Dogs have an understanding of fair play and become angry if they feel that another dog is getting a better deal, a new study has found.
The study looked at how dogs react when a companion is rewarded for the same trick in an unequal way. Friederike Range, a famous researcher, and her colleagues did a series of experiments with dogs who knew how to respond to the command “give the paw”. The dogs were normally happy to repeatedly give the paw, whether they got a reward or not.
But that changed if they saw that another dog was being rewarded with a piece of food, while they received nothing. The dogs hesitated significantly longer when obeying the command to give the paw. Eventually, the unrewarded dogs stopped cooperating.
Researchers always assumed that only humans pay close attention to unfairness. That changed in 2003 when Frans De Waal, a professor of psychology, and a colleague named Sarah Brosnan did a survey on monkeys. Monkeys had to hand a small rock to researchers to get a piece of cucumber(黄瓜) in return. However, the monkeys would suddenly become angry when receiving the piece of cucumber if they saw another monkey receive a more delicious reward, such as a grape, for doing the same job. The monkey that got the cucumber would eventually throw away the food and the rock, and would later just stop performing.
In that experiment, the monkeys considered the fairness of two different types of payment, but when Range and her colleagues did a similar study with their trained dogs, testing to see if dogs would become upset if they only got bread when other dogs received sausage, they found that dogs did not make that kind of subtle (细微的) distinction. As long as the dogs got some kind of food payment, even if it wasn’t the most delicious kind, they would play along. The dogs refused to give their paws when they _____________________.
| A．were given too much reward |
| B．realized they received less food |
| C．found another dog was given nothing |
| D．felt they were being treated unequally |
The underlined word “that” in Paragraph 3 probably refers to “__________________”.
| A．the dogs obeyed the command happily |
| B．the dogs waited for a reward |
| C．the dogs hesitated to give the paw |
| D．the dogs stopped cooperating |
The monkeys would become angry if they found _____________________.
| A．they were being given the same type of food |
| B．another monkey did much less work |
| C．another monkey was offered tastier food |
| D．other monkeys threw food and rocks |
Range finds that, compared with monkeys, dogs __________________.
| A．enjoy playing interesting games with humans |
| B．prefer to do the same jobs as humans |
| C．pay little attention to the type of reward received |
| D．aren’t sensitive to the stimulation (刺激) of food |
“Kill the fool!” “Murder the referee!”
These are common remarks one may hear at various sporting events. At the time they are made, they may seem innocent enough. But let’s not kid ourselves. They have been known to influence behavior in such a way as to lead to real bloodshed. Volumes have been written about the way words affect us. It has been shown that words having certain connotations may cause us to react in ways quite foreign to what we consider to be our usual humanistic behavior. I see the term “opponent” as one of those words. Perhaps the time has come to delete it from sports terms.
The dictionary meaning of the term “opponent” is “adversary” “enemy”; “one who opposes your interests.” Thus, when a player meets an opponent, he or she may tend to treat that opponent as an enemy. At such times, winning may dominate one’s intellect, and every action, no matter how gross, may be considered justifiable. I recall an incident in a handball game when a referee refused a player’s request for a time out for a glove change because he did not consider them wet enough. The player proceeded to rub his gloves across his wet T-shirt and then exclaimed. “Are they wet enough now?”
In the heat of battle, players have been observed to throw themselves across the court without considering the consequences that such a move might have on anyone in their way. I have also witnessed a player reacting to his opponent’s international and illegal blocking by deliberately hitting him with the ball as hard as he could during the course of play. Off the court, they are good friends. Does that make any sense? It certainly gives proof of a court attitude which departs from normal behavior.
Therefore, I believe it is time we elevated the game to the level where it belongs there by setting an example to the rest of the sporting world. Replacing the term “opponent” with “associate” could be an ideal way to start.
