Teenage life is full of adventures and challenges. Doing voluntary work is popular among some teenagers. And extra-curricular activities
2 . Technology seems to discourage slow, immersive reading. Reading on a screen tires your eyes and makes it harder for you to keep your place. Online writing tends to be more skimmable and list-like than print. The cognitive neuroscientist Mary Walt argued recently that this “new norm” of skim reading is producing “an invisible, game -changing transformation” in how readers process words. The neuronal circuit that sustains the brain’s capacity to read now favors the rapid absorption of information.
We shouldn’t overplay this danger. All readers skim. From about the age of nine, our eyes start to bounce around the page, reading only about a quarter of the words properly, and filling in the gaps by inference. Nor is there anything new in these fears about declining attention spans. So far, the anxieties have proved to be false alarms. “Quite a few critics have been worried about attention spans lately and see very short stories as signs of cultural decline,” the American author Selvin Brown wrote. “No one ever said that poems were evidence of short attention spans.”
And yet the Internet has certainly changed the way we read. For a start, it means that there is more to read, because more people than ever are writing. And digital writing is meant for rapid release and response. This mode of writing and reading can be interactive and fun. But often it treats other people’s words as something to be quickly harvested as fodder (素材) to say something else. Everyone talks over the top of everyone else, desperate to be heard.
Perhaps we should slow down. Reading is constantly promoted as a social good and source of personal achievement. But this advocacy often emphasizes “enthusiastic” “passionate” or “eager” reading, none of which adjectives suggest slow, quiet absorption. To a slow reader, a piece of writing can only be fully understood by immersing oneself in the words and their slow comprehension of a line of thought.
The human need for this kind of deep reading is too tenacious for any new technology to destroy. We often assume that technological change can’t be stopped and happens in one direction, so that older media like “dead-tree” books are kicked out by newer, more virtual forms. In practice, older technologies can coexist with new ones. The Kindle has not killed off the printed book any more than the car killed off the bicycle. We still want to enjoy slowly. formed ideas and carefully-chosen words. Even in a fast-moving age, there is time for slow reading.
1. Selvin Brown would probably agree that ________.A.poetry reading is vital to attention spans |
B.the gravity of cultural decline is urgent |
C.fears of attention spans are unnecessary |
D.online writing harms immersive reading |
A.It demands writers to abandon traditional writing modes. |
B.It leads to too much talking and not enough deep reflection. |
C.It depends heavily on frequent interaction with the readers. |
D.It paves the way for enthusiastic, passionate or eager reading. |
A.Deep-rooted. |
B.Fast-advanced. |
C.Slowly-changed. |
D.Rarely-noticed. |
A.The Wonder of Deep Reading |
B.Slow Reading is Here to Stay |
C.The Internet is Changing the Way We Read |
D.Digital vs Print: A Life-and-Death Struggle |
3 . We talk continuously about how to make children tougher and stronger, but whatever we’re doing, it’s not working. Rates of anxiety disorders and depression are rising rapidly among teenagers. What are we doing wrong?
Nassim Taleb invented the word “antifragile” and used it to describe a small but very important class of systems that gain from shocks, challenges, and disorder. The immune (免疫的) system is one of them: it requires exposure to certain kinds of bacteria and potential allergens (过敏原) in childhood in order to develop to its full ability.
Children’s social and emotional abilities are as antifragile as their immune systems. If we overprotect kids and keep them “safe” from unpleasant social situations and negative emotions, we deprive (剥夺) them of the challenges and opportunities for skill-building they need to grow strong. Such children are likely to suffer more when exposed later to other unpleasant but ordinary life events, such as teasing and social rejection.
In the UK, as in the US, parents became much more fearful in the 1980s and 1990s to those rare occurrences of crimes and accidents that now occur less and less. Outdoor play and independent mobility went down; screen time and adult-monitored activities went up.
Yet free play in which kids work out their own rules of engagement, take small risks, and learn to master small dangers turns out to be vital for the development of adult social and even physical competence. Depriving them of free play prevents their social-emotional growth.
What can we do to change this situation? How can we raise kids strong enough to handle the ordinary and extraordinary challenges of life? We can’t guarantee that giving primary school children more independence today will bring down the rate of teenage suicide tomorrow. The links between childhood overprotection and teenage mental illness are suggestive but not clear-cut. Yet there are good reasons to suspect that by depriving our naturally antifragile kids of the wide range of experiences they need to become strong, we are systematically preventing their growth. We should let go — and let them grow.
