Recently, an almost literal case of lifeboat ethics(伦理) occurred. On Aug. 4, Graham and Sheryl Anley, while boating off the coast of South Africa, hit a rock. As the boat threatened to sink the husband got off, but his wife was trapped in the boat. Instead of freeing his wife and getting her to shore, Graham grabbed Rosie, their pet dog. With Rosie safe and sound, Graham returned for Sheryl. All are doing fine.
It's a great story, but it doesn't strike me as especially newsworthy. News is supposed to be about something fairly unique, and recent research suggests that, in the right circumstances, lots of people also would have grabbed their Rosie first.
We have strange relationships with our pets. We lavish our pets with adoration and better health care than billions of people receive. We speak to pets with the same high-pitched voices that we use for babies. As an extreme example of our feelings about pets, the Nazis had strict laws that guaranteed the humane treatment of the pets of Jews being shipped to death camps.
A recent paper by George Regents University demonstrates this human involvement with pets to an astonishing extent. Participants in the study were told a situation in which a bus is out of control, bearing down on a dog and a human. Which do you save? With responses from more than 500 people, the answer was that it depended: What kind of human and what kind of dog?
Everyone would save a brother, grandparent or close friend rather than a strange dog. But when people considered their own dog versus people less connected with them—a distant cousin or a hometown stranger—votes in favor of saving the dog came rolling in. And an astonishing 40% of respondents, including 46% of women, voted to save their dog over a foreign tourist.
What does a finding like this mean? First, that your odds aren't so good if you find yourself in another country with a bus bearing down on you and a cute dog. But it also points to something deeper: our unprecedented(史无前例的) attitude toward animals, which got its start with the birth of humane societies in the 19th century.
We prison people who abuse animals, put ourselves in harm's way in boats between whales and whalers and show sympathy to Bambi and his mother. We can extend empathy to an animal and feel its pain like no other species. But let's not be too proud of ourselves. As this study and too much of our history show, we're pretty selective about how we extend our humaneness to other human beings.What is the function of the first paragraph?
| A．To create a relaxing mood for readers. |
| B．To present the theme of this essay straightly. |
| C．To lead in the main topic of this essay. |
| D．To raise problems that will be solved later. |
The author mentions Nazi laws in the third paragraph _______________.
| A．to show how cruel the Nazis were to the Jews |
| B．as an example to persuade people not to love pets |
| C．to illustrate the strange relationship between human and pets |
| D．as an example to display the humaneness of the Nazis |
Which of the following is true according to the article?
| A．The story of the Anleys and their dog was too unique to be newsworthy. |
| B．Most people surveyed choose to save their own dog rather than a human. |
| C．It was in the 19th century that human beings started to love their pets. |
| D．Human beings are more and more concerned with animals nowadays. |
What does the author mainly argue for?
| A．Pets are of great significance to us human beings. |
| B．We should rethink about our attitude towards animals and mankind. |
| C．It is kind of human beings to extend humaneness to animals. |
| D．We should be selective when showing attitude toward other human beings. |
Our little boy came up to his mother in the kitchen one evening while she was preparing supper, and handed her a piece of paper that he had been writing on. After his mom dried her hands on her apron (围裙) , she read it, and this is what was said:
For going to the store for you $2.
For cutting the grass in the garden $3.
For cleaning up the yard this week $2.5.
For cleaning up my room this week $2.
For setting the table for meals this week $1.
For baby-sitting my kid brother while you went shopping $1.5.
For getting a good school report $5.
Total owed: $17.
His mother looked at him, who was standing there with expectation. Memories flashed through her mind. Then she picked up a pen, turned over the paper he had written on, and wrote:
For the nine months I carried you while you were growing inside me, No Charge(收费) .
For all the nights that I’ve sat up with you and taken care of you, No Charge.
For all the problems and troubles that you’ve caused through the years, there is No Charge.
When you add it all up, the cost of my love is No Charge.
For all the nights that were filled with fear and for the worries I knew were ahead, No Charge. For the toys, food, clothes, and even wiping up your nose? There is No Charge. And when you add it all up, the full cost of real love is, No Charge, Son.
Well, friends, when our son finished reading what his mother had written, there were big tears in his eyes, and he looked straight up at his mother and said, “Mom, I sure do love you..” And then he took the pen and in great letters he wrote, “ PAID IN FULL.” What might the mother be doing when the boy came into the kitchen?
| A．Getting the dishes ready. | B．Repairing the cooker. |
| C．Washing dirty dishes. | D．Laying the table for dinner. |
According to the boy’s bill, his mom owed him ______ for his helping with the house work.
| A．$7.50 | B．$10.50 | C．$12.00 | D．$17.00 |
This story tries to tell us that ________.
| A．real love is priceless | B．housework is endless |
| C．the mother is wise | D．the boy is selfish |
Most schools forbid chewing gum, but in a few years they might consider changing that rule. Why? Scientists are finding evidence that gum chewing may be good for your health. It may even help improve your test scores.