The dictionary meaning of the term “associate” is “colleague”; “friend”; “companion.” Reflect a moment! You may soon see and possibly feel the difference in your reaction to the term “associate” rather than “opponent.”Which of the following statements best expresses the author’s view________?
| A．Aggressive behavior in sports can have serious consequences. |
| B．The words people use can influence their behavior. |
| C．Unpleasant words in sports are often used by foreign athletes. |
| D．Unfair judgments by referees will lead to violence on the sports field. |
Harsh words are spoken during games because the players ________.
| A．are too eager to win |
| B．are usually short-tempered and easily offended |
| C．cannot afford to be polite in fierce competition |
| D．treat their rivals as enemies |
What did the handball player do when he was not allowed a time out to change his gloves______?
| A．He refused to continue the game. |
| B．He angrily hit the referee with a ball. |
| C．He claimed that the referee was unfair. |
| D．He wet his gloves by rubbing them across his T-shirt. |
The author hopes to have the current situation in sports improved by ________.
| A．appealing to players to use clean language on the court |
| B．raising the referee’s sense of responsibility |
| C．changing the attitude of players on the sports field |
| D．regulating the relationship between players and referees |
It was 3: 45 in the morning when the vote was finally taken. After six months of arguing and final 16 hours of hot parliamentary debates, Australia's Northern Territory became the first legal authority in the world to allow doctors to take the lives of incurably ill patients who wish to die. The measure passed by the convincing vote of 15 to 10. Almost immediately word flashed on the Internet and was picked up, half a world away, by John Hofsess, executive director of the Right to Die Society of Canada. He sent it on via the group's on-line service, Death NET. Says Hofsess: We posted bulletins all day long, because of course this isn't just something that happened in Australia. It's world history.
The full import may take a while to sink in. The NT Rights of the Terminally Ill law has left physicians and citizens alike trying to deal with its moral and practical implications. Some have breathed sighs of relief, others, including churches, right-to-life groups and the Australian Medical Association, bitterly attacked the bill and the haste of its passage. But the tide is unlikely to turn back. In Australia-where an aging population, life-extending technology and changing community attitudes have all played their part-other states are going to consider making a similar law to deal with euthanasia(安乐死). In the US and Canada, where the right-to-die movement is gathering strength, observers are waiting for the dominoes to start falling.
Under the new Northern Territory law, an adult patient can request death-probably by a deadly injection or pill-to put an end to suffering. The patient must be diagnosed as terminally ill by two doctors. After a cooling off period of seven days, the patient can sign a certificate of request. After 48 hours the wish for death can be met. For Lloyd Nickson, a 54-year-old Darwin resident suffering from lung cancer, the NT Rights of Terminally Ill law means he can get on with living without the haunting fear of his suffering: a terrifying death from his breathing condition. I'm not afraid of dying from a spiritual point of view, but what I was afraid of was how I'd go, because I've watched people die in the hospital fighting for oxygen and clawing at their masks, he says.From the second paragraph we learn that ________.
| A．the objection to euthanasia is slow to come in other countries |
| B．physicians and citizens share the same view on euthanasia |
| C．changing technology is chiefly responsible for the hasty passage of the law |
| D．it takes time to realize the significance of the law's passage |
When the author says that observers are waiting for the dominoes to start falling, he means ________.
| A．observers are taking a wait-and-see attitude towards the future of euthanasia |
| B．similar bills are likely to be passed in the US, Canada and other countries |
| C．observers are waiting to see the result of the game of dominoes |
| D．the effect-taking process of the passed bill may finally come to a stop |
When Lloyd Nickson dies, he will ________.
| A．face his death with calm characteristic of euthanasia |
| B．experience the suffering of a lung cancer patient |
| C．have an intense fear of terrible suffering |
| D．undergo a cooling off period of seven days |
The author's attitude towards euthanasia seems to be that of ________.
| A．opposition | B．suspicion |
| C．approval | D．indifference |
At the beginning of the World Series of 1947, I experienced a completely new emotion, when the National Anthem was played. This time, I thought, it is being played for me, as much as for anyone else. This is organized major league baseball, and I am standing here with all the others; and everything that takes place includes me.
