下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
（科目代码：204）
1．答题前，考生须在试题册指定位置上填写考生编号和考生姓名；在答题卡指定位置上填写报考单位、考生姓名和考生编号，并涂写考生编号信息点。
2．考生须把试题册上的“试卷条形码”粘贴条取下，粘贴在答题卡的“试卷条形码粘贴位置”框中。不按规定粘贴条形码而影响评卷结果的，责任由考生自负。
3．选择题的答案必须涂写在答题卡相应题号的选项上，非选择题的答案必须书写在答题卡指定位置的边框区域内。超出答题区域书写的答案无效；在草稿纸、试题册上答题无效。
4．填（书）写部分必须使用黑色字迹签字笔书写，字迹工整、笔迹清楚；涂写部分必须使用2B铅笔填涂。
5．考试结束，将答题卡和试题册按规定交回。
（以下信息考生必须认真填写）
Directions:
Read the following text.Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on the ANSWER SHEET.(10 points)
A lot of new fathers are leaving money on the table—their paid paternity leave.Expanded access to parental leave is among the biggest changes to 1 in recent years, and fathers have been prime beneficiaries. 2 plenty of dads still see it as a 3 risk.They worry their commitment to their jobs will be 4 .
Just over 60% of men 5 their full paid leave versus 93% of women, according to survey data from the Boston College Center for Work & Family.Like unused vacation days or health benefits, the leave they have to abandon means 6 a significant part of their compensation, not to mention important time with newborns.It also can 7 their partners' careers and the division of labor at home.
However, evidence of paternity leave's 8 is easy to find.Studies show it is good for children, for parents’ 9 with one another and for mothers' earnings.New research also suggests parental leave helps rewire dads’ 10 , adjusting them to the mental and 11 requirements of parenting.
The cost of giving up leave ripples across families and workplaces, labor economists say.When more dads take leave, it becomes less 12 for both men and women.When they don't, it is largely mothers who experience the professional and economic 13 of having children.
Fathers typically take about half the time their companies offer, estimates Richard Petts, a sociologist at Ball State University.“The 14 with women is that they will take time off,” he says.“Bosses and co-workers assume men won't—making it all the more 15 to ask for it.” 16 with plenty of support, paternity leave can still seem a bit abnormal.
Company culture goes a long way in encouraging new dads to take their leave.When Bank of America 17 its current gender-neutral leave policy in 2016, it made sure managers understood and 18 it.After American Express expanded its paid leave for both mothers and fathers to 20 weeks in 2017, it launched a campaign 19 fathers at multiple levels of the company who took the full time.Both companies say male and female 20 take roughly similar parental leaves today.
1．[A] governments [B] workplaces [C] departments [D] communities
2．[A] Again [B] Besides [C] Yet [D] Only
3．[A] career [B] marriage [C] status [D] wealth
4．[A] deprived [B] questioned [C] defined [D] measured
5．[A] keep [B] put [C] add [D] take
6．[A] taking over [B] bringing back [C] passing down [D] giving up
7．[A] affect [B] guide [C] restore [D] reflect
8．[A] chances [B] benefits [C] missions [D] responses
9．[A] similarity [B] difference [C] contradiction [D] relationship
10．[A] brains [B] computers [C] offices [D] eyes
11．[A] legal [B] emotional [C] technical [D] environmental
12．[A] honourable [B] acceptable [C] admirable [D] shameful
13．[A] setbacks [B] improvement [C] assistance [D] aspirations
14．[A] excuse [B] consequence [C] option [D] assumption
15．[A] delightful [B] promising [C] discouraging [D] demanding
16．[A] Only [B] Even [C] Hence [D] Additionally
17．[A] rolled out [B] rolled down [C] rolled over [D] rolled up
18．[A] prevented [B] surpassed [C] supported [D] abolished
19．[A] influencing [B] criticizing [C] punishing [D] featuring
20．[A] trainees [B] researchers [C] employees [D] executives
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 Clauset, 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
The “Pet Effect” is the idea that getting a pet will make you healthier and happier.This idea is highly promoted by the marketing departments of industry giants like Zoetis, the world's largest veterinary products corporation.Psychotherapist Dana Dorfman is a believer.In a recent Psychology Today post, she extolled the benefits of pet ownership.She wrote, “A large amount of evidence supports the contention that pets affect our overall health—mental and physical.”
