一、Part Ⅱ Listening Comprehension
1、Question 1 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、See the Pope.
B、Go to Newcastle.
C、Travel to Germany.
D、Tour an Italian city.
2、Question 2 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、He was taken to hospital in an ambulance.
B、His car hit a sign and was badly damaged.
C、His GPS system went out of order.
D、He ended up in the wrong place.
3、Question 3 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、Scotland will reach the national target in carbon emissions reduction ahead of schedule.
B、Glasgow City Council has made a deal with ScottishPower on carbon emissions.
C、Glasgow has pledged to take the lead in reducing carbon emissions in the UK.
D、First Minister Nicola Sturgeon urged ScottishPower to reduce carbon emissions.
4、Question 4 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、Glasgow needs to invest in new technologies to reach its goal.
B、Glasgow is going to explore new sources of renewable energy.
C、Stricter regulation is needed in transforming Glasgow’s economy.
D、It’s necessary to create more low-emission zones as soon as possible.
5、Question 5 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、It donates money to overpopulated animal shelters.
B、It permits employees to bring cats into their office.
C、It gives 5,000 yen to employees who keep pet cats.
D、It allows workers to do whatever their hearts desire.
6、Question 6 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、Keep cats off the street.
B、Rescue homeless cats.
C、Volunteer to help in animal shelters.
D、Contribute to a fund for cat protection.
7、Question 7 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、It has contributed tremendously to the firm’s fame.
B、It has helped a lot to improve animals’ well-being.
C、It has led some other companies to follow suit.
D、It has resulted in damage to office equipment.
8、Question 8 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、Find out where Jimmy is.
B、Borrow money from Jimmy.
C、Make friends with Jimmy.
D、Ask Jimmy what is to be done.
9、Question 9 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、He was unsure what kind of fellow Jimmy was.
B、He was working on a study project with Jimmy.
C、He wanted to make a sincere apology to Jimmy.
D、He wanted to invite her to join in a study project.
10、Question 10 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、He got a ticket for speeding.
B、He got his car badly damaged.
C、He was involved in a traffic accident.
D、He had an operation for his injury.
11、Question 11 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、He needed to make some donation to charity.
B、He found the 60 pounds in his pocket missing.
C、He wanted to buy a gift for his mother’s birthday.
D、He wanted to conceal something from his parents.
12、Question 12 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、Shopping delivery.
B、Shopping online.
C、Where he goes shopping.
D、How often he does shopping.
13、Question 13 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、Searching in the aisles.
B、Dealing with the traffic.
C、Driving too long a distance.
D、Getting one’s car parked.
14、Question 14 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、The after-sales service.
B、The replacement policy.
C、The quality of food products.
D、The damage to the packaging.
15、Question 15 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、It saves money.
B、It offers more choices.
C、It increases the joy of shopping.
D、It is less time-consuming.
16、Question 16 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They have little talent for learning math.
B、They need medical help for math anxiety.
C、They need extra help to catch up in the math class.
D、They have strong negative emotions towards math.
17、Question 17 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、It will gradually pass away without teachers’ help.
B、It affects low-performing children only.
C、It is related to a child’s low intelligence.
D、It exists mostly among children from poor families.
18、Question 18 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、Most of them have average to strong math ability.
B、Most of them get timely help from their teachers.
C、They will regain confidence with counselling.
D、They are mostly secondary school students.
19、Question 19 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、Social media addiction is a threat to our health.
B、Too many people are addicted to smartphones.
C、Addiction to computer games is a disease.
D、Computer games can be rather addictive.
20、Question 20 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They prioritize their favored activity over what they should do.
B、They do their favored activity whenever and wherever possible.
C、They are unaware of the damage their behavior is doing to them.
D、They are unable to get rid of their addiction without professional help.
21、Question 21 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、It may be less damaging than previously believed.
B、There will never be agreement on its harm to people.
C、It may prove to be beneficial to developing creativity.
D、There is not enough evidence to classify it as a disease.
22、Question 22 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They are relatively uniform in color and design.
B、They appear more formal than other passports.
C、They are a shade of red bordering on brown.
D、They vary in color from country to country.
23、Question 23 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They must endure wear and tear.
B、They must be of the same size.
C、They must be made from a rare material.
D、They must follow some common standards.
24、Question 24 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They look more traditional.
B、They look more official.
C、They are favored by airlines.
D、They are easily identifiable.
25、Question 25 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、For beauty.
