下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
Directions:
Read the following four texts. Answer the questions after each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)
“Ideas are like rabbits,” John Steinbeck said. “You get a couple and learn how to handle them, and pretty soon you have a dozen.” Scientific and technological progress is often viewed in this way. Current ideas build on previous ones. And ideas, along with papers and patents, have indeed proliferated in the recent past. Yet despite papers published and patents issued each year now number in the millions, it has been documented that innovation within specific fields has been in decline.
Michael Park of the University of Minnesota and Erin Leahey of the University of Arizona, have set out to determine whether this decline holds for science and technology in general. In a study published this week in Nature they analyse 45m papers and 3.9m patents published and filed between 1945 and 2010.
The measurement they use for this work, known as the CD index, quantifies how “consolidating” or “disruptive” each paper or patent is. A paper is consolidating (a low CD score) if later work citing it also cites the papers that it, itself, cited. Discoveries and inventions of this sort serve to propel science forward along its existing trajectory. By contrast, a paper is disruptive (a high CD score) if it is cited by later works in the absence of citations of its predecessors. High-CD papers disrupt the status quo, fundamentally altering a field’s trajectory or creating a new field altogether.
Both consolidating and disruptive work are needed for scientific progress, of course, but science now seems to favour the former over the latter in a potentially unhealthy way. Mr. Park and Drs. Leahey found that the average CD score for papers has fallen by between 92% and 100% since 1945, and for patents between 79% and 92%. Why has science become less disruptive?
One hypothesis is the low-hanging-fruit theory—that all the easy findings have been plucked from the branches of the tree of knowledge. Another idea is that the decline in disruptiveness stems from one in the low quality of published work. A more likely reason for the change, the researchers argue, is that scientists and inventors are producing work based on narrower foundations. As the amount of published science grows, the effort required to master a pool of knowledge that is both deepening and narrowing as the years roll by may inhibit the ability to form creative connections between disparate fields.
Mr. Park maintains there is room for optimism. Though the average disruptiveness of discoveries has declined, the number of “highly disruptive” ones has remained constant. Humanity does not appear to be reaching the end of science.
21. Michael Park and Erin Leahey have conducted a research to see __________.
[A] how papers and patents were issued in recent years
[B] if the decline in innovation applies to science and technology
[C] how innovation within specific fields has been in decline
[D] if scientific and technological progress is surging
22. According to Paragraph 3, what is the characteristic of a disruptive paper?
[A] It has a low score with CD index measurement.
[B] It pushes science forward along the current track.
[C] It enables a new business model or technology.
[D] It is cited by later works with its previous citations.
23. The author argues that nowadays science seems to be more inclined toward __________.
[A] consolidating work
[B] average CD score papers
[C] disruptive work
[D] innovative patents
24. The researchers hold that science becomes less disruptive mainly due to __________.
[A] the strong influence from the predecessors
[B] the high quality of published work
[C] the more limited and detailed research scope
[D] the growing amount of scientific discoveries
25. It can be learned from the last paragraph that __________.
[A] there is no end to consolidating research
[B] there is still room for disruptive research
[C] average disruptive discovers remain constant
[D] highly disruptive discovers have declined
Academics at elite US universities produce more research because they have consistent access to more funded graduate programmes, fellowships and postdocs than do their peers at less prestigious institutions, finds a study that looked at the publication records of nearly 80,000 researchers.
The findings, published in Science Advances on 18 November, show how having more paid junior researchers and larger research groups drives greater productivity at the most prestigious institutions. “Faculty who end up at places that are less prestigious don’t have the resources in the form of research labour, and they just produce less science,” says co-author Sam Zhang, a computational social scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder.
The research highlights “inequalities in academia”, says Aaron Clauset, a computer scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder, who also worked on the study. He adds that the systems and hierarchies in place “are creating biases that are shifting attention and resources around in ways that are not maybe reflective of our ideals of the meritocracy”.
The analysis included 1.6 million publications on the Web of Science database, authored by 78,802 tenured or tenure-track researchers at 262 PhD-granting US universities. The team looked at productivity—defined as the average number of publications authored per year—for both individual researchers and groups. They gave each university a prestige score based on how likely its PhD graduates are to be hired as faculty at another institution. Although the prestige of an institution does not seem to affect the productivity of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, the team found that it is linked to increased productivity for tenured or tenure-track faculty members.
The team further examined researchers from ‘collaborative’ disciplines—sciences in which research is usually done in groups, as opposed to disciplines in which solitary work is more common, including social sciences, humanities and mathematics. Although faculty members produced more publications in collaborative disciplines compared with other fields, individual researchers’ productivity was nearly identical across all disciplines. This suggests that the higher productivity in elite institutions is due to them having larger research groups and more available labour in collaborative disciplines.