Clearly, pets can make our lives more enjoyable.But, as Psychology Today blogger Marc Bekoff pointed out his thoughtful response to Dr.Dorfman's post, the large amount of the evidence does not support the hype about the curative powers of companion animals.Take pet industry claims that living with companion animals results in lower levels of loneliness, depression, and obesity.I reviewed the results of 77 published research papers on these topics.Only 6 of 21 studies found pet owners were less lonely than non-owners, only 5 of 31 studies reported that pet owners were less depressed, and in only 5 of 25 papers were pet owners less likely to be obese.So, while some studies have found evidence linking pets and human health, most published research has not.
Why is there such a big mismatch between what the public believes about the healing powers of pets and the decidedly mixed results of published studies? I think this is due to a quirk in human thinking psychologists call the availability heuristic.This is the idea that we are biased by information that easily comes to mind, usually because we are frequently exposed to it.An obvious source of information about pets and health is the media.However, there have not been any systematic studies of media coverage research on the impact of pets on human health and happiness.So, I turned to Google to examine media stories related to the pet effect.In short, articles extolling industry claims about the positive impact of pets on people outnumbered reports on the downsides of pet-keeping by more than 6 to 1．And they beat out informative articles with balanced coverage by 4 to 1.
In a recent review, the University of Pennsylvania's James Serpell and his colleagues wrote, “The mass media and the public seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for stories of animals helping people with their illnesses and disabilities.” My quick examination of pet effect news reports suggests they are right.
31．Dana Dorfman's attitude toward the “Pet Effect” is one of__________.
[A] criticism
[B] skepticism
[C] hesitancy
[D] approval
32．It can be learned from Paragraph 2 that__________.
[A] Marc Bekoff is an enthusiastic supporter of the pet effect
[B] most people have benefited a lot from owning companion animals
[C] what the pet industry claims is not in accordance with the published research
[D] some studies found that the pet effect is completely rejected by the public
33．What might account for the big mismatch mentioned in Paragraph 3?
[A] The tendency to use readily available information to build a belief.
[B] The trend of following the herd without rational thinking.
[C] The published studies coming in thick and fast.
[D] The objective and informative coverage about the healing powers of pets.
34．Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 4?
[A] The psychology of human-animal relationships remains a mystery.
[B] The media's preference for the downsides of pet-keeping is harmful.
[C] The mass media play a crucial role in helping people with disabilities.
[D] The mass media have a passionate interest in the pet effect.
35．The beliefs about the healing powers of pets are mainly inspired by__________.
[A] the personal experience of pet owners
[B] the media's promotional publicity
[C] the clinical tests of some therapists
[D] the published research papers
In recent years, an unfortunate myth has arisen that Americans, especially young Americans, don't want to work.In the 2010s, there grew a perception that slacker millennials were too preoccupied with their personal lives and video games to concern themselves with earning a paycheck.This summer, headlines proclaimed that all Gen Z wants are “lazy girl jobs” where they can “quiet quit” and are allowed “bare minimum Mondays” at home in their pajamas, spent messaging friends and snacking.
Ignore this.It's not based in reality.The truth is Americans are rushing back to work.More than 3.1 million people joined the labor force in the past year, meaning they landed a job or are actively searching for one.Those are historic gains—and a big surprise given most experts were predicting a recession and massive layoffs.Americans are also working just as many hours as they did pre-pandemic.
Women, immigrants and people of color have been leading the employment charge.The labor force participation rate of “prime age” workers (24 to 54 years old) is the best since 2002．Prime-age women's labor force participation is the best ever.Black unemployment is near an all-time low, and the number of immigrant workers is up about 10 percent vs.pre-pandemic.
Contrary to popular belief, younger people are also eager to work.Labor force participation among 16-to 24-year-olds has fully recovered from the pandemic, and participation among teens in the past year has been the highest since 2009.
There's a key reason Americans are flocking back to work: rising pay.Wages have risen sharply in recent years, especially for jobs that used to pay under $20 an hour.Workers demanded higher pay to compensate for higher inflation.But higher pay was also a sign of more respect and dignity for millions who had long felt ignored and trapped.They quit jobs they didn't like and were able to find new ones with better pay and more flexibility.Young workers benefited especially from these trends.They have a lot more options available to them to launch a career in heath care, construction, tech and more.Their pay grew by more than 10 percent a year for nearly two years now.It's no wonder that job satisfaction in the nation is at an all-time high.