B、For variety.
C、For visibility.
D、For security.
二、Part III Reading Comprehension
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
26、(1)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
27、(2)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
28、(3)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
29、(4)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
30、(5)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
31、(6)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
32、(7)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
33、(8)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
34、(9)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Nowadays you can’t buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a company’s performance on a five-star scale.
I’ve been asked to rate my “store (26)_____” on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay. Even the most (27)_____ activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, “How did we do?”
Online purchases are (28)_____ followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so (29)_____ for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.
We’re (30)_____ to rate our apps when we’ve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after you’ve only completed (31)_____ 2 per cent of it.
Economist Jason Murphy says that companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a (32)_____ display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modern economy.
However, you can’t help but (33)_____ if these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I (34)_____ that with online surveys I just click the (35)_____ that’s closest to my mouse cursor (光标) to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day I’m having than the purchase I just made.
35、(10)
A、option
B、wonder
C、commonplace
D、routinely
E、confess
F、showering
G、voyage
H、roughly
I、shining
J、desperate
K、announce
L、fascinated
M、experience
N、prompted
O、variety
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
36、36. Being a close loser could greatly motivate one to persevere in their research.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
37、37. Grant awarders tend to favor researchers already recognized in their respective fields.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
38、38. Suffering early setbacks might help people improve their job performance.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
39、39. Research by social scientists on the effects of career setbacks has produced contradictory findings.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
40、40. It is not to the best interest of taxpayers to keep giving money to narrow winners.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
41、41. Scientists who persisted in research without receiving a grant made greater achievements than those who got one with luck, as suggested in one study.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
42、42. A research paper rejected by one journal may get accepted by another.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
43、43. According to one recent study, narrow winners of research grants had better chances to be promoted to professors.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
44、44. One researcher suggests it might be more fruitful to distribute grants on a relatively equal basis.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
【A】 How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?
【B】One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
【C】A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
【D】Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.
【E】This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
【F】In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
【G】One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
【H】Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
【I】He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
【J】For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
【K】In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
45、45. Minor setbacks in their early career may have a strong negative effect on the career of close losers.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Boredom has become trendy. Studies point to how boredom is good for creativity and innovation, as well as mental health. It is found that people are more creative following the completion of a tedious task. When people are bored, they have an increase in “associative thought”—the process of making new connections between ideas, which is linked to innovative thinking. These studies are impressive, but in reality, the benefits of boredom may be related to having time to clear your mind, be quiet, or daydream.
In our stimulation-rich world, it seems unrealistic that boredom could occur at all. Yet, there are valid reasons boredom may feel so painful. As it turns out, boredom might signal the fact that you have a need that isn’t being met.
Our always-on world of social media may result in more connections, but they are superficial and can get in the way of building a real sense of belonging. Feeling bored may signal the desire for a greater sense of community and the feeling that you fit in with others around you. So take the step of joining an organization to build face-to-face relationships. You’ll find depth that you won’t get from your screen no matter how many likes you get on your post.
Similar to the need for belonging, bored people often report that they feel a limited sense of meaning. It’s a fundamental human need to have a larger purpose and to feel like we’re part of something bigger than ourselves. When people are bored, they’re more likely to feel less meaning in their lives. If you want to reduce boredom and increase your sense of meaning, seek work where you can make a unique contribution, or find a cause you can support with your time and talent.
If your definition of boredom is being quiet, mindful, and reflective, keep it up. But if you’re struggling with real boredom and the emptiness it provokes, consider whether you might seek new connections and more significant challenges. These are the things that will genuinely relieve boredom and make you more effective in the process.
46、46. What have studies found about boredom?
A、It facilitates innovative thinking.
B、It is a result of doing boring tasks.
C、It helps people connect with others.
D、It does harm to one’s mental health.
Boredom has become trendy. Studies point to how boredom is good for creativity and innovation, as well as mental health. It is found that people are more creative following the completion of a tedious task. When people are bored, they have an increase in “associative thought”—the process of making new connections between ideas, which is linked to innovative thinking. These studies are impressive, but in reality, the benefits of boredom may be related to having time to clear your mind, be quiet, or daydream.
In our stimulation-rich world, it seems unrealistic that boredom could occur at all. Yet, there are valid reasons boredom may feel so painful. As it turns out, boredom might signal the fact that you have a need that isn’t being met.
