2021年6月大学英语四级考试真题(第2套)
Part I Writing(30 minutes)
Directions:For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write an essay titled “Is technology making people lazy?” The statement given below is for your reference.You should write at least
120 words but no more than 180 words.
我又想要你了真的想你了Many studies claim that computers distract people, make them lazy thinkers and even
lower their work efficiency.
【参考范文】
Is technology making people lazy?
No one could deny the fact that we are living in an age where the advancements of technology are continuing to accelerate and changing every aspect of our life. At the same time, there has been widespread public debate over whether technology can make people lazy.
On the one hand, some people hold the view that technological advancements have really offered more convenient and effective choices for us to communicate, learn and work. For example, learners are flooded with learning opportunities at their fingertips. But on the other hand, there is a risk that technology can make people lazy. This is due to the fact that modern people nowadays are heavily reliant on technological inventions. For instance, many young people always indulge in online social media platforms or computer games and thus are reluctant to do physical exercise on a regular basis. Besides, some students depend on using a calculator to work out simple math problems.
In conclusion, technological advancements can bring us both benefits and problems. In view of the risk mentioned above, I highly suggest that we should avoid relying too much on technology. 【解析】
这篇作文需要就题目给出的问题Is technology making people lazy? 发表自己的看法。开头段引出相关的现象和问题。主体段用正反论证的方式来回答题目的疑问，并重点围绕科技让人变懒的观点展开。解释科技让人变懒的原因以及对应的表现。结尾段重申立场并给出建议。
Part II Listening Comprehension (25 minutes)
Section A
Directions: In this section, you will hear three news reports. At the end of each news report, you will hear two or three questions. Both the news report and the questions will be spoken
only once. After you hear a question, you must choose the best answer from the four
1 with a single line through the centre.
Questions 1 and 2 are based on the news report you have just heard.
1.A) See the Pope.
2. D) He ended up in the wrong place.
Questions 3 and 4 are based on the news report you have just heard.
3. C) Glasgow has pledged to take the lead in reducing carbon emissions in the UK.
4. A) Glasgow needs to invest in new technologies to reach its goal.
Questions 5 to 7 are based on the news report you have just heard.
5.B) It permits employees to bring cats into their offices.
6.B) Rescue homeless cats.
7.C) It has let some other companies to follow suit.
Section B
驾驶证满6年了怎么换证Directions: In this section, you will hear two long conversations. At the end of each conversation, you will hear four questions. Both the conversation and the questions will be spoken
only once. After you hear a question, you must choose the best answer from the four
choices marked A), B), C) and D). Then mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet
1 with a single line through the centre.
Questions 8 to 11 are based on the conversation you have just heard.
8.A) Find out where Jimmy is.
9.B) He was working on a project with Jimmy.
10.C) He was involved a traffic accident.
11.D) He wanted to conceal something from his parents.
Questions 12 to 15 are based on the conversation you have just heard.
12.B) Shopping online.
13.D) Getting one’s car parked.
14.C) The quality of food products.
15.A) It saves money.
Section C
Directions: In this section, you will hear three passages. At the end of each passage, you will hear three or four questions. Both the passage and the questions will be spoken only once.
After you hear a question, you must choose the best answer from the four choices
marked A), B), C) and D). Then mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 1 with
a single line through the centre.
Questions 16 to 18 are based on the passage you have just heard.苏州大学专业
16.D) They have strong negative emotions towards math.
17.B) It affects low performing children only.
18.A) Most of them have average to strong math ability.
Questions 19 to 21 are based on the passage you have just heard.
19.C) Addiction to computer games is a disease.
20.A) They prioritize their favored activity over what they should do.
21.D) There is not enough evidence to classify it as a disease.
Questions 22 to 25 are based on the passage you have just heard.
22.C) They are a shade of red bordering on brown.
23.D) They must follow some common standards.
24.B) They look more official.
25.D) For security.
Part III Reading Comprehension (40 minutes)
霸气帮派名字Section A
Directions: In this section, there is a passage with ten blanks. You are required to select one word for each blank from a list of choices given in a word bank following the passage. Read
the passage through carefully before making your choices. Each choice in the bank is
identified by a letter. Please mark the corresponding letter for each item on Answer
Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre. You may not use any of the words in the
bank more than once.
河北省中考2022时间暂时未到题源
企业取名Section B
Directions: In this section, you are going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it. Each statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph
from which the information is derived. You may choose a paragraph more than once.
Each paragraph is marked with a letter. Answer the question by marking the
corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2.
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects 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, 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"?
One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications who, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or who just barely made it. In the 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 on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands and 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 per cent more likely to be given a professorship.
Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships catapulting narrow winners far ahead of close losers.
The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the New Testament'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: it's easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to bestow awards and funding on those who've already been so recognised. 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 squeak in. 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.
In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1100 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, including 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 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 a fluke, Wang said he conducted additional tests using different performance measures, such as how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability, but the losers were culled so that only the most determined, passionate scientists remained. Wang said he tried to correct for this by culling what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group - but 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.
Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt, who was lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer, said the new finding is plausible 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.
He said the people who should be paying heed to the Wang paper are the funding agents who disburse government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for our buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better.
There's a huge amount of time and effort that go into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at allocating money. "Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who," he said, suggesting that some more equal partitioning 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 imp
ossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
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 prestigious journal and got accepted.
In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better - a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, 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.
版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。
发表评论