These trends have much to celebrate.The overwhelming message is people do want to work—when they're paid well and respected.Some might be looking for “lazy” jobs, but that's not the norm.Gen Z has rejected the suits and office rituals of their older colleagues.They care more about inequality, climate change and mental health.But they are hard-working.We're all better for it.
36．What did people think of millennials in the 2010s?
[A] They concerned themselves with a paycheck.
[B] They cared too much about their occupations.
[C] They tended to focus on their own lives.
[D] They preferred to stay at home in their pajamas.
37．According to Paragraph 2, which of the following mainly describes the truth about Americans?
[A] They make vigorous efforts to seek employment.
[B] Most of them want positions at senior level.
[C] They indulge themselves in computer games.
[D] Few of them meet the qualifications requirement.
38．It can be inferred about American job market from Paragraph 3 that__________.
[A] black people have the lowest employment rate owing to racial discrimination
[B] more people immigrate to America due to its availability of jobs
[C] disadvantaged groups lose hope in their employment prospects
[D] females are currently more competitive than males in the labor market
39．The major factor driving Americans back to work is__________.
[A] the flexibility of the workplace
[B] the higher inflation rate
[C] the growth of salaries
[D] the job satisfaction
40．What is the author's attitude toward Gen Z's denial of office rituals of their older colleagues?
[A] Disappointed.
[B] Indifferent.
[C] Contemptuous.
[D] Supportive.
Directions:
Read the following text and match each of the numbered items in the left column to its corresponding information in the right column.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.
46．Directions:
Translate the following text from English into Chinese.Write your translation on the ANSWER SHEET.(15 points)
Whether you've asked it to write a song in the style of your favourite musician, or tasked it to write copy for your company website or even produce specific program code, ChatGPT has proven that it can deliver conveniently.
There has been a lot of reporting about its potential threat to a wide range of jobs, and indeed to our entire educational model if students can get their coursework done and university applications written instantly via ChatGPT.
This technology is still in its developing stage.It presents its answers as facts, even though the internet is full of misinformation, some of which are more dangerous.But the creators of ChatGPT have a far more lucrative goal in mind than simply taking our jobs.The bigger picture is the multi-billion dollar sector that is Internet search.And that is why it has been nicknamed the Google killer.
47．Directions:
Suppose you are preparing a lecture aimed at assisting college students in your university who are interested in comprehending the current international economic situation.Write an email to a distinguished professor at Cambridge University to
1) invite him/her to give a lecture, and
2) tell him/her the details.
You should write about 100 words on the ANSWER SHEET.
Do not use your own name.Use “Li Ming” instead.(10 points)
48．Directions:
Write an essay based on the chart below.In your writing, you should
1) interpret the chart, and
2) give your comments.
You should write about 150 words on the ANSWER SHEET.(15 points)
1．B 2．C 3．A 4．B 5．D 6．D 7．A 8．B 9．D 10．A 11．B 12．D 13．A 14．D 15．C 16．B 17．A 18．C 19．D 20．C
Part A （40 points）
21．B 22．C 23．A 24．C 25．B 26．B 27．D 28．C 29．A 30．B 31．D 32．C 33．A 34．D 35．B 36．C 37．A 38．B 39．C 40．D
Part B （10 points）
41．D 42．B 43．E 44．A 45．F
无论是要求它仿照你喜欢的音乐家，根据其风格创作一首歌曲，还是安排它为你的公司网站撰写文案，甚至是安排它编写特定的程序代码，ChatGPT都已证明，它可以轻松完成这些任务。
已经有很多关于它对各种工作构成潜在威胁的报道，如果说学生可以借助它即时完成作业和写出大学申请书，那么它实际上对我们的整个教育模式构成了威胁。
这项技术仍处于开发阶段。尽管互联网上充斥着虚假信息，其中一些更具危险性，但它仍将这些信息作为事实提供在答案里。但是，相比只是夺走我们的工作岗位而言，在ChatGPT开发者的心中却有着一个更有利可图的目标。这一更宏伟的蓝图就是价值数十亿美元的互联网搜索行业。这也是它被称为“谷歌杀手”的原因。
（见解析册）