Our always-on world of social media may result in more connections, but they are superficial and can get in the way of building a real sense of belonging. Feeling bored may signal the desire for a greater sense of community and the feeling that you fit in with others around you. So take the step of joining an organization to build face-to-face relationships. You’ll find depth that you won’t get from your screen no matter how many likes you get on your post.
Similar to the need for belonging, bored people often report that they feel a limited sense of meaning. It’s a fundamental human need to have a larger purpose and to feel like we’re part of something bigger than ourselves. When people are bored, they’re more likely to feel less meaning in their lives. If you want to reduce boredom and increase your sense of meaning, seek work where you can make a unique contribution, or find a cause you can support with your time and talent.
If your definition of boredom is being quiet, mindful, and reflective, keep it up. But if you’re struggling with real boredom and the emptiness it provokes, consider whether you might seek new connections and more significant challenges. These are the things that will genuinely relieve boredom and make you more effective in the process.
47、47. What does the author say boredom might indicate?
A、A need to be left alone.
B、A desire to be fulfilled.
C、A conflict to be resolved.
D、A feeling to be validated.
Boredom has become trendy. Studies point to how boredom is good for creativity and innovation, as well as mental health. It is found that people are more creative following the completion of a tedious task. When people are bored, they have an increase in “associative thought”—the process of making new connections between ideas, which is linked to innovative thinking. These studies are impressive, but in reality, the benefits of boredom may be related to having time to clear your mind, be quiet, or daydream.
In our stimulation-rich world, it seems unrealistic that boredom could occur at all. Yet, there are valid reasons boredom may feel so painful. As it turns out, boredom might signal the fact that you have a need that isn’t being met.
Our always-on world of social media may result in more connections, but they are superficial and can get in the way of building a real sense of belonging. Feeling bored may signal the desire for a greater sense of community and the feeling that you fit in with others around you. So take the step of joining an organization to build face-to-face relationships. You’ll find depth that you won’t get from your screen no matter how many likes you get on your post.
Similar to the need for belonging, bored people often report that they feel a limited sense of meaning. It’s a fundamental human need to have a larger purpose and to feel like we’re part of something bigger than ourselves. When people are bored, they’re more likely to feel less meaning in their lives. If you want to reduce boredom and increase your sense of meaning, seek work where you can make a unique contribution, or find a cause you can support with your time and talent.
If your definition of boredom is being quiet, mindful, and reflective, keep it up. But if you’re struggling with real boredom and the emptiness it provokes, consider whether you might seek new connections and more significant challenges. These are the things that will genuinely relieve boredom and make you more effective in the process.
48、48. What do we learn about social media from the passage?
A、It may be an obstacle to expanding one’s connections.
B、It may get in the way of enhancing one’s social status.
C、It may prevent people from developing a genuine sense of community.
D、It may make people feel that they ought to fit in with the outside world.
Boredom has become trendy. Studies point to how boredom is good for creativity and innovation, as well as mental health. It is found that people are more creative following the completion of a tedious task. When people are bored, they have an increase in “associative thought”—the process of making new connections between ideas, which is linked to innovative thinking. These studies are impressive, but in reality, the benefits of boredom may be related to having time to clear your mind, be quiet, or daydream.
In our stimulation-rich world, it seems unrealistic that boredom could occur at all. Yet, there are valid reasons boredom may feel so painful. As it turns out, boredom might signal the fact that you have a need that isn’t being met.
Our always-on world of social media may result in more connections, but they are superficial and can get in the way of building a real sense of belonging. Feeling bored may signal the desire for a greater sense of community and the feeling that you fit in with others around you. So take the step of joining an organization to build face-to-face relationships. You’ll find depth that you won’t get from your screen no matter how many likes you get on your post.
Similar to the need for belonging, bored people often report that they feel a limited sense of meaning. It’s a fundamental human need to have a larger purpose and to feel like we’re part of something bigger than ourselves. When people are bored, they’re more likely to feel less meaning in their lives. If you want to reduce boredom and increase your sense of meaning, seek work where you can make a unique contribution, or find a cause you can support with your time and talent.
If your definition of boredom is being quiet, mindful, and reflective, keep it up. But if you’re struggling with real boredom and the emptiness it provokes, consider whether you might seek new connections and more significant challenges. These are the things that will genuinely relieve boredom and make you more effective in the process.
49、49. What does the author suggest people do to get rid of boredom?
A、Count the likes they get on their posts.
B、Reflect on how they relate to others.
C、Engage in real-life interactions.
D、Participate in online discussions.