This exciting research is just beginning. And in the meantime, companies are also experimenting with adding vitamins, minerals, medicines, and other substances that could give gum the power to cure headaches and fight everything from serious diseases to bad breath.
Other researchers are finding that gum might work better than a pill to deliver medicines and other substances into the bloodstream. That’s because the lining (膜) of our cheeks can absorb certain substances more quickly than our stomachs and intestines (肠) can.
That discovery could help other researchers develop medicine-containing gums that fight colds, ease headaches, battle nervousness, and more. Scientists might even create antimicrobial (抗菌的) gums that cure bad breath.
Those projects may take years, but gum scientists have already had at least one recent success: They’ve created a gum that could help us stay awake.
Researchers have produced a gum called Stay Alert. Each stick has as much caffeine as a cup of coffee. It can take an hour for the caffeine in coffee to have its full effect, but the caffeine in Stay Alert hits in just a few minutes.
The gum is easy to transport and it’s stable in cold and hot climates. Unlike a pill, it doesn’t require water to swallow. Those qualities make it easy for soldiers to use.
For now, Stay Alert is available only to the military (军队). The manufacturer may one day offer it for sale to the public. People who work at night, such as truck drivers and medical personnel who ride in ambulances, might benefit from a product like Stay Alert. The passage mainly talks about _____.
| A．the rule of forbidding chewing gum in school |
| B．new research on chewing gum |
| C．different kinds of chewing gum |
| D．the relationship between chewing gum and medicine |
What does the underlined word “hits” in Paragraph 6 probably mean?
| A．Touches. | B．Attacks. | C．Takes effect. | D．Affects badly. |
According to the passage, Stay Alert is a gum which can help people _____.
| A．stay awake | B．fight colds |
| C．cure headaches | D．overcome nervousness |
It can be inferred from the passage that _____.
| A．stay Alert is not easy to store |
| B．stay Alert needs water to swallow |
| C．stay Alert is available to the public now |
| D．we can’t buy gums that cure bad breath now |
The $11 billion self-help industry is built on the idea that you should turn negative thoughts like “I never do anything right” into positive ones like “I can succeed.” But was positive thinking advocate Norman Vincent Peale right? Is there power in positive thinking?
Researchers in Canada just published a study in the journal Psychological Science that says trying to get people to think more positively can actually have the opposite effect: it can simply highlight how unhappy they are.
The study’s authors, Joanne Wood and John Lee of the University of Waterloo and Elaine Perunovic of the University of New Brunswick, begin by citing older research showing that when people get feedback which they believe is very positive, they actually feel worse, not better. If you tell your stupid friend that he has the potential of an Einstein, you’re just underlining his faults. In one 1990s experiment, a team including psychologist Joel Cooper of Princeton asked participants to write essays opposing funding for the disabled. When the essayists were later praised for their sympathy, they felt even worse about what they had written.
In this experiment, Wood, Lee and Perunovic measured 68 students’ self-esteem. The participants were then asked to write down their thoughts and feelings for four minutes. Every 15 seconds, one group of students heard a bell. When it rang, they were supposed to tell themselves, “I am lovable.”
Those with low self-esteem didn’t feel better after the forced self-affirmation. In fact, their moods turned significantly darker than those of members of the control group, who weren’t urged to think positive thoughts.
The paper provides support for newer forms of psychotherapy (心理治疗) that urge people to accept their negative thoughts and feelings rather than fight them. In the fighting, we not only often fail but can make things worse. Meditation techniques, in contrast, can teach people to put their shortcomings into a larger, more realistic perspective. Call it the power of negative thinking.What do we learn from the first paragraph about the self-help industry?
| A．It has produced positive results. |
| B．It is a highly profitable industry. |
| C．It is based on the concept of positive thinking. |
| D．It was established by Norman Vincent Peale. |
What does the word “underline” mean (Line 4, Para. 3)?
| A．point out | B．lay emphasis on | C．pay no attention to | D．take for granted |
Which of the following is TRUE about the Canadian researchers’ study?
| A．Encouraging positive thinking many do more good than harm. |
| B．Self-affirmation can bring a positive change to one’s mood. |
| C．There can be no simple therapy for psychological problems. |
| D．Forcing a person to think positive thoughts may lower their self-esteem. |
What do we learn from the last paragraph?
| A．Meditation may prove to be a good form of psychotherapy. |
| B．People can avoid making mistakes through meditation. |
| C．Different people tend to have different ways of thinking. |
| D．The effects of positive thinking vary from person to person. |
With the development of society and economy, animals and their habitats are getting pushed aside as households decrease in size and increase in number.
