting them typically also quote prior studies.
The researchers found that as the distance between authors’ workplaces increases from zero to at least 600 kilometers, their papers’ being disruptive falls by roughly a quarter. To investigate why, Wu and his team analyzed researchers’ self-reported roles. They found that those working together in person were more likely to focus on conceptual tasks—the kind of work likely to produce new ideas. Researchers collaborating remotely were more likely to do technical work such as data analysis.
The team also found that when researchers were gathering in person, even big differences between individuals’ quotation numbers had little effect on the likelihood of their collaborating on conceptual work. But in remote teams, the chances of researchers jointly producing ideas declined when one had significantly more quotations than the other.
The findings challenge the assumption that merely connecting people online leads to the growth of new ideas. In theory, remote collaboration enables more new combinations of knowledge. However, if new innovation is encouraged, people should be brought together instead of relying on digital infrastructure (基础设施). ”
1. What does the underlined “disruptive” mean in paragraph 3?| A．Creative. | B．Destructive. | C．Unique. | D．Representative. |
| A．In-person collaboration brings about technical work. |
| B．Long-distance collaboration doesn’t benefit new ideas. |
| C．Long-distance collaboration is of great importance. |
| D．In-person collaboration is better than long-distance one. |
| A．online individuals contribute to the discussion |
| B．equipment for remote collaboration is available |
| C．individuals’ quotations in both sides are equal |
| D．researchers’ quotations differ greatly in number |
| A．Researchers collaborate remotely to be more creative. |
| B．Scientists collaborate better when they are farther apart. |
| C．Scientists innovate more while working together in person. |
| D．Researchers make breakthroughs with digital infrastructure. |
4 . That artificial food dyes (染料) are unhealthy is not news. Some are known to cause hyperactivity (多动症) in some children, affecting their ability to learn. But regulatory agencies (监管机构) around the world don’t necessarily agree on which food dyes are a problem, or why. That may soon change. A 2021 peer-reviewed report by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that artificial food dyes “cause or worsen neurobehavioral (神经行为的) problems in some children” and that the current levels that are regarded safe for consumption by the federal government are too high.
California is now considering requiring warning labels on food products and dietary supplements containing the seven most commonly used artificial dyes. The warning label requirement would put California on par with the European Union, which since 2010 has required food products containing certain artificial food dyes to carry warning labels about their negative effect on activity and attention in children.
Artificial dyes are used in foods for one reason: to make products look prettier. Bright colors make candies appealing, especially to kids. But dyes are also in chocolate cake mixes, salad dressings and other products that don’t seem to cry out for a color boost.
In Europe, it was the 2010 label lawmaking that triggered (引发) companies’ decisions to reformulate. “If you’re a company, you do not want to put a warning label on your product.” says Lefferts, an environmental health consultant. Warning labels are why European Starburst Fruit Chews are now colored with natural products, not the artificial dyes that brighten their North American counterparts (同类商品).
Given that artificial food dyes are used far more than needed, we need to be more cautious. After all, we don’t dye fresh fruits and vegetables, but we do dye candy and sprinkles, points out Joe Schwarcz, a chemistry professor at McGill University in Montreal. “The foods in which you find food dyes are foods that are poor in nutrition,” he says. “If you limit foods that contain food dyes, you automatically make your diet better.”
1. What can we learn about artificial food dyes from paragraph 1?| A．A 2021 report confirmed their negative effects. |
| B．The fact that they are harmful is newly revealed. |
| C．Regulatory agencies consider them a serious problem. |
| D．The Federal government thinks their current standard too high. |
| A．In opposition to. | B．In line with. | C．Ahead of. | D．Behind. |
| A．Food companies will stop coloring their products. |
| B．More fresh fruits and vegetables will appear in the market. |
| C．Food companies may replace artificial dyes with natural products. |
| D．It will be hard to find packaged foods without warning labels of dyes. |
| A．Approving. | B．Neutral. | C．Tolerant. | D．Concerned. |
5 . Depending on your view, the recorder is an instrument of “incredible functions” or a tool of annoyance that has bothered primary schools for too many generations. But now, it faces extinction, with one of the UK’s top music schools reporting an 80% decline in the number of young people playing it in the last 10 years.
The instrument’s future is so imperiled that the European Recorder Teachers Association is trying to bring it back to life again so it does not leave the stage. The ERTA argues that if the recorder was good enough for the Beatles, it has a place in modern music today.
Tom Redmond, the principal of Chetham’s school of music in Manchester, said only three of its pupils practised the recorder, compared with 15 a decade ago. “More pupils were taking up the piano or other instruments,” said Redmond. “The ones that became really popular are the ones students spend more time playing alone. With the instruments being more socially based, there has been a decline, just like the recorder.”
Redmond also said that this problem extended “beyond the recorder itself” and was a mirror of the future of music. “Like removing any plant or animal from an ecosystem, removing the recorder has a huge chain effect beyond just the instrument. You need these instruments to create the inspiration for music, and without that, there is less excitement to learn music,” he said.