Boredom has become trendy. Studies point to how boredom is good for creativity and innovation, as well as mental health. It is found that people are more creative following the completion of a tedious task. When people are bored, they have an increase in “associative thought”—the process of making new connections between ideas, which is linked to innovative thinking. These studies are impressive, but in reality, the benefits of boredom may be related to having time to clear your mind, be quiet, or daydream.
In our stimulation-rich world, it seems unrealistic that boredom could occur at all. Yet, there are valid reasons boredom may feel so painful. As it turns out, boredom might signal the fact that you have a need that isn’t being met.
Our always-on world of social media may result in more connections, but they are superficial and can get in the way of building a real sense of belonging. Feeling bored may signal the desire for a greater sense of community and the feeling that you fit in with others around you. So take the step of joining an organization to build face-to-face relationships. You’ll find depth that you won’t get from your screen no matter how many likes you get on your post.
Similar to the need for belonging, bored people often report that they feel a limited sense of meaning. It’s a fundamental human need to have a larger purpose and to feel like we’re part of something bigger than ourselves. When people are bored, they’re more likely to feel less meaning in their lives. If you want to reduce boredom and increase your sense of meaning, seek work where you can make a unique contribution, or find a cause you can support with your time and talent.
If your definition of boredom is being quiet, mindful, and reflective, keep it up. But if you’re struggling with real boredom and the emptiness it provokes, consider whether you might seek new connections and more significant challenges. These are the things that will genuinely relieve boredom and make you more effective in the process.
50、50. What should people do to enhance their sense of meaning?
A、Try to do something original.
B、Confront significant challenges.
C、Define boredom in their unique way.
D、Devote themselves to a worthy cause.
Can you remember what you ate yesterday? If asked, most people will be able to give a vague description of their main meals: breakfast, lunch, dinner. But can you be sure you’ve noted every snack bar in your car, or every handful of nuts at your desk? Most people will have a feeling that they’ve missed something out.
We originally had this suspicion back in 2016, puzzled by the fact that national statistics showed calorie consumption falling dramatically over past decades. We found reliable evidence that people were drastically under-reporting what they ate.
Now the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that we are consuming 50% more calories than our national statistics claim.
Why is this happening? We can point to at least three potential causes. One is the rise in obesity levels itself. Under-reporting rates are much higher for obese people, because they simply consume more food, and thus have more to remember.
Another cause is that the proportion of people who are trying to lose weight has been increasing over time. People who want to lose weight are more likely to under-report their eating—regardless of whether they are overweight or not. This may be driven partly by self-deception or “wishful thinking”.
The final potential cause is an increase in snacking and eating out over recent decades—both in terms of how often they happen and how much they contribute to our overall energy intake. Again, there is evidence that food consumed out of the home is one of the most poorly recorded categories in surveys.
So, what’s the message conveyed? For statistics, we should invest in more accurate measurement options. For policy, we need to focus on options that make it easy for people to eat fewer calories. If people do not know how much they are eating, it can be really hard for them to stick to a diet. Also, we should be looking for new ways to ensure what people eat wouldn’t have much impact on their waistlines. If this works, it won’t matter if they can’t remember what they ate yesterday.
51、51. What did the author suspect back in 2016?
A、Calorie consumption had fallen drastically over the decades.
B、Most people surveyed were reluctant to reveal what they ate.
C、The national statistics did not reflect the actual calorie consumption.
D、Most people did not include snacks when reporting their calorie intake.
Can you remember what you ate yesterday? If asked, most people will be able to give a vague description of their main meals: breakfast, lunch, dinner. But can you be sure you’ve noted every snack bar in your car, or every handful of nuts at your desk? Most people will have a feeling that they’ve missed something out.
We originally had this suspicion back in 2016, puzzled by the fact that national statistics showed calorie consumption falling dramatically over past decades. We found reliable evidence that people were drastically under-reporting what they ate.
Now the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that we are consuming 50% more calories than our national statistics claim.
Why is this happening? We can point to at least three potential causes. One is the rise in obesity levels itself. Under-reporting rates are much higher for obese people, because they simply consume more food, and thus have more to remember.
Another cause is that the proportion of people who are trying to lose weight has been increasing over time. People who want to lose weight are more likely to under-report their eating—regardless of whether they are overweight or not. This may be driven partly by self-deception or “wishful thinking”.