Small numbers of people per household on average use more energy and goods per person. Greater numbers of households require more natural resources for construction. The possible result of this problem may be insufficient natural resources to meet consumer demand without endangering habitats important to biodiversity.
Personal freedom and social choice may come at huge environmental cost. Direct costs include visible damage to animal habitats and plant life. Indirect costs include the release of more greenhouse gases.
The effects of such “personal freedom and social choice” have already surfaced in south-west China’s Wolong Nature Reserve. In Wolong, they found that a reduced average household size was directly tied to an increase in homes, and thus an increase in the amount of firewood consumed for cooking and heating. The rise in wood fuel use has contributed to disappearance of forests and to the loss of habitats for giant pandas.
Curious about whether other parts of the world were experiencing similar phenomena, they got the support of a team of researchers including Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich, well-known for his population studies, to find out the household dynamics in 141 countries between 1985 and 2000. Their study proved that the difficult choice of Wolong is part of a global trend.
In the 76 countries considered biodiversity “hotspots”, such as the United States, Brazil, Australia, and Kenya, the number of households grew by 3.1% every year, while the population increased just 1.8%. Meanwhile, the number of people per home dropped from 4.7 to 4.0. The decline in household size has resulted in 155 million additional households in hotspot countries, almost always limiting biodiversity.
In the 10 non-hotspot countries — those without high-density areas of animal and plant species — similar results were found, though on a lesser scale. Even in countries experiencing population decline, such as New Zealand, the number of households still increased because of a reduction in household size.What does the underlined word “insufficient” mean?
| A．Plenty of. | B．Not enough. | C．Abundant. | D．Little. |
It can be learned from the passage that China’s Wolong Nature Reserve_____
| A．is facing the same threat as many other parts of the world |
| B．sets a good example in protecting animals |
| C．is a place where giant pandas and their habitats are not affected |
| D．is a place where animals and their habitats are seriously damaged |
Which of the following is best supported by the last two paragraphs?
| A．Biodiversity is better kept in countries with smaller populations. |
| B．Biodiversity is better kept in hotspot countries. |
| C．The threat to nature from reduction in household size is a worldwide problem. |
| D．Both hotspot countries and non-hotspot countries face the threat of the same scale. |
What does the passage mainly talk about?
| A．Reduced household size leads to an increase in household number. |
| B．Modern homes consume more natural resources. |
| C．How to meet consumer demand without endangering animals and their habitats. |
| D．Reduction in household size as well as increase in household number threatens nature. |
Recently, online high schools in America have sparked (激发) a debate about whether or not taxpayers’ money should be used to support online education. Online schools receive the same amount of funding as all other public schools, even though they don’t have to pay for rent or school equipment. States should use their educational funds to improve education at real schools, not to support online programs.
Some students only use online classes to supplement their school work. They benefit from the social experience of a traditional high school, while still taking online courses.
However, about 90 thousand students in America receive their education only from online schools. 50 thousand of these students take courses at Florida Virtual School, the largest online school in the country. While this method of schooling helps students who live in remote regions, most school systems are upset that they are losing more students each year to these online programs.
Although online learning allows children to work at their own pace, these online schools have only one teacher per several hundred students. Often, teachers can’t give struggling students the help they need as they are unable to talk face-to-face with them, to find exactly what they’re having difficulty with.
Additionally, even though online schooling accommodates (顾及) students who live in more remote states, students in online programs may suffer in social situations because they will not learn valuable communication skills from their schooling. Similar to students who are home schooled, those who take only online classes won’t learn social etiquette (礼节), and will be treated differently by their peers.
Online schooling might be useful for places where there are not enough students for a real school, such as agricultural regions, but states should only spend taxpayers’ money on online schools in extreme cases.What is the passage mainly about?
| A．Whether students should study at online schools. |
| B．Whether online schools should be allowed to exist. |
| C．Whether taxpayers should pay for online schools. |
| D．Whether traditional schools should be replaced. |
According to the passage, online schooling _____.
| A．is helpful to students living in remote regions |
| B．allows students to work together |
| C．makes it possible for students to get immediate help |
| D．develops students’ critical thinking |
According to Paragraph 5, the author worries that students at online schools _____.
| A．might lose interest in learning |
| B．would play online games |
| C．could not receive teachers’ help |
| D．could not become fully developed |
What is the author’s attitude?
| A．Taxpayers should not pay for online schools at all. |
| B．Taxpayers should pay more for online schools than real schools. |
| C．Taxpayers’ money should be spent on online schools conditionally. |
| D．Taxpayers should support online schools in different ways. |