The researchers acknowledge that there could be other factors associated with university prestige that boost scientists’ productivity, including “better conditions, better support, better office spaces, less teaching.” But the study’s authors think that these environmental factors cannot explain the pattern they see in faculty group productivity. “They could only reverse our labor hypothesis if they selectively improved the group, rather than individual productivity of faculty.”
26. Teachers at American elite universities could yield more research in that __________.
[A] they have conducted more research
[B] they can constantly receive more support
[C] they are more productive than their peers
[D] they have a stronger sense of teamwork
27. According to Aaron Claust, the existing systems and hierarchies __________.
[A] improve the productivity of the team
[B] reduce inequalities in the academic circle
[C] represent the ideals of the meritocracy
[D] lead to unreasonable allocation of resources
28. It can be learned from Paragraph 4 that the prestige of a university can __________.
[A] influence the productivity of a solitary teacher
[B] bring benefits to the whole university
[C] boost the productivity of tenured researchers
[D] increase the employment rate of the institution
29. Which of the following is true of researchers’ research, according to Paragraph 5?
[A] Research in collaborative disciplines is typically conducted in teams.
[B] Teachers published fewer papers in collaborative disciplines.
[C] Elite institutions placed more emphasis on collaborative research.
[D] Individual researchers differ in productivity across all disciplines.
30. Which of the following could be the best title for the text?
[A] The Prestige of a University Influences Solitary Researchers
[B] Labor Advantage Drives Greater Productivity at Elite Universities
[C] Faculty Members at Less Prestigious Institutions Have High Productivity
[D] Inequalities in Academia Hinders the Academic Publication Process
America has long been resistant to adequate poverty policies because of its strong strain of thinking that the poor are responsible for their own situations, no matter their suffering, but child poverty is too harmful to ignore. A growing number of academics believe there is a solution: the government should give monthly cash allowances, without conditions, to every family with kids.
Today the official poverty line for a family of four in the U.S. is about $26,200, but a 2013 Gallup survey found that people think a family of four must earn $58,000 on average just to get by. In fact, the ideal definition of a useful poverty measure would be this: the level below which we know that short-and long-term damage is being done to children.
A mountain of evidence now shows that poverty can lead to cognitive and emotional damage in children. Despite policies that have expanded access to insurance, poor kids are still less healthy than the rest of the young population. They also drop out of school at higher rates, earn less money over time and are jailed far more often than their better-off peers. That should be enough for us to recognize that child poverty is actually a moral tragedy. When Michael Harrington’s classic book, The Other America , called attention to America’s general poverty rate of about 25% in 1962, Washington developed social programs that brought the rate down sharply, but they are not enough: 1 in 3 children does not receive the full benefits of these programs.
Poor children have many needs, but research shows that money may matter most. Researchers found that poorer children have worse cognitive, social-behaviour and health outcomes which is seldom correlated with other household and parental characteristics. A family with two children receiving $300 to $400 a month per child could improve their standard of living immediately. It can also help reduce family stress and help parents provide a psychologically nourishing environment in which learning and social development can germinate. Yet both the left and the right dismiss direct cash aid as a waste and an inducement to laziness and abuse, which is just as the historian Michael Katz correctly notes, “One of the odd aspects of the history of writing about poverty is the avoidance of the simple view that people are poor because they lack money.”
Maybe it is time to implement some practical and efficient policy for a nation too willing to neglect its poor.
31. From the first paragraph, we could learn that __________.
[A] allowances should be allocated based on hierarchy
[B] the lack of suitable policies causes the poor suffering
[C] enough policies have been issued to eliminate poverty
[D] child poverty does not deserve much attention
32. The official poverty line __________.
[A] used to be set by the family income
[B] has taken damages to children into account
[C] has satisfied a family’s basic need
[D] should prevent children from harm
33. Children growing up in poverty may __________.
[A] gain no access to unemployment insurance
[B] face more challenges than their better-off peers
[C] have difficulty in making quick and big money
[D] fall behind their peers in education and income
34. The most effective solution to poor children may be __________.
[A] financial aid
[B] family care
[C] social insurance
[D] public policy
35. Historian Michael Katz is mentioned to __________.
[A] show what people once regarded poverty as
[B] explain why common people are getting poorer
[C] illustrate the reason why allowance is misread
[D] make a comparison between cash aid and laziness
A recent study published in the journal Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism has some very exciting findings in the fight against memory loss and dementia. The World Health Organization (WHO) says that around 50 million people worldwide have dementia. Currently, there’s no treatment or cure for dementia or even a way to alter its progression. That makes preventative treatments even more exciting. Thankfully, numerous new treatments are being investigated, which are at various stages of clinical trials. So it’s not all doom and gloom .
Although there is no cure, there are several things that can be done to support and improve the lives of individuals who have dementia, including: early diagnosis in order to promote early and optimal management; optimizing physical health, cognition, activity and well-being; identifying and treating accompanying physical illness; detecting and treating challenging behavioral and psychological symptoms; providing information and long-term support to carers.