1. Why does the author mention the immune system in Paragraph 2?A.To stress its importance. | B.To help understand a new word. |
C.To question the latest discovery. | D.To analyze the types of anxiety. |
A.Because their children are not independent enough. |
B.Because they want to keep their children from being teased. |
C.Because parent-monitored activities are a must. |
D.Because they are concerned about their children’s safety. |
A.It can reduce children’s risky behavior. | B.It can strengthen children’s friendship. |
C.It can promote children’s toughness. | D.It can develop children’s leadership skills. |
A.Parents should stop trying to protect their children. |
B.Parents should try their best to raise their children on their own. |
C.Parents should try to teach their children all about life. |
D.Parents should prepare the children for the road, not the road for the children. |
4 . Time and time again, I hear someone ask why anyone would want to keep an “ugly” building or a building that is dirty and clearly in need of work. I think you could say we preservationists look at buildings through a different angle — an angle that can see the swan (天鹅) in the ugly duck, the story in the simple lines, the book behind the cover.
Take the Queen Emma Building for example. While people may remember that building being named as one of the ugliest buildings in town, the angle from which a preservationist will view the building is that it is uniquely constructed with an artistical brise-soleil to block the sun. The designer used standard concrete bricks to form a decorative wall. Unfortunately, the brise-soleil was removed in 2011, making the building look like many of the contemporary buildings in town.
Sometimes people remember a beautiful site that was replaced by a “horrid” piece of architecture and can’t get over their anger, even when that building becomes an important part of our story. This is particularly true in San Francisco where many preservationists themselves dislike anything newer than the Victorian era. Yes, it was a tragedy that many failed to appreciate the Victorian buildings and let many get torn down several decades ago, but those losses also tell another important story. It tells the story of the 1950s and 1960s when there was hope for a more equal society with inexpensive housing for the working class. Should that history be wiped from our memories?
Preservation is not just about keeping pretty, well-kept buildings, but about conveying parts of our history-not just the history of huge events, but the story of how everyone used to go to a certain corner market. Our history cannot be told only in buildings that meet someone’s criteria of beauty; sometimes our history is painful, but no less important.
1. How do preservationists see buildings?A.They are devoted to repairing famous buildings. |
B.They focus on their value rather than appearance. |
C.They prefer ugly buildings to beautiful ones. |
D.They pay great attention to ancient buildings. |
A.It’s regrettable. | B.It’s confusing. |
C.It’s pleasing. | D.It’s unbelievable. |
A.To wipe the history of the Victorian era. |
B.To restore the architecture before the Victorian era. |
C.To work off the deep anger of the working class. |
D.To make land available for cheap housing. |
A.What kind of buildings are of historical value? |
B.Why do architects make ugly buildings? |
C.Are ugly buildings worth preserving? |
D.Are preservationists’ work meaningless? |
If you live in Shanghai, you might have to take a lesson in sorting garbage.
More cities are introducing similar regulations,
Aside from China, many other foreign countries
6 . “Please, no flash photography.”
Polite requests like this can be found in museums all over the world, but they generally fail to persuade people out of taking photos of whatever they feel like. The same goes for concerts, movie theaters and other places where people routinely ignore filming restrictions. A new patent from Apple may help discourage that rebellious behavior-on phones at least.
The patent, awarded to Apple today, outlines a system which would allow venues to use an infrared emitter (红外线发射器) to remotely disable the camera function on smartphones. According to the patent, infrared rays could be picked up by the camera, and interpreted by the smartphone as a command to block the user from taking any photos or videos of whatever they’re seeing.
Many musicians and performers have banned cellphones from their shows, either because they want their audiences to actually pay attention to them, or because they don’t want the free footage (片段镜头) going viral around the web. Despite this, unauthorized (未授权的) images still manage to make their way into the public eye. The last concert of American singer Prince before he passed away was supposed to be cellphone-free —it apparently wasn’t. If Apple’s patent is introduced into iPhone software, and venues put infrared emitters around their stage, leaks like this could potentially stop happening.
But the patent also raises questions about the sort of power that this technology would be handing over to people with more immoral intentions.
Right now, there’s no guarantee that Apple intends to put this technology into any of its software —Apple doesn’t act on many of the thousands of patents it files each year —and the company wasn’t immediately available to comment on its plans for the patent.
Given the company’s rigid support of personal privacy when it comes to police requests to break into users’ devices, it’s possible that Apple just patented the technology so that no one else will use it. But who knows, if it does intend to introduce this feature to future operating systems, sales of alternative shooting devices like camcorders, or even GoPros, could get a much-needed boost, as people try to avoid having to use the prohibitive software.