The final potential cause is an increase in snacking and eating out over recent decades—both in terms of how often they happen and how much they contribute to our overall energy intake. Again, there is evidence that food consumed out of the home is one of the most poorly recorded categories in surveys.
So, what’s the message conveyed? For statistics, we should invest in more accurate measurement options. For policy, we need to focus on options that make it easy for people to eat fewer calories. If people do not know how much they are eating, it can be really hard for them to stick to a diet. Also, we should be looking for new ways to ensure what people eat wouldn’t have much impact on their waistlines. If this works, it won’t matter if they can’t remember what they ate yesterday.
52、52. What has the Office for National Statistics verified?
A、People’s calorie intake was far from accurately reported.
B、The missing out of main meals leads to the habit of snacking.
C、The nation’s obesity level has much to do with calorie intake.
D、Calorie consumption is linked to the amount of snacks one eats.
Can you remember what you ate yesterday? If asked, most people will be able to give a vague description of their main meals: breakfast, lunch, dinner. But can you be sure you’ve noted every snack bar in your car, or every handful of nuts at your desk? Most people will have a feeling that they’ve missed something out.
We originally had this suspicion back in 2016, puzzled by the fact that national statistics showed calorie consumption falling dramatically over past decades. We found reliable evidence that people were drastically under-reporting what they ate.
Now the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that we are consuming 50% more calories than our national statistics claim.
Why is this happening? We can point to at least three potential causes. One is the rise in obesity levels itself. Under-reporting rates are much higher for obese people, because they simply consume more food, and thus have more to remember.
Another cause is that the proportion of people who are trying to lose weight has been increasing over time. People who want to lose weight are more likely to under-report their eating—regardless of whether they are overweight or not. This may be driven partly by self-deception or “wishful thinking”.
The final potential cause is an increase in snacking and eating out over recent decades—both in terms of how often they happen and how much they contribute to our overall energy intake. Again, there is evidence that food consumed out of the home is one of the most poorly recorded categories in surveys.
So, what’s the message conveyed? For statistics, we should invest in more accurate measurement options. For policy, we need to focus on options that make it easy for people to eat fewer calories. If people do not know how much they are eating, it can be really hard for them to stick to a diet. Also, we should be looking for new ways to ensure what people eat wouldn’t have much impact on their waistlines. If this works, it won’t matter if they can’t remember what they ate yesterday.
53、53. What do we learn about obese people from the passage?
A、They usually keep their eating habits a secret.
B、They overlook the potential causes of obesity.
C、They cannot help eating more than they should.
D、They have difficulty recalling what they have eaten.
Can you remember what you ate yesterday? If asked, most people will be able to give a vague description of their main meals: breakfast, lunch, dinner. But can you be sure you’ve noted every snack bar in your car, or every handful of nuts at your desk? Most people will have a feeling that they’ve missed something out.
We originally had this suspicion back in 2016, puzzled by the fact that national statistics showed calorie consumption falling dramatically over past decades. We found reliable evidence that people were drastically under-reporting what they ate.
Now the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that we are consuming 50% more calories than our national statistics claim.
Why is this happening? We can point to at least three potential causes. One is the rise in obesity levels itself. Under-reporting rates are much higher for obese people, because they simply consume more food, and thus have more to remember.
Another cause is that the proportion of people who are trying to lose weight has been increasing over time. People who want to lose weight are more likely to under-report their eating—regardless of whether they are overweight or not. This may be driven partly by self-deception or “wishful thinking”.
The final potential cause is an increase in snacking and eating out over recent decades—both in terms of how often they happen and how much they contribute to our overall energy intake. Again, there is evidence that food consumed out of the home is one of the most poorly recorded categories in surveys.
So, what’s the message conveyed? For statistics, we should invest in more accurate measurement options. For policy, we need to focus on options that make it easy for people to eat fewer calories. If people do not know how much they are eating, it can be really hard for them to stick to a diet. Also, we should be looking for new ways to ensure what people eat wouldn’t have much impact on their waistlines. If this works, it won’t matter if they can’t remember what they ate yesterday.
54、54. What often goes unnoticed in surveys on food consumption?
A、The growing trend of eating out.
B、The potential causes of snacking.
C、People’s home energy consumption.
D、People’s changing diet over the years.
Can you remember what you ate yesterday? If asked, most people will be able to give a vague description of their main meals: breakfast, lunch, dinner. But can you be sure you’ve noted every snack bar in your car, or every handful of nuts at your desk? Most people will have a feeling that they’ve missed something out.