About a year later, I went to Atlanta, Georgia, to play in an exhibition game. On the field, for the first time in Atlanta, there were Negroes and whites. Other Negroes besides me. And I thought: What I have always believed has come to be.
And what is it that I have always believed? First, that imperfections are human. But that wherever human beings were given room to breathe and time to think, those imperfections would disappear, no matter how slowly. I do not believe that we have found or even approached perfection. That is not necessarily in the scheme of human events. Handicaps, stumbling blocks, prejudices--all of these are imperfect. Yet, they have to be dealt with because they are in the scheme of human events.
Whatever obstacles I found made me fight all the harder. But it would have been impossible for me to fight at all, except that I was sustained by the personal and deep-rooted belief that my fight had a chance. It had a chance because it took place in a free society. Not once was I forced to face and fight an immovable object. Not once was the situation so cast-iron rigid that I had no chance at all. Free minds and human hearts were at work all around me; and so there was the probability of improvement. I look at my children now, and know that I must still prepare them to meet obstacles and prejudices.
But I can tell them, too, that they will never face some of these prejudices because other people have gone before them. And to myself I can say that, because progress is unalterable, many of today's dogmas (教条) will have vanished by the time they grow into adults. I can say to my children: There is a chance for you. No guarantee, but a chance. And this chance has come to be, because there is nothing static with free people. There is no Middle Ages logic so strong that it can stop the human tide from flowing forward. I do not believe that every person, in every walk of life, can succeed in spite of any handicap. That would be perfection. But I do believe--and with every fiber in me--that what I was able to attain came to be because we put behind us (no matter how slowly) the dogmas of the past: to discover the truth of today; and perhaps find the greatness of tomorrow.
I believe in the human race. I believe in the warm heart. I believe in man's honesty. I believe in the goodness of a free society. And I believe that the society can remain good only as long as we are willing to fight for it--and to fight against whatever imperfections may exist. My fight was against the barriers that kept Negroes out of baseball. This was the area where I found imperfection, and where I was best able to fight. And I fought because I knew it was not doomed to be a losing fight. It couldn't be a losing fight-not when it took place in a free society. And in the largest sense, I believe that what I did was done for me--that it was my faith in God that sustained me in my fight. And that what was done for me must and will be done for others.Why did the author say he had experienced a completely new emotion________?
| A．Because he won game. |
| B．Because he was an American. |
| C．Because he could compete in the game and won the game. |
| D．Because the National Game was played for him. |
From the passage, we know that the author is ___________.
| A．an African. | B．a Chinese |
| C．a white man | D．a black man |
The author firmly believed that____________.
| A．humans are imperfect if they all unite together to overcome the difficulties. |
| B．humans needn’t approach perfect even if they can. |
| C．humans should face the obstacles and fight for it bravely. |
| D．humans are becoming kind and honest if they have freedom. |
We can infer from the passage that_________.
| A．the fight between Negroes and Whites never ends |
| B．the civil war broke out because the Negroes fought for their freedom |
| C．In the past Negroes were kept out of baseball. |
| D．the fight ended up with a game. |
The underlined word ‘vanished’ most probably means __________
| A．disappear | B．increase | C．appear | D．happen |
The best title of this passage may be_________.
| A．Nothing matters except fighting |
| B．Success lies in hard work |
| C．freedom is everything |
| D．Free Minds and Hearts makes a difference |
The question of whether our government should promote science and technology or the liberal arts(文科) in higher education isn’t an either/or proposition(命题), although the current emphasis on preparing young Americans for STEM（science, technology, engineering, maths）-related fields can make it seem that way.
The latest congressional report acknowledges the critical importance of technical training, but also states firmly that the study of the humanities and social sciences must remain central components of America’s educational system at all levels. Both are critical to producing citizens who can participate effectively in our democratic society, become creative leaders, and benefit from the spiritual enrichment that the reflection on the great ideas of mankind over time provides.