Chris Orton, a recorder tutor and chair of the ERTA, is leading the fight against the instrument’s extinction. He said, “The recorder is increasingly overlooked by students, and yet it has a rich history and incredible attractions. As well as making beautiful sounds, it’s an accessible instrument in that it is low-cost compared to other woodwind instruments, and it’s light and easy to carry.”
1. What does the underlined word “imperiled” in paragraph 2 probably mean?| A．In danger. | B．Full of hope. | C．Out of memory. | D．Beyond recognition. |
| A．Students are less excited to learn it. |
| B．Its disadvantages outweigh its advantages. |
| C．It requires more cooperation with other instruments. |
| D．Students are more likely to play high-end instruments. |
| A．Music education is essential for students. |
| B．The recorder shapes the future of music. |
| C．The recorder plays an important role in music. |
| D．Nature is a rich source of inspiration for musicians. |
| A．It needs to be improved. | B．It is inconvenient to play. |
| C．It is a priority for students. | D．It deserves more attention. |
6 . While we might like to think we would rush to someone’s assistance, we know from studies that often people hang back and this can have tragic consequences.
One of the most famous examples of this is the tragic case of Kitty Genovese who was fatally stabbed (刺伤) in Kew Gardens, New York, in 1964. Subsequent investigations concluded that several people saw or heard what was happening, but did nothing to intervene. This has been termed the “bystander effect” — a well-known psychological phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help to someone when other people are present. The more people there are, the less likely they are to help.
There are various factors contributing to this effect — people think that others will get involved or intervene. Afterwards people often say they did not feel qualified or senior or important enough to be the one to intervene. It is also partly down to “pluralistic (多元化的) ignorance” — since everyone is not reacting to the emergency, they don’t need to either; it’s not serious because no one else is doing anything. After a serious incident where people have been affected by the bystander effect, they are often horrified that they didn’t do anything—they can’t believe they had not realized it was more serious or that they didn’t think to get involved.
The important thing to understand though is that other studies have shown that once people are aware of the bystander effect, they are less likely to be affected by it. Self-awareness is the best approach to it. When confronted with an emergency, think to yourself how you would behave if you were on your own. Ignore everyone else and how they are behaving and go with your courage — if you’d call an ambulance, do it. If you’d run for help, do it. If that’s how you would have behaved when you were on your own, then that’s probably the right course of action.
1. Why does the author mention “the tragic case of Kitty Genovese” in paragraph 2?| A．To present a fact. | B．To confirm a finding. |
| C．To predict a conclusion. | D．To illustrate an approach. |
| A．feel confident to intervene. | B．tend to help people in need. |
| C．be well aware of bad consequences. | D．feel shocked after a serious incident. |
| A．Think twice. | B．Follow others. |
| C．Step in at once. | D．Take action cautiously. |
| A．Behave Yourself | B．Don’t Be A Bystander |
| C．Action in An Emergency | D．Severity of Bystander Effect |
Cinemas may be dying. But the high end is thriving.
The box office has a bad case. Worldwide takings last year were a quarter below their peak. Americans, who went to the cinema more than five times each in 2000, last year went
IMAX,
Theatre operators must hope audiences are
Successful cinemas will treat a trip
Short clips of the “kemusan” — or “subject three” dance — has become a latest Internet sensation on social media platforms at home and abroad. By December 10, the dance,
The dance went viral quickly and has been adapted into
9 . Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the anti-smoking lobby(游说) was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.
There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth’s atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made. The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, added this key point in the preface to the panel’s report: “Science never has all the answers. But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions.”
Just as on smoking, voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it’s OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the time 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent person would take out an insurance policy now.
Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it’s obvious that a majority of the president’s advisers still don’t take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research — a classic case of “paralysis by analysis”.
To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won’t take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures. A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial supports for private industry, is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound.
1. What was an argument made by supporters of smoking?| A．Anti-smoking people were usually talking nonsense. |
| B．People had the freedom to choose their own way of life. |
| C．The number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant. |
| D．There was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death. |
| A．A protector. | B．A judge. | C．A critic. | D．A guide. |
| A．Cautious. | B．Confident. | C．Responsible. | D．Experienced. |
| A．Both of them have turned from bad to worse. |
| B．The outcome of the latter worsens the former. |
| C．A lesson from the latter is applicable to the former. |
| D．They both suffered from the government’s neglect. |
10 . It’s no secret that reading good news feels a lot better than reading bad news. Like, would you rather bite into a lemon, or sip on a fresh glass of lemonade?
In fact, good news, known as solutions journalism, is becoming more popular, as publishers and news stations discover the benefits of sharing positive stories. Good Good Good is one of them.
“If it bleeds, it leads.” has long been a saying used in the media to describe how news stories about violence, death and destruction draw readers’ attention.
| A．Share good news with people around you. |
| B．It’s just that we don’t hear as much about them. |
| C．But the “bad news” has its place in the world. |
| D．It provides a more balanced view of the world. |
| E．And so, negative news stories are everywhere on news media. |
| F．Heartwarming stories make you cry and feel good. |
| G．The news media company is devoted to providing good news intentionally. |