And movement and exercise play a role in brain health. Exercise affects the brain in many ways. To start with, exercise generally increases your heart rate, which in turn pumps more oxygen to the brain. Exercise aids the release of hormones, which provide an excellent environment for the growth of new brain cells. Exercise also promotes brain plasticity by stimulating the growth of new connections between cells in many important cortical areas of the brain. Research from UCLA even demonstrated that exercise increased growth factors in the brain, which makes it easier for the brain to grow new neuronal connections.
While researchers are still trying to determine the exact critical factors that make exercise so good for the brain, the focus seems to be narrowing in on increased blood flow to the brain, surges of growth hormones, and massive expansion of the brain’s network of blood vessels.
Canadian researchers at McMaster University examined the impact of exercise on the brain. Their new study suggests that the intensity at which we get more movement and exercise in our lives is critical. In their research, they found that seniors who exercised using “short bursts of activity” saw an improvement of up to 30 percent in their memory performance, while participants who worked out at a steady-state, moderate level saw no improvement.
Jennifer Heisz, the lead author of the study, quoted in Science Daily , says, “There is urgent need for interventions that reduce dementia risk in healthy older adults. This work will help to inform the public on exercise prescriptions for brain health, so they know exactly what types of exercises boost memory and keep dementia at bay.”
36. It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that __________.
[A] clinical trials for dementia will involve more patients
[B] more new treatments for dementia will be launched
[C] fewer people will develop dementia
[D] dementia will be completely cured
37. The underlined phrase “doom and gloom” (Line 7, Paragraph 1) is closest in meaning to __________.
[A] desperate
[B] dangerous
[C] intimidating
[D] fortunate
38. Which of the following measures is said to help those with dementia?
[A] Offering adequate information and constant encouragement to patients.
[B] Making medical diagnosis at the full-blown stage of the symptoms.
[C] Spotting dementia-related physical and psychological symptoms.
[D] Hiring professional care-givers to attend to the patients.
39. Why does the author say exercise is beneficial to brain health?
[A] Because it can accelerate the metabolism rate.
[B] Because it can generate new brain cells.
[C] Because it can help with cellular connections in the brain.
[D] Because it can narrow the blood vessels.
40. According to Paragraph 5, what types of exercises could boost seniors’ memory?
[A] A short-time high-intensity workout.
[B] A long-time steady-rate workout.
[C] A mild regular daily exercise.
[D] A lower-intensity cardio exercise.
Directions:
Read the following text and match each of the numbered items in the left column to its corresponding information in the right column (41-45). There are two extra choices in the right column. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
Companies succeeding in cutting their carbon emissions or in tackling problems like human-rights abuses, inequality or racial justice will have a significant impact on the state of the world. The actual debate now is whether tackling those issues is in sync or in conflict with what businesses have always thought was their main job: making money.
“People ask me, ‘Is there a disagreement between profits and purpose?’” says Dan Schulman, Pay Pal’s president and CEO. “My view is that profits and purpose are fully linked together,” he tells TIME from his home in Palo Alto, Calif. “We cannot be about just maximizing our profit next quarter. We need to be part of our societies,” he says. “We need to think about the medium term and the long term, and we need to act accordingly.”
More and more business leaders have begun to echo that opinion. Last fall, hundreds of companies raced to declare commitments to environmental and social issues, and to set net-zero targets. Net zero is a tremendous job. Take, for example, the oil major British Petroleum, whose CEO Bernard Looney became one of the first fossil-fuel executives, in February 2020, to declare a net-zero goal for the company (its target date is 2050); BP alone adds a huge 415 million metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year, all of which, according to Looney, the company intends to zero out with oil-production cuts, ramped-up renewable energy and the use of carbon capture-technology, with still uncertain results, that removes carbon from the air.
Plus, despite all the talk of purpose-driven business, the world has yet to invent any sure way to measure whether companies in fact make good on their environmental commitments. “There is no universally agreed system,” says Ian Goldin, professor of globalization at Oxford University. “The counting relies on self-reporting.”“You say you’re planting a forest, or the airline is offsetting your air miles,” Goldin says. “Is anyone tracking if that forest is there? There is no system in place that has accountability to it.”
In January 2020, Larry Fink, head of Black Rock, the world’s biggest asset-management company, announced in a letter to CEOs that “climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects.” Though that fact seemed obvious to climate activists, the statement was widely regarded in the financial world as a game changer. “We are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance,” he wrote.
It is no surprise that companies have since rushed to put climate policies in place. “We have seen quite significant commitments made,” says Paul Polman, co-author of the book Net Positive and co-founder of a sustainability-focused business consultancy based in London.
And increasingly, CEOs realize they can hire top talent and keep customer loyalty if their companies are seen as championing environmental and social issues. “I am beginning to see more and more shareholders embrace that concept,” says Polman.