1. How can Apple’s patented system prevent smartphone users from taking photos or videos at specific venues?A.By giving out a sound wave that disables smartphone cameras. |
B.By picking up infrared rays emitted by the cameras when they are filming. |
C.By using infrared rays that can remotely block camera usage on smartphones. |
D.By automatically deleting photos or videos if they are taken without permission. |
A.To make the performers more focused on the show. |
B.To avoid the unauthorized footage being freely shared and spread online. |
C.To prevent the performers’ images from coming to widespread public attention. |
D.To protect the audience from people with immoral intentions. |
A.Unintended damage. | B.Unauthorized release. |
C.Unexpected death. | D.Undesired freedom. |
A.Apple has planned to apply this patent to future operating systems. |
B.All the patents Apple files each year are meant to be put into its software. |
C.Apple may agree to put this technology into its software due to police requests. |
D.People may turn to other shooting devices if Apple introduces the prohibitive software. |
1. Why do fewer and fewer people do the cooking?
A.They are living a busy life. |
B.It’s difficult to cater for all tastes. |
C.There’s a wide variety of takeout food. |
A.Fast food. | B.Home-made dishes. | C.Low-sugar dessert. |
A.Ordering food on the Internet. |
B.Cooking healthy meals at home. |
C.Eating at a restaurant in the neighborhood. |
A.Americans’ daily diet has changed a lot. |
B.People like trying different cooking styles. |
C.Ordering food online is convenient and popular. |
1. How old might the speakers be?
A.In their teens. | B.In their 30s. | C.In their 70s. |
A.Play games inside. | B.Relax and live simply. | C.Go to school and work hard. |
A.Playing cards. | B.Listening to music. | C.Surfing the Internet. |
9 . Once upon a time, eating alone was just that: sitting down in a restaurant on one’s own and eating a meal. Everyone did it sometimes, and when they did so it might suggest that they didn’t have any family or friends, or didn’t like people. There was a kind of shame attached to it.
“Foodies”-people who have a passionate interest in different cuisines—do it because all they need for their pleasure is the chance to eat good food.
But for others, the appeal of eating alone is quite different.
A.It’s an experience of freedom. |
B.Therefore, they might be a little embarrassed. |
C.Nowadays, however, there are more and more people eating alone. |
D.Some people eat alone because it’s simply practical for them to do so. |
E.Some people eat alone because they usually go to fast-food restaurants. |
F.They don’t want company or conversation, but only the joy of eating some special dish. |
G.Maybe they will bring a book or perhaps they will shyly spy on the people around them. |
10 . Think of a city you know, and try to picture it five years from now. Will its streets be full of electric cars. some of them self-driving? If so, then the current problem facing electric vehicles (EVs) will be a minor problem. However, US sales have slowed well below the government’s target, EVs’ share of the British market has stopped growing and only 1. 2 percent of European passenger cars in 2022 were battery-powered. My bet is that, in cities at least, the c-car won’t gain the upper hand in the years to come.
EVs emit more carbon over their life cycle than any form of urban transport except petrol cars. They are still worthwhile for people in suburbs, who drive long distances every day and who will earn back the emissions and the financial expenses by never buying gas again.
EVs face many other obstacles. Cities are claiming back space from cars. Paris, where I live, is having a vote on February 4 on a special parking tax for heavier SUVs. In a few years, mayors might start handling self-driving cars. These are so convenient that if they ever became affordable for the mass market. almost everyone would buy one, and they would clog up (阻塞) cities.
Then there’s the problem of charging EVs. Suburbanites with home garages can install chargers, but the lack of public chargers on city streets hasn’t become a major issue yet only because so few people own EVs. Even if you find an urban charger that works, charging can take hours.
Crucially, most of the world’s EVs with high quality are made in China, so there won’t be an aggressive western lobby (游说团) casing their way. On the contrary, governments may well raise taxes to block them rather than let China outperform yet another western industry.
For a city-resident getting rid of a petrol car, the calculation then becomes: instead of an EV, can I buy a much cheaper, health-giving e-bike that I can charge in my flat, and supplement that with the odd taxi ride? That is the trend. Looking back in five years, we may conclude that electric cars were made for American suburbia and for almost nowhere else.
1. Paris is having a vote on a special parking tax. in order to ________.A.increase taxes | B.spare some space |
C.expand urban areas | D.reduce traffic jams |
A.Because the governments needed to protect their domestic industries. A. Because the governments needed to protect their domestic industries. |
B.Because EVs made in China didn’t reach the standard required. |
C.Because the western lobby promoted EVs made in China. |
D.Because China was desperate to export its goods. |
A.EVs are eco-friendly. | B.EVs are costly for average people. |
C.EVs will be in huge demand. | D.EV chargers are readily available. |
A.EVs are not the future. | B.EVs are being replaced. |
C.EVs affect the environment. | D.EVs have alarming problems. |