Parents and students who have invested heavily in higher education worry about graduates’ job prospects as technological advances and changes in domestic and global markets transform professions in ways that reduce wages and cut jobs. Under these circumstances, it’s natural to look for what may appear to be the most “practical” way out of the problem “Major in a subject designed to get you a job” seems the obvious answer to some, though this ignores the fact that many disciplines in the humanities characterized as “soft” often, in fact, lead to employment and success in the long run. Indeed, according to surveys, employers have expressed a preference for students who have received a broadly-based education that has taught them to write well, think critically, research creatively, and communicate easily.
Moreover, students should be prepared not just for their first job, but for their 4th and 5th jobs, as there’s little reason to doubt that people entering the workforce today will be called upon to play many different roles over the course of their careers. The ones who will do the best in this new environment will be those whose educations have prepared them to be flexible. The ability to draw upon every available tool and insight--picked up from science, arts, and technology--to solve the problems of the future, and take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves, will be helpful to them and the United States.What does the latest congressional report suggest________?
| A．STEM-related subjects help students find jobs in the information society. |
| B．Higher education should be adjusted to the practical needs of society. |
| C．The liberal arts in higher education help enrich students’ spiritual life. |
| D．The humanities and STEM subjects should be given equal importance. |
What kind of job applicants do employers look for_______?
| A．Those who have a strong sense of responsibility. |
| B．Those who are good at solving practical problems. |
| C．Those who are likely to become innovative leaders. |
| D．Those who have received an all-round education. |
What advice does the author give to college students________?
| A．Seize opportunities to explore their potential. |
| B．Try to take a variety of practical courses. |
| C．Adopt a flexible approach to solving problems. |
| D．catch as many chances as possible to change their jobs. |
Energy independence has a nice ring to it. Doesn’t it? If you think so, you’re not alone, because energy independence has been the dream of American president for decades, and never more so than in the past few years, when the most recent oil price shock has been partly responsible for kicking off the great recession.
“Energy independence” and its rhetorical (修辞的) companion “energy security” are, however, slippery concepts that are rarely though through. What is it we want independence from, exactly?
Most people would probably say that they want to be independent from imported oil. But there are reasons that we buy all that old from elsewhere.
The first reason is that we need it to keep our economy running. Yes, there is a trickle（涓涓细流）of biofuel（生物燃料）available, and more may become available, but most biofuels cause economic waste and environmental destruction.
Second, Americans have basically decided that they don’t really want to produce all their own oil. They value the environmental quality they preserve over their oil imports from abroad. Vast areas of the United States are off-limits to oil exploration and production in the name of environmental protection. To what extent are Americans really willing to endure the environmental impacts of domestic energy production in order to cut back imports?
Third, there are benefits to trade. It allows for economic efficiency, and when we buy things from places that have lower production costs than we do, we benefit. And although you don’t read about this much, the United States is also a large exporter of oil products, selling about 2 million barrels of petroleum products per day to about 90 countries.
There is no question that the United States imports a great deal of energy and, in fact, relies on that steady flow to maintain its economy. When that flow is interrupted, we feel the pain in short supplies and higher prices. At the same time, we obtain massive economic benefits when we buy the most affordable energy on the world market and when we engage in energy trade around the world.What does the author say about energy independence for America?
| A．It sounds very attractive. |
| B．It ensures national security. |
| C．It will bring oil prices down |
| D．It has long been everyone’s dream. |
Why does America rely heavily on oil imports?
| A．It wants to expand its storage of crude oil(原油). |
| B．Its own oil reserves are quickly running out. |
| C．It wants to keep its own environment undamaged. |
| D．Its own oil production falls short of demand. |
What does the author say about oil trade?
| A．It proves profitable to both sides. |
| B．It improves economic efficiency. |
| C．It makes for economic prosperity. |
| D．It saves the cost of oil exploration. |