We originally had this suspicion back in 2016, puzzled by the fact that national statistics showed calorie consumption falling dramatically over past decades. We found reliable evidence that people were drastically under-reporting what they ate.
Now the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that we are consuming 50% more calories than our national statistics claim.
Why is this happening? We can point to at least three potential causes. One is the rise in obesity levels itself. Under-reporting rates are much higher for obese people, because they simply consume more food, and thus have more to remember.
Another cause is that the proportion of people who are trying to lose weight has been increasing over time. People who want to lose weight are more likely to under-report their eating—regardless of whether they are overweight or not. This may be driven partly by self-deception or “wishful thinking”.
The final potential cause is an increase in snacking and eating out over recent decades—both in terms of how often they happen and how much they contribute to our overall energy intake. Again, there is evidence that food consumed out of the home is one of the most poorly recorded categories in surveys.
So, what’s the message conveyed? For statistics, we should invest in more accurate measurement options. For policy, we need to focus on options that make it easy for people to eat fewer calories. If people do not know how much they are eating, it can be really hard for them to stick to a diet. Also, we should be looking for new ways to ensure what people eat wouldn’t have much impact on their waistlines. If this works, it won’t matter if they can’t remember what they ate yesterday.
55、55. What does the author suggest policymakers do about obesity?
A、Remind people to cut down on snacking.
B、Make sure people eat non-fattening food.
C、Ensure people don’t miss their main meals.
D、See that people don’t stick to the same diet.
三、Part IV Translation
56、 龙井（Longjing）是一种绿茶，主要产自中国东部沿海的浙江省。龙井茶独特的香味和口感为其赢得了“中国名茶”的称号，在中国深受大众的欢迎，在海外饮用的人也越来越多。龙井茶通常手工制作，其价格可能极其昂贵，也可能比较便宜，这取决于茶的生长地、采摘时间和制作工艺。龙井茶富含维生素C和其他多种有益健康的元素。经常喝龙井茶有助于减轻疲劳、延缓衰老。
参考答案：
参考译文
Longjing is a type of green tea which is mainly produced in Zhejiang Province on the eastern coast of China. The unique fragrance and flavour of Longjing tea have earned it the title of “China’s Famous Tea”. It enjoys great popularity at home, and the number of overseas people who drink it is also increasing. Usually hand-made, Longjing tea can be extremely expensive or comparatively cheap, depending on its place of origin, the picking time and the workmanship. Longjing tea contains rich Vitamin C and many other elements beneficial to health, so drinking it frequently can help relieve fatigue and delay the aging process.
四、Part I Writing
57、Directions: For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write an essay titled “Do violent video games lead to violence?”. The statement given below is for your reference. You should write at least 120 words but no more than 180 words.
A growing body of research finds that violent video games can make kids act aggressively in their real world relationships, causing an increase in violence.
参考答案：
参考范文
Do violent video games lead to violence?
Nowadays, violent video games online have become increasingly popular among students. Many people hold the view that such violent games can cause a propensity for violence while others think that these games are only created for fun.
In my opinion, such games do lead to a tendency of violence to some extent. For one thing, students may easily get misguided by some violent behaviors in these games since they are not mature enough to tell right from wrong. Consequently, they will probably imitate these behaviors in real life. For another, since students can do what are forbidden in real life in these games, they may gradually develop the quality of violence and become more prone to adopt aggressive behaviors when conflicting with others.
To sum up, I think we should reduce our time spent on violent video games and do something more meaningful to live our life to the fullest.
参考译文
暴力电子游戏会导致暴力吗?
如今，暴力电子游戏在学生中越来越流行。许多人认为这种暴力游戏会导致暴力倾向，而另一些人则认为开发这些游戏的初衷只是为了好玩。
在我看来，这类游戏在某种程度上确实会导致暴力倾向。一方面，学生很容易被这些游戏中的一些暴力行为所误导，因为他们还不够成熟，不能辨别对错。因此，他们可能会在现实生活中模仿这些行为。另一方面，因为学生可以在游戏中做一些在现实生活中被禁止的事情，在游戏中他们会逐渐养成暴力的特质，在与他人发生冲突时更容易做出攻击性的行为。
总之，我认为我们应该减少花在暴力电子游戏上的时间，做一些更有意义的事情来充实我们的生活。
喵呜刷题：让学习像火箭一样快速，快来微信扫码，体验免费刷题服务，开启你的学习